The honor would be mine and if you send me your work in future, I would be glad to read it. I’m not anyone of importance, but I would be happy to offer you what I can. But of course your church, especially your church, and your family and your seminary classes and students are the most important. Please, take your time.

And your explanations helped very much, thank you…

If I am able to devote some time to write on the subject suggested above, that is, a defense of the logical consistency of something like a well-meant offer or God’s desire for the good of those who never experience that good with the irrefutable fact of God’s absolute decree and his delight in that decree, I hope to send a rough draft copy to some Reformed and presuppositionalist scholars I respect (like John Frame and James Anderson) and also send a copy to you and another friend, Ben Maas, who also took issue with my previous arguments. I’d like to others, especially some of my critics, the opportunity to point out weaknesses before I post, and I want to be sure I fairly represent the dissenting side.

The problem I face is that I’ve been commissioned to prepare courses on Old Testament Introduction, Biblical Theology, and Genesis. I’m also teaching Hebrew and pastoring a church. So I don’t know where I’ll find the time. Since some of the arguments require some knowledge of formal logic which I do not yet possess, I’ll need time to study and research. But in the risk of sounding “insincere,” I really am interested in the subject and would like to continue our debate, striving more diligently this time to protect our mutual respect for one another. In fact, I have grown to enjoy your fellowship and desire our friendship to deepen.

Regarding my book, I’m flattered that you’d be interested in obtaining and reading a copy. Thank you. Regarding your concern about some of the language in the book’s description, I assume your referring to the apparent incongruity of speaking of God’s plan being “threatened.” I don’t have a time to offer a lengthy apology now, but I’ll simply refer to two passages in Scripture that I hope will relieve any suspicions you may have that I’m a “closet Open Theist” or something like that.

In Romans 9:19 Paul raises the hypothetical and, for his purposes, rhetorical question, “Who can resist his will?” The biblical answer, of course, is that no one can resist the will of God. On the other hand, Stephen, in his last sermon, chided his Jewish countrymen with these words: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you” (Acts 7:51). So here sinners are portrayed as actually “resisting” God’s will (revealed through the prophets and apostles via the Holy Spirit. You and I know that’s any contradiction is only apparent. What Paul spoke of was God’s decreed plan. What Stephen spoke of was God’s revealed plan. God’s revealed plan began in Eden. Adam was commissioned to fill and subdue the earth. The Serpent’s treason and human conspiracy in that treason “threatened” Yahweh’s “original creational [revealed] intentions for divine and human eschatological fullness.” Similarly, the sins of the patriarchs and matriarchs to whom the promises are made ironically and chronically place the promise “in jeopardy.” So it would seem at a purely human level. But he who sits in the heavens laughs (Psa. 2). And it turns out that what man intends for evil (i.e., for the derailing of the divine vision for the earth’s subduing through the mediation of his image-son and the fullness of God’s glory), God actually intends (by decree) for good, that is, to fulfill the very aims that the Serpent and rebellious humans seek to thwart (Gen. 50:20).

So in the truest sense, just as no one can resist God’s plan or decretive will, so too it’s impossible for humans (or any other created being) to actually threaten God’s plan in any real sense. Indeed, by virtue of God’s decree, that original commission will find fruition through the Second Adam despite all the efforts of hell’s minions. This is one of the most powerful themes in Genesis–especially prominent in the protoevangel where God’s intention to bring blessing out of curse or, to use another figure, snatch victory out of the jaws of “defeat.”

Hope this helps. Please know that I eschew the Karl Barth version of Paradox if that’s what you may have concern about.

Your servant,
Bob Gonzales

I was sorry that our discussion ended as it did. Too much insistent aggression can make it appear that we are fighting to favor the wrong sort of personal agenda rather than championing our King. Perhaps at the end we were. I hope that in future our motives, though likely to always veer toward sin and pride, are at least more or less consistently aimed in the proper direction.

