#9 The Truth requires you to believe a falsehood?

Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life and God is the Truth. We are commanded to believe.

And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 3:23)

A person who trust in Christ, believes Christ died for him.

So if Christ didn’t die for someone, the Truth requires that person to believe a falsehood (ie that Christ died for him).

Comments

TheoJunkie said…
Dan,

Of course, Christ truly died for EVERYONE who does believe. So, the commandment does not require the person to believe a falsehood.

I get this image of opening a refrigerator door. Whenever you open the refrigerator door, the light is on. The analogous commandment might be, "believe that when you open the fridge, the light will shine on you." What does it matter whether the light is on or off if the door is closed? Who will care? But even if it is off while many pass by the fridge... if anyone opens the door, the light shines on them without exception.

As an aside.. note that Christ is Lord of everyone.. every knee will bow, like it or not. John doesn't quite say that the commandment is to believe that Christ died for you... eh?
November 17, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Dear TJ,

My argument is that the reprobate, not the elect that are required to believe a falsehood. Even if the falsehood is never “uncovered”, we still have the very odd situation where the Truth is requiring belief in a falsehood.

As for believing that Christ died for you, I agree that John doesn’t explicitly state “you have to believe that Christ died for you”. But such a belief is enclosed under entailment.

P1: You have to believe the Gospel
P2: The Gospel states that Christ died for your sins
C1: therefore, you have to believe that Christ died for your sins

Christ be with you,
Dan
November 17, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,
Read more

Hodge on Ephesians 1:17-19

Hodge argues for effectual calling based on Ephesians 1:17-19. He claims that the passage teaches the regeneration is monergistic , so it proves God's call is effectual. Here's the passage: Ephesians 1:17-19 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power. Hodge has several problems. First, the passage teaches sanctification, not regeneration. It's dealing with living the Christian life and growing in grace, not conversion. Second, even if the passage were teaching that regeneration is monergistic , this wouldn't prove that God's call is effectual. I agree regeneration, strictly defi
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens
Read more