Rob Zins & Larry Wessels of Christian Answers Are Accused of Being False Prophets For 2 Peter 3:8-9
In the above video, Rob Zins and Larry Wessels spend the best part of an hour and a half insulting me in their failed attempt to destroy my critique of their teaching on 2 Peter 3:9: "God Is Not Willing That Any Should Perish," Who Is God Talking About In 2 Peter 3:9? All Or Some?Zins/Wessels' bizarre assumptions and scripture twisting
* Zins and Wessels attempt to justify themselves by pointing out that they have been producing videos together for thirty-four years. During this time, they claim they have taught "pretty much what the Bible says." This is a logical fallacy. Millions of views and 120 videos are meaningless if they do not teach the truth. Roman Catholics, Mormons, JW's, and many other false denominations have disseminated videos and written material over hundreds of years.. Does that make them right?
* My brief description of Arminianism and Calvinism (Reformed Theology) was for the benefit of readers who are not familiar with the subject. I don't assume I have anything to teach Zins and Wessels about theological issues per se. My problem is with their distorted interpretation of the scriptures through a Calvinist lens.
* Wessels: "If Calvinism is not true, Jesus' mission failed because so few people are saved." (paraphrased) Jesus' mission did not fail! He knew very well that few would be saved. (Matthew 7:13-14).
Bible Hub:".. and only a few find it.. This phrase underscores the reality that not everyone will choose the path of righteousness. The use of 'few' indicates that true discipleship is rare and requires a conscious decision to follow Christ. This reflects the biblical theme of the remnant, a faithful minority who remain true to God amidst widespread unbelief (Romans 11:5). It also serves as a warning and a call to evangelism, urging believers to guide others toward the narrow way."1
* Zins' claim that "Pelagian Armenian Evangelical and Roman Catholics" believe in Open Theism is incorrect. Zins: ".. does God know all things because He looks down and adds them to his knowledge base? It is a universal and consistent theme of Pelagian Armenian Evangelical and Roman Catholic theology that God arrives at knowledge."
Catholic Encyclopedia: "Predestination (Latin præ, destinare), taken in its widest meaning, is every Divine decree by which God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time, especially those which directly proceed from, or at least are influenced by, man's free will. It includes all historical facts, as for instance the appearance of Napoleon or the foundation of the United States, and particularly the turning-points in the history of supernatural salvation, as the mission of Moses and the Prophets, or the election of Mary to the Divine Motherhood. Taken in this general sense, predestination clearly coincides with Divine Providence and with the government of the world, which do not fall within the scope of this article (see DIVINE PROVIDENCE)."2
Catholic Answers: "God’s knowledge of our future follows necessarily from his perfection. If God didn’t know our future, then he would lack knowledge. But God can’t lack knowledge because he is absolutely perfect, the fullness of being itself (ipsum esse subsisten–subsistent being itself). Therefore, God must know the future.."3
Again, I do not doubt Zins's knowledge and competence in refuting Roman Catholicism. However, his statement concerning RC foreknowledge contradicts their official doctrine i.e., "God has appointed and ordained all events occurring in time.." Open Theism was rejected by the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) around twenty years ago and they still officially hold that position.4 Open Theism was adopted by false "Apostle" C Peter Wagner and his view been accepted by many New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) leaders.5 The current status of Open Theism is that it is a minority position widely rejected by mainstream evangelicals. I bring this up, not because I think I have anything to teach Zins, but because he has demonstrably misrepresented both the RCC and mainstream Evangelicals. Again, I am not an apologist for the RCC, but to misrepresent an adversary in any debate is disingenuous. Rather than embarking on a rant against me for calling him out, Zins should have corrected this false statement. (Proverbs 12:17).
* While I have quoted Spurgeon occasionally, I do not endorse Calvinism, no matter who teaches it. I was never truly comfortable about quoting Calvinist or Lutheran sources, and I occasionally included a proviso. In fact, one of my readers challenged me about this some time ago. As a result, I no longer reference those who teach a mixture of truth and error. (1 John 4:6).
* The false accusation that I have made ad hominem attacks against Zins and Wessels is unfounded. I submitted a critique of Zins' teaching and my horror of Calvinism. However, I did not launch a personal attack against either of these men. Unfortunately, they did not show me the same courtesy!
* I stand corrected. Zins said "regeneration precedes faith", whereas I quoted him as saying "regeneration precedes salvation". I have corrected this error in my original post. Nevertheless, the argument stands. For all the scriptures Zins quotes allegedly supporting the proposition that regeneration precedes faith, several scriptures suggest that faith precedes regeneration. (e.g. John 1:12, 3:15-16; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 21,11:18,16:31; Romans 10:9-10; 1 Corinthians 1:21).
* In 2000, I wrote a paper on Free Will and Determinism, in which I compared the conflicting views of Luther and Erasmus. I purchased Luther's The Bondage of the Will and Erasmus' Discourse in Free Will, and my research took some months to complete. I came to the conclusion: 'In His sovereignty, God created human beings with free will.' This may seem like a contradiction in terms, but I found that when I considered one view, there was an equally good argument from the other side. After wrestling with the problem for some time, I felt that the two rigid options, free will or determinism, fail to adequately answer the question, and that it is not an either/or choice. (Psalm 139:6). Tozer: "God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil." Calvin presents us with a cautionary example of a prideful man operating in the flesh who presumed that it was within his remit to impose his own (heavily influenced by Augustine) understanding onto the scriptures. The aftermath has resulted in grievous divisions within the Body of Christ that should never have arisen. The fact that Calvin was a despot who persecuted and even murdered his detractors reveals what spirit he was of.6
* For Zins to state that I know nothing about Calvinism is defamatory. While I do not claim to be an expert, I have studied Calvinism in some depth, as demonstrated by my previous posts on the subject. I do not claim to have the same in-house knowledge as hardcore Calvinists Zins and Wessels, who have been entrenched in the heresy for many years.