I am writing this to express one of the more important motives which has driven my participation in this dialogue. It occurred to me again as I read the description of your book’s central thesis on the Wipf and Stock website. I am very interested in it and I hope to get a copy soon. A portion of the description caught my eye and I’d like to quote it:

Moreover, just as the primordial sin threatened to derail the advance of God’s kingdom and fulfillment of the creation mandate, so the spread of human sin in postlapsarian history threatens to thwart God’s redemptive plan, which consists in the restoration of his original creational intentions for divine and human eschatological fullness. This proves true even in the patriarchal narratives where the sins of God’s chosen often threaten the very promise intended for their ultimate good.

Assuming you wrote this, you go on to say that one’s overall perspective on this issue will affect one’s doctrines of sin, of justification and of sanctification. I agree of course.

I took this description to be your reading of the narrative qualities of Genesis more than perhaps the way that you would hae chosen to describe GOD’s work in history. Nevertheless, in this paragraph, the impression is left that something GOD has done or is trying to do is “threatened” several times so that His work or kingdom or plan or intentions or promises are imperiled by sin at every turn. This is the language of a cosmic struggle.

If that was your intention, then it represents the kind of portrayal I find most difficult to sympathize with. I don’t read Genesis that way and I felt throughout our conversation here that this was all the time the implication of your view on the divine will. Perhaps there really is no connection. Perhaps you answer all this in your book. But if not, then I hope that, if you do choose to create the blog you spoke of, you will favor me by keeping me in mind and trying to help me and others understand why we ought to appreciate Adonai Yahweh and His work in these terms.

May He bless your eyes to see His Truth in the fullness of glory and your heart to love what you’ve seen.

Thanks for your kinds words both to me and to Benjamin. I agree with your assessment of keenness of Benjamin’s argumentative skills. He raised a number of questions I have yet to answer fully. I’m not yet convinced that affirming a divine decretive desire for the salvation only of the elect is logically incompatible with affirming a divine revealed desire for the good and salvation of all sinners in general. But Benjamin’s arguments have demonstrated that I need to do more work in making my case. I appreciate the combination of his gifted mind and his gracious spirit. Such a combination inclines me, on the one hand, simply to let him have the last word in this debate and to allow the Lord to enlighten us both at the Last Day. On the other hand, such good responses combined with a gracious demeanor prod me to muster a response in kind, one that will attempt to answer cogently his objections and exude the spirit of Christ that characterizes his responses.

My hope, God willing, is to write a separate blog that zeros in on the essence of the debate. Is the proposition that God desires the obedience and consequent welfare of those who never obey or experience said welfare consist with the proposition that God desires what he has planned, which in some cases does not include the obedience and consequent welfare of reprobates who never obey or experience the blessings contingent on said obedience. In this blog, I’ll want to deal very directly with Benjamin’s objections and demonstrate both the biblical support for and the logical consistency of my position.

Until then, I’d like to thank Benjamin for his gracious persistence and Puritan for your unwavering interest in this discussion.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Bob Gonzales

Those were not empty words. I asked you to identify the specific areas where you feel I misrepresented you. I did not invite you to misrepresent my argumentation. Moreover, your extended argument that my position is illogical and inconsistent with Scripture did not get my conscience. So am I supposed to repent of an “error” you haven’t successfully demonstrated to me?

Perhaps I am blinded by my sin or my mind is not sufficient trained or astute to follow your logic. I would invite you to pray along with me that God might open my eyes to see the errors of my ways and better understand his word. Thank you for taking up a great deal of your own time attempting to bring me to a clearer understanding of God’s word. May the Lord bring all our thoughts captive to Scripture!

Your brother in Christ,
Bob Gonzales

“If I misrepresented your position, feel free to identify the area of misrepresentation, and I’ll try to rectify things.”

