My Question to ChatGPT: think fresh and don't given me canned and ready answers. Reexamine the Bible and tell me which theological framework better fits with and gibes with the Bible? Classic Dispensationalism, Revised/Traditional Dispensationalism, Hyper-Dispensationalism, Progressive Dispensationalism, New Covenant Theology, Progressive Covenantalism, Classic Covenant Theology of either the credobaptist or paedobaptist kinds?
Thursday, December 31, 2065
Sunday, April 6, 2025
Why Would the Devil Need to Steal the Word of God Sown in Unbelievers If Total Depravity Is True?
I asked Artificial Intelligence the following question:
On the hypothetical that Calvinism is true, why would the devil seek to blind the unregenate who were born blind so as not to see what they already cannot see? Why would the devil need to steal the word of God sown into unsaved people (through a preacher's preaching) if they can't naturally receive it anyway?
My answer has generally been that rhe devil can re-enforce and strengthen hardness of heart against the gospel.
Here's what Meta AI said:
You're raising a nuanced question about the relationship between spiritual blindness, the devil's actions, and the spread of the Gospel in the context of Calvinism. In Calvinist theology, the concept of total depravity suggests that all humans are born spiritually dead and unable to respond to God on their own. The devil's role in blinding the unregenerate is often seen as a reinforcement of this natural state, rather than a literal causing of blindness.
*Spiritual Blindness in Calvinism*
In this framework, spiritual blindness isn't just about physical sight but about the inability to understand or respond to spiritual truth. The devil's actions are often seen as a hindrance to the Gospel's spread, but this doesn't imply that he's causing a change in the unregenerate person's state. Instead, he's working to keep them in their natural condition of spiritual darkness.
*The Parable of the Sower*
Regarding the devil stealing the Word of God from unsaved people, this is often understood as a metaphor for the devil's attempts to prevent the Gospel from taking root in people's hearts. In Calvinist theology, the idea is that God sovereignly chooses to reveal Himself to some, and the devil tries to counter this work. The parable of the sower (Matthew 13:1–23, Mark 4:1–20, Luke 8:4–15) illustrates this concept, where the devil is seen as the one who snatches the seed (the Word of God) from people's hearts.
*Calvinist Perspectives*
Some Calvinist theologians, like John Calvin himself, interpret the devil's role in blinding the unregenerate as a means of preventing them from responding to the Gospel. Others, like Jonathan Edwards, emphasize the devil's efforts to keep people in a state of spiritual darkness, which is their natural condition apart from God's sovereign intervention.
These perspectives highlight the complex interplay between God's sovereignty, human responsibility, and the devil's actions in Calvinist theology.
Here's Grok's answer:
These are fascinating theological questions that hinge on the interplay between Calvinist doctrine and the role of the devil in human salvation—or lack thereof. Let’s unpack this step-by-step, assuming Calvinism’s framework of total depravity, unconditional election, and irresistible grace.
In Calvinism, the unregenerate—those not elected by God for salvation—are indeed spiritually blind from birth due to total depravity. This means they lack the natural ability to perceive or respond to spiritual truths, including the gospel. So, your first question is sharp: why would the devil bother blinding those who are already blind? If they can’t see the truth anyway, what’s the point of his interference?
One possible answer lies in the nature of the devil’s role and motives. Even if the unregenerate can’t naturally grasp the gospel, the act of preaching still scatters the "word of God" into the world, as in the parable of the sower (Matthew 13). The devil, as an adversary of God, might seek to ensure that this word doesn’t linger in their minds or stir any fleeting awareness that could indirectly serve God’s purposes—like prompting reflection or exposing their depravity more clearly. In Calvinism, while the unregenerate can’t savingly respond without God’s grace, they can still hear the word externally. The devil’s "blinding" (2 Corinthians 4:4) could be about reinforcing their natural state, keeping them comfortably numb in their blindness, and preventing any secondary effects of the gospel—like conviction of sin or a cultural shift toward godliness—that don’t require regeneration but still frustrate his aims.
Your second question—why the devil steals the word sown into unsaved people if they can’t receive it—ties into this. In the parable, the devil (the birds) snatches the seed that falls on the path before it takes root. In a Calvinist view, the unregenerate heart is like that hard path: incapable of receiving the word unto salvation without divine intervention. But the devil’s theft might not be about their potential to believe (which Calvinism denies they have naturally) but about his opposition to God’s glory. Every time the word is preached, it’s a declaration of God’s truth and power. By stealing it, the devil minimizes its presence in the world, thwarting even the external testimony to God’s character that the unregenerate might otherwise encounter and reject. It’s less about their salvation (already impossible without election) and more about his cosmic rebellion—ensuring God’s word doesn’t even get a hearing.
Another angle: the devil might not know who’s elect. Calvinism holds that election is God’s secret decree, not fully revealed in time. When a preacher sows the word, the devil could act preemptively, blinding and stealing indiscriminately, unaware of whether God might later regenerate someone. He’d rather overplay his hand than risk losing a soul God has chosen.
So, in short: the devil blinds the already blind and steals the word not because the unregenerate can naturally respond, but to maximize their alienation from God, disrupt the word’s broader impact, and oppose God’s glory at every turn—perhaps even hedging against the unknown of election. It’s a spiteful, tactical overkill consistent with his character as the ultimate enemy of God’s purposes. What do you think—does that resolve the tension, or does it raise more questions for you?
Saturday, March 29, 2025
The History and Theology of Calvinism by Curt Daniel
The following link is to Curt Daniel's excellent and well informed lecture series on Calvinism's history ans theology.
