Hello Pastor Larry,
The text is consistent because of the simplicity of God. He cannot reveal contradictory truths. Therefore, his word cannot have contradictions. That is a presupposition to exegesis in a sense.
This is my point. Consistency is a hallmark of truth. You cannot say it is ok to have inconsistencies. I would say that inconsistencies in your belief system are sinful, and as such we should try and resolve them. However, I will acknowledge that there are doctrines that appear to be inconsistent (hypostatic union), but we are obligated to assume that they are not.
But case in point, dispensationalism is the result of the hermeneutic applied to Scripture. It is not a precommitment brought to the text. It is outgrowth of the exegesis of the text. Consistent exegetes are always dispenationalists.
This is just asserted, and as such is not convincing at all. Please explain to me how you can approach any text without extra-biblical presuppositions? In terms of the noetic effects of sin, this is not tenable. I do not doubt your sincerity when you approach the text of scripture. However, I think you are naive to think you do not approach it with extra-biblical presuppositions.
But since the Bible is the authority rather than my logic or understanding, I am willing to live with that inconsistency.
You say the word of God cannot be contradictory. You say the word of God is more authoritative than my understanding. I agree. Then you say you are willing to live with “that inconsistency.” If our understanding is inconsistent, then aren’t we morally obligated to attempt to resolve that inconsistency? I am just reacting to the idea of “being willing to live with inconsistency.” As human, I might neccesarily always be inconsistent while in this world, but I believe we are obligated to strive for consistency. This sounds a lot like sanctification. I agree that I am a sinner, but I am commanded not to continue in my sin. I agree I am inconsistent, but I am not willing to live there.
I agree, but perservere in what???
This is a good question. I have not really thought much about it. My guess is that we persevere in terms of the “sufferings of this present time” until we are glorified. Romans 8:23-25 seems to be a pertinent passage. Frankly, this whole section (Romans 8) deals with the doctrine.
God could have provided an atonement for all the world without at the same time limiting its application by decree.
Let’s try this proof. Assume someone holds to the other four points, but not Limited Atonement.
Prove A: The 4-point Calvinist is inconsistent.
Assume ~A: The 4-point Calvinist is consistent.
~A-->B: Jesus atoned for the sins of every human being, past, present, and future.
B-->C: No one is punished for his or her sins.
~C: The non-elect remains in their sins, and is punished (Unconditional Election as it relates to the Doctrine of Reprobation).
~B by
Modus Tollens (MT).
~~A by
MT.
A by law of non-contradiction (LNC). Q.E.D.
Now, some may object to the implication B-->C saying, ”Only those who believe appropriate the work of Christ.” (I assume that God will not punish someone unjustly, and that there is no basis for punishment for someone whose sin has been atoned for.)The question that needs to be answered then is why do those that don’t believe end up damned? I am sure you are familiar with John Owen’s famous argument. The essence of it is if Jesus died for all sins, then there is no basis for God to damn anyone. God damns people. Therefore, Jesus did not die for all the sins. Of course, many people will say they are damned for not accepting the work of Christ on their behalf. But of course, this too is a sin. If Jesus did not die for this sin, then Jesus did not die for all sins. This is a very informal proof demonstrating the validity of B-->C, but if you need me to formalize it I will. Nevertheless, to assert universal atonement is to deny unconditional election.
Pastor Larry, go ahead and press me on this proof. This is exactly where I was hoping this thread would go.
Sincerely,
Brian