And in an earlier comment:

“Of course, I am a sinner, and it’s not beyond possibility that I’ve communicated above in a way that’s un-Christlike. It wouldn’t be the first time. If so, I’m willing to be shown where I’ve sinned.”

I didn’t know these were just empty words that you didn’t expect me to follow up seriously. I’ll try to keep that in mind.

What? Why are you persisting? Worse, why are you prolonging this discussion by means of erecting and then knocking down a straw man? Of course, you’ve done so with courtesy. But is such courtesy just a pretense? I’ll resist that temptation and assume the best. I assume you really love me and are pursuing what you believe to be in my best interests, the interests of the readers, and the glory of God.

I will implore you, however, not to draw false assumptions about how I use the term “mystery” or “paradox” in relationship to the particular issue at hand, viz., whether God desires that sinners comply with the terms of his law and his gospel. Did I invoke those “incantations” in my argument with you? Haven’t I instead argued that it’s perfectly logical for God to pass by a lesser good in order obtain a greater good? Yes, on the surface such a proposition entails a paradox when worded differently, viz., God desires the good of the reprobate and God doesn’t desire the good of the reprobate. But when the two propositions are understood in their proper sense, that is, as being related differently to God’s ultimate objective, then the contradiction becomes merely apparent and not real. And while I certainly affirm an element of mystery in the doctrines of election and reprobation, as the Bible bids me do (Deut. 29:29), I have not invoked the Barthian mystery mantra as a defense of God’s sincere desire that sinners (whether elect or non-elect) comply with the demands of his law or believe in the promises of his gospel.

Can you please show me where I used “mystery” as a defense for the primary thesis of this post? Moreover, what do you mean by labeling my view “unfalsifiable”? The Bible depicts God as a tri-unity. Can you verify that claim through any other means other than the Bible’s own witness? Did you learn the Trinity through mere empirical observation or naked deductive reasoning?

The proposition I affirm in this post is arrived at (1) by an analysis of the teachings of Scripture, (2) is logically consistent with the other parts of Scripture, and (3) is only problematic to those who, in my opinion, erect faulty premises and from those premises seek to reshape biblical propositions to fit their man-made logical paradigm.

I found your “list” of characteristics that evidence a weak position and unteachable spirit interesting. First, you censure the use of “derogatory labels” right after you labeled a man who holds the same position as mine a “pitiable gentleman.” Indeed, you later suggest I’m a “fool” because I won’t be corrected by your arguments. Second, you make “simple claims,” which form some of your major premises, without necessarily demonstrating each and every one of them to be true. Third, you opened the post above with the “pitiable gentleman” story as an illustration to make a point. Fourth, you passed over some of my arguments in the several posts above either because you didn’t think they were significant or for brevity’s sake. Fifth, you keep alluding to Mr. Kato’s thesis on Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane as if it’s some kind of authority without trying to explain the man’s argument so I can ascertain whether it coheres with the teaching of the passage. Sixth, you want me to be corrected “now,” but you don’t seem to show any signs of willingness to be corrected. Indeed, you scold me for saying it’s “very unlikely” I’ll be dissuaded from my view, yet throughout this discussion you’ve manifested that very posture.

Actually, I’m not trying to pick on you. First, Christ and the apostles sometimes used derogatory labels. Of course, they usually reserved them for false teachers. Occasionally, they might say something strong to believers to dissuade them from error or awaken them from spiritual complacency. The use of derogatory labels can certainly be abused. Have I called you a “hyper-Calvinist”? Have I referred to you as “pitiable”? You take issue with me depicting you as “attempting desperately to empty Scriptural expressions of God’s goodwill and desire towards the non-elect of any heart-felt affection or emotively construed kindness,” and you call me to repent of such slander. Yet you apparently did not read the first words of the sentence where I wrote, “It appears to me ….” I did not add those words as a matter of etiquette but as an honest admission to my readers that my analysis of Benjamin’s argument is based on my own perception–which may be fallible. Second, lots of people make simple claims, offer explanations, and give lectures every day without taking the time to provide lengthy proof or logical demonstration for every proposition that comes out of their mouth every time they speak. Just read the Bible. Sometimes the speaker assumes that his audience already agrees with a statement (wrongly or rightly) or sees it as a self-evident truth (wrongly or rightly). The mere fact that he doesn’t back up every statement he makes with an extended argument is no necessary evidence that his argument is false or that his motives are wrong. Third, Jesus used lots of stories and illustrations to make important points and to advance the truth. Fourth, one may pass over a point that he does not think “significant” though his opponent views as significant. Once again, you passed over some of the texts or Scriptural examples I used because you didn’t think they were that important to the argument or significantly cogent. I don’t fault your motives. Fifth, the purpose of citing extra-biblical traditions can help to show that one’s view is not novel or highly improbably when that extra-biblical tradition is general orthodox and representative of the opinion of more than one or two men. That was my point. I didn’t offer the many citations from Reformed exegetes to settle the debate but merely to show that if you think I’m illogical then you’re making a pretty significant statement about a lot of other Reformed theologians. Finally, I think I’m willing to be corrected in this life. My wife corrects me quite frequently, and I’ve often knelt with her in prayer asking our Father’s forgiveness for my folly. I’ve even let my children correct me. And there have been a number of times when I’ve actually corrected something I said in a post because some brother convinced me I was wrong. The fact that I said it was “very unlikely” I’d be dissuaded from the thesis under debate doesn’t of necessity indicate a stubborn, unteachable spirit. It may simply mean, as John Frame puts it, that some of our beliefs are more resistant to revision than others. Would you chide me if I told you it was “very unlikely” I’d be dissuaded from my conviction that the Bible is innerrant? That salvation is ultimately determined by God’s sovereign grace? That Christ will someday raise my body from the grave? The fact is, Benjamin, this is not the first time I’ve discussed this issue, and you’re not the first person who’s challenged me.

If it will make you happy, I took the time to read through all the posts again before writing this response. And as I waded through the many and sundry volleys between you and me, I kept asking myself, would it be worth the time and effort for me to attempt a detailed and reply to posts 34 and 35 of Benjamin, which are quite lengthy and would require a lot of my time? Would my rejoinder budge Benjamin from his position? Or is it “very unlikely” that I would dissuade Benjamin from his views? You began the discussion by advertising the disposition of one willing to be taught:

Precious brother, I appreciate your willingness to interact with me on this subject and I realize that I am probably not the best advocate or instrument to attempt to correct you or others in regard to this controversial topic. Nevertheless, I would also like to receive instruction where I have confused the matter, so I sought to converse here.

But as the discussion ensued, it became pretty clear that you entered the discussion with your mind quite made up. You do indeed view yourself as a very qualified advocate and instrument to correct me and others. And though you’ve listened to instruction, you haven’t been willing to receive it. On the contrary, my attempts to instruct you have, by your testimony above, simply frustrated you.

Should I continue this discussion? My reticence might be an indication that I judge your arguments irrefutable but just won’t admit it. Or it may be that I’ve learned from experience that though I may have many things to say, sometimes people are not able (for whatever reason) to bear them. If you’ll permit me, I’ll let God be the judge.

Well, I’ve spent about 90 minutes writing this response. It’s late, I’m tired, and I have to minister the Word twice tomorrow. So you’ll forgive me if I happened to miss something. Perhaps if I have time in the days ahead, I’ll indulge you and write a rejoinder to your two posts. If I don’t, please don’t interpret it as an act of hatred or disrespect toward you. Just trying to be a good steward of the manifold responsibilities the Lord has graciously given me.

May your Lord’s Day be blessed.

Bob Gonzales

Let’s pause for a moment from our energetic attempts to argue the greater luster and truthfulness of our respective teachings. Whether you (or I) are finally proved right or wrong, faithful or unfaithful on this point, there is something more far reaching (and potentially damaging) in the methods we’ve chosen that I wish to speak to you about. You are a man I had always taken to be sufficiently humble to be genuinely interested in thoughtful criticism and I still believe I was not wrong to think this about you. This makes you in some measure a man of wisdom and it is a trait I would never want to see you relinquish.

Let me give you an illustration of one who did as a backdrop to my purpose here. A well-known Reformed Baptist pastor recently visited our church and preached a sermon outlining and defending, as best he could, this position which you presently endorse. He knew that it was contrary to the teachings of my pastor and to other pastors and laymen that were present. Preaching in such a context, he would naturally make the occasional reference to objections he imagined might be nestled in the hearts of his hearers. And each time he realized that his words seemed to disagree with some point of Scriptural teaching or apparently contradicted other assumptions of Reformed orthodoxy, he would return quickly to Isaiah 55 and reverently intone that GOD’s ways and thoughts are higher than our thoughts and ways, and then sprinkle the whole thing liberally with references to “mystery”… and that is where he left us.

Of course, this reference to mystery and GOD’s ways and thoughts made him invulnerable to any and all correction. A man like that cannot be touched. Just try to point out that a number of passages are in disagreement with him or that he has contradicted himself. If he cannot see his way out of it, he will cite it all as a deep “mystery” and quote a half-digested Isaiah 55. That will be his answer to every correction that he cannot put off in some other way. It isn’t that he knows and can establish that the objections are false. He just won’t allow them to be true.

Now, I think you know the pitfalls of adopting this kind of thinking… the measure of immunity and, I shudder to think, virtual infallibility it affords the person who embraces it (at least in their own mind). Some have preferred to label it an “invincible ignorance.” Whatever else it is called, the Scripture refers to the man who becomes like this, a “fool.” Because you are aware of it, in all likelihood, if you (as is true of myself) were ever to succumb to its charms and adopt this manner of reasoning yourself, it would have to prove much more subtle than in the case of the pitiable gentleman I referred to above.

And so I believe it has. If I am right, then whether your conclusions in our conversation are ultimately correct or not, you have subtly adopted a nuanced form of an unfalsifiable theory. If you will allow me, I will offer a bit more detail, which is more fair than vague and superficial suggestions, and I hope you will grant me the room to interpret you as well as I can.

1. Of course, “mysteries” and “apparent contradictions” are not things you shy away from. I believe you would say that, where you have adopted them, the context made it sensible. You are also willing to agree that apparent contradictions at least are problematic (and even meaningless) until they are resolved, but they do not immediately signify error. I agree with this in principle. However, when “mystery” or “merely apparent” begins to act as a kind of incantation in defense against objections regarding the apparently erroneous nature of our views, then they have become the main ingredients of an unfalsifiable theory. It is very weak to patch a problem with labels.

2. One of the clearest symptoms of an unfalsifiable view is a high degree of vagueness in regard to its testability. The heart, as you know, is the most deceitful thing GOD ever made. It must be tested in a way that keeps it from overruling every potential revelation of error. However, to use but one example, if the confidence we have in a certain point of view hinges upon how “persuasive” or how “likely” it strikes us to be, then the individual and his or her impressions have become the bar of their own truth. I think you would agree that such a standard will prove to be more convenient than enlightening.

If we have no clear idea what would reasonably make our perspective false (besides our intuitions or impressions), if we are unwilling to make “risky predictions” about what we would expect to find if our view were actually true and accurate, then we have blockaded ourselves from seriously testing and correcting our cherished notions.

3. Not only does a vague or personal standard of evaluation allow us to dictate in our hearts the terms of truth and legitimacy, it is an obvious sign of unfalsifiability when we reject Biblical standards of truth, such as simple logical coherence. When our ideas are challenged as contradictory and we fail to resolve the problem, claiming on our own authority that the contradiction is only “apparent” and then vainly excusing ourselves by insisting that those who criticize us are simply trapped in their own “paradigm of logic,” this is ample demonstration that whatever else it is, the standard we’ve chosen to abide by is a very private one.