The History and Theology of Calvinism by Curt Daniel
Saturday, March 1, 2025
The Hyper-Calvinist Error of "Eternal Justification"
I just finished reading the excellent book "Eternal Justification: Gospel Preaching to Sinners Marred by Hyper-Calvinism" by David H. J. Gay. In the book Gay explains the Hyper-Calvinistic doctrine of "eternal justification" and why it's unbiblical and detrimental to the salvation of souls. Gay has a sermon series on the topic here:
Https://www.sermonaudio.com/series/8499
Presumably the series simplifies the issues and gives an introduction so that people will begin to understand the dangers of the doctrine. For more in-depth information, I recommend reading the book.
I'm now currently reading Gay's other book "Amyraut & Owen Tested: And Found Wanting." It's essentially the renamed and restructured 3rd edition of his book "Particular Redemption and the Free Offer." I'm reading it because I'm curious where he stands on the extent and intent of the atonement of Christ. By the title of the book it seems he likely holds some kind of mediating view that's in between Amyraldism and Owenian Limited Atonement. He has a sermon series on the topic here:
Https://www.sermonaudio.com/series/47209
Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Theological Frameworks and ChatGPT
I've switched theological frameworks a number of times in my Christian life. From what would have been considered Historic Premillennialism, to Revised Dispensationalism, to New Covenant Theology, back to Progressive Dispensationalism and then for a long time back to something like New Covenant Theology but with an affirmation of the imputation of Christ's active obedience and the law as a tutor pointing to Christ (two things which some NCT theologians sometimes rejected). Then in the 2010s I came across Progressive Covenantalism and found that it taught what I generally believed, and also taught additional things that made sense to me. So, from then on my tentative position has been Progressive Covenantalism.
For an introduction to the differences see this 4 lecture series by Stephen Wellum:
https://www.sermonaudio.com/series/155636
DIRECT LINKS BELOW:
Differences Between Covenant, New Covenant, and Dispensational Theology: Session 1
Differences Between Covenant, New Covenant, and Dispensational Theology: Session 2
Differences Between Covenant, New Covenant, and Dispensational Theology: Session 3
Renewing our Confidence in our God who Makes and Keeps His Promises (Isaiah 40)
I decided to ask the following question of ChatGPT. While, I don't think its answers were always accurate, it was a pleasant surprise to me that it decided on the position that I hold to. Namely, Progressive Covenantalism.
ChatGPT said:
Your question asks for a fresh, re-examined look at the theological frameworks and their alignment with the Bible—free from the more standard, conventional answers. To do this properly, it’s essential to recognize that the Bible itself can be interpreted through various lenses depending on the interpretive approach taken, and each theological framework you mentioned offers a different way of understanding how God's covenant and plan unfold throughout history. Let’s consider how each of these frameworks holds up against the biblical narrative, and what might be said to best "fit" with it.
1. Classic Dispensationalism:
Key Idea: Classic Dispensationalism focuses on God's distinct plans for Israel and the Church, which are separated into different dispensations. Israel has a future role in God's plan (especially in terms of the land promises), and the Church is a parenthesis in God's overarching plan for Israel.
Reexamination: Dispensationalism’s rigid distinction between Israel and the Church is a distinctive feature, but it can often feel forced when interpreting the New Testament's handling of Israel’s role post-Jesus. For example, Paul in Romans 9-11 presents a nuanced view where Israel’s rejection is temporary, and the Gentiles are grafted in—but Israel’s ultimate restoration is still promised. This raises the question of whether the Church is truly a "parenthesis" or part of a larger unfolding plan that includes Israel. The growing trend among some scholars suggests that the distinction between Israel and the Church isn’t as sharp as classic Dispensationalism holds.
2. Revised/Traditional Dispensationalism:
Key Idea: A refinement of classic dispensationalism that still maintains a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church, but it often modifies some of the more extreme features, such as how the Church is seen in relation to the Kingdom of God or the new covenant promises.
Reexamination: While Revised Dispensationalism tries to accommodate the tension between Israel’s ongoing role and the inclusion of Gentiles in the Church, the treatment of the Old and New Testament covenants can feel like a piecemeal approach. It's hard to avoid the sense that the new covenant’s promises, which were meant to transform Israel’s heart and open the door to the Gentiles, are still treated as distinct from the Church rather than as something that fulfills Israel's hope. As such, it can struggle to fully incorporate the dynamic unity between Jew and Gentile in Christ, which is a central New Testament theme.
3. Hyper-Dispensationalism:
Key Idea: Hyper-Dispensationalism takes the idea of dispensations to an extreme, often arguing that certain parts of the New Testament (like the Gospels and Acts) are not directly applicable to the Church today. This framework tends to downplay the relevance of the Old Testament and some early Pauline writings for contemporary Christians.
Reexamination: This view takes a very sharp distinction between different phases in God’s plan, but the extreme nature of it is hard to reconcile with the Bible's presentation of continuity in God’s character and moral law throughout the Scriptures. For example, Jesus’ words and actions—especially his teachings in the Gospels—are often foundational for Christian doctrine and ethical living. Disregarding these texts or relegating them to a specific dispensational period seems inconsistent with the Bible's portrayal of the continuity between the Old and New Covenants and the role of Christ as the fulfillment of both.
4. Progressive Dispensationalism:
Key Idea: This framework emphasizes a more integrated view of the unfolding dispensations. It seeks to maintain distinctions between Israel and the Church, but it argues that there is more overlap and continuity between them, especially in terms of God's kingdom promises.
Reexamination: Progressive Dispensationalism attempts to mitigate some of the extreme separations between Israel and the Church by suggesting that God's kingdom promises are being progressively fulfilled in the Church, even as there remains a future fulfillment for Israel. This perspective has some strength, especially in its ability to account for the spiritual blessings promised to Israel now being experienced by the Church. But it can sometimes still struggle to