* Zins denies human autonomy and shifts the focus onto human responsibility. Once again, he regresses into a logical fallacy. How can human beings be held responsible if they do not have free will? In contrast, those who oppose Calvinism argue that people have a responsibility to believe and repent. Although humanity is in bondage to sin, people have the capacity to willingly admit that they are in bondage to sin and in need of God's help. This is facilitated by God's revelation through the law (a tutor) and the appeal of the gospel (grace).
* But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing (βουλόμενος) that any should perish (ἀπολέσθαι), but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. (2 Peter 3:8-10).
He is patient toward you (ὑμᾶς, plural). (2 Peter 3:9). Zins' interpretation of this verse is that Peter directed this phrase to "the reading community" whom he addressed as "Beloved" earlier in the chapter. (2 Peter 3:1). The question arises: Was Peter addressing this specific group of believers (in this case, predominantly Jewish believers), or was he including everyone in the world in these statements? The obvious problem with Zins' interpretation is that it makes no logical sense for God to say to "the elect" that he is not willing for any of them to perish. In other words, why would God say that He is not willing for any believers to perish if, according to Calvinism, "the elect" cannot perish? If Peter was referring to "repentance within salvation", it is highly unlikely that he would have used the term ἀπόλλυμι which implies "permanent (absolute) destruction, i.e. to cancel out (remove); 'to die, with the implication of ruin and destruction' (L & N, 1, 23.106); cause to be lost (utterly perish) by experiencing a miserable end. consequences."7 Zins seems to be suggesting that "the reading community" to whom Peter was writing could perish i.e. lose their salvation. Zins' deficient interpretation is fairly typical of the reductio ad absurdum that Calvinists resort to in order to manipulate the scriptures. The orthodox non-Calvinist interpretation is that God is patient and delays judgement because he desires all men everywhere to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4; Acts 17:30; John 3:16; 1 John 2:2). Earlier in the chapter, scoffers refer to "the promise of His coming" when they ask, "Where is the promise of His coming?" (2 Peter 3:4). "His promise" in 2 Peter 3:9 refers back to, and addresses the accusation on the lips of the scoffers. In other words, these verses are not directed exclusively to the "reading community". The context and grammar of this passage indicate that God is patient with everyone.. not willing that any should perish. (2 Peter 3:9).
Note: Not willing that any should perish; rather, not wishing or desiring (μὴ βουλόμενος). Zins throws an unnecessary spanner into the works by suggesting that boúlomai could mean either "God's eternal decree" or "the will of God's command". In the New Testament, "entolé" refers to a commandment or directive, often of divine origin. Zins cites 1 Thessalonians 4:3 as an example of God's "will of command" aka God's "perceptive will". For this is the will (θέλημα) of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; Note that Paul used the noun θέλημα in this verse, not the verb boúlomai. "θέλημα = will, desire, purpose."9 The lexical interpretation of boúlomai is "..to plan with full resolve (determination). Strong's 1012 boulḗ – properly, a resolved plan, used particularly of the immutable aspect of God's plan – purposefully arranging all physical circumstances, which guarantees every scene of life works to His eternal purpose.10 The interpretation of boúlomai should be obvious to any competent bible teacher. (2 Timothy 2:15).. boúlomai refers to God's decretive will, i.e., it is not a command that can be disobeyed. Ironically, Zins says that I should be embarrassed by my non-Calvinist interpretation of this passage! Well, I guess these guys had their moment of hollow victory while they laughed, scorned, and ridiculed me as an ignoramus and a heretic! Perhaps the boot should be on the other foot!
Zins' asinine interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8-9 and his barrage of insults against me are unconscionable. Zins: "She is not a very good Bible expositor, and she is probably running on high emotion most of the time. She understands a little bit of Arminianism, a little bit of Pelagianism, and a whole lot of nothing about Calvinism." If it is "emotional" to trust the Lord and to believe that Jesus Christ came to die for the sins of the whole world, then I stand guilty as charged! (John 3:16).
Extreme doctrine that goes beyond what is written inevitably results in those who indulge in such foolishness rejecting those outside their own elitist group as being non-Christian and devoid of the Spirit. (1 Corinthians 4:6). This is precisely where Zins and Wessels are at. They even go so far as to reject believers outside the Calvinist echo chamber as unbelievers. (Acts 11:9).
Disclaimer: I do not promote or agree with Open Theism, Pelagianism, Arminianism, Provisionism, Universalism, Synergism, Monergism, or any other philosophical label falsely applied by many Calvinists with the intention of misrepresenting their detractors.
Recommended Links
- Joel Korytko. Korytko has made a significant impact on the debate. In particular, I recommend his verse-by-verse analysis of the Old Testament in Romans 9. How Romans 9 Doesn't Support Calvinism
- Jordan Hatfield (Great Light Studios). (383) Answering Calvinism (Non-Calvinist Teaching Resources) - YouTube
- Kevin Thompson (Beyond The Fundamentals). Thompson's videos on stealth Calvinism are very revealing. Paul's Conversion Disproves Calvinism
- Alana Lagares. 19-year former Calvinist.. (383) Leaving Calvinism After 19 Years | With Alana L - YouTube
- Dave Hunt. I regarded Dave Hunt as a good bible teacher. However, it should be noted that I do not endorse the pretribulation rapture. (415) Dave Hunt - What Love is This? (Calvinism's misrepresentation of God) - YouTube
1. Matthew 7:14 But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it.
No comments:
Post a Comment