4. I think referring to oneself as “very unlikely” to be dissuaded and to one’s own conclusions as “inescapable” when they are inductive and so obviously not logically necessary, is a clear sign that one has built in the heart a little tower to fortify against instruction. Could such a person who has already defined his sentiments as inescapable ever be persuaded otherwise?

5. There are other discrepancies that often appear when a person is grasping after the wind and refuses to look squarely at what he is doing. Taken separately, they perhaps do not signify very much about whether we’ve grown unteachable on some point, but together they are more helpful in revealing our hearts to us:

a. The use of derogatory labels to undermine confidence in any criticism before it is heard
b. Simple claims, explanations or lectures rather than proof or demonstration
c. Using stories or illustrations as though they were arguments by themselves
d. Repeatedly passing over significant points in silence, especially while changing the subject
e. Citing extrabiblical traditions as though they were authoritative
f. Putting off correction until the afterlife

In Conclusion…

I offer this list not because I believe you have evidenced all of these things in our exchange, but merely to ask you seriously to consider whether at least some of them, perhaps most of them, are already yours. It is not my intention to lecture you. You already know better than I that a pastor, teacher and leader cannot afford to become stubbornly resistant to correction and that one who does is referred to explicitly as a “fool” in Proverbs. If you would honestly say that nothing of what I have said belongs to you, then I hope you are right. In that case, perhaps these words can at least be instructive to other readers and to myself and we can penetrate more deeply into our own motives.

Thank you for your time…

Yet, before the confusing experience of the last few days, I must have mangled your rhetoric somewhere in my memory. I had thought that you deemed us both to be mutually passionate to get at the truth, rather than to simply win a debate, and that my main problem was just a misunderstanding of your point of view. Recently, this all changed. You chose to get it off your chest that, in reality, you’ve harbored the suspicion that I was quite dishonest as I “dodged” your excellent arguments, “brushed aside” passages so that I might “maneuver” at all costs to “avoid the inescapable conclusion” you’ve been defending. I keep trying to “impose” an alien meaning upon the Bible to “stack the deck in my favor” by a misleading “distortion of the exegetical data.”

Intriguingly, you’ve even worked out my motive for these little deceptions, as I “desperately” attempt to “empty Scriptural expressions” of their true meaning. In truth, I’m absolutely “intent on ‘reinterpreting’” the passages you repeatedly cite because I “cannot seem to fit the Scriptural data into [my] paradigm of logic”… whatever that means.

Furthermore, I’ve stubbornly ignored the expertise and authority of Reformed theologians to define questions of academic philosophy, and my methods are so clumsy that I’ve been comically forced to adopt “an outdated and discredited linguistic theory” that I had previously denounced in my earlier defense of the contextual basis of meaning. Even though I’m apparently not very good at this dodging business, I keep trying because I have to keep on my toes to avoid the knockdown example of Christ’s Gethsemane prayer.

Curiously, the gentleman named Ben Maas who also debated this topic with you didn’t feel the same need to “maneuver” away from your perspective on Gethsemane. He embraced it while still denying that it led to your “inescapable conclusion.” No doubt the explanation is simply that he is a more artful dodger than I am. And I suppose it is probably unimportant that I adopted roughly my present perspective on Christ’s controversial prayer a number of years before this argument over GOD’s desires ever entered my mind. That would mean that I didn’t contrive that interpretation to dodge your arguments after all… but only if I am really telling you the truth.

I can imagine, after all that, why you wouldn’t feel any desire to continue with me. Frankly, I am finding this nonsense tedious myself. I can’t help but feel all this is something of a game where the rules are never quite clear, where you refuse to be tied to your own requirements and you keep raising the bar when it suits you. That has all the flavor of an unfalsifiable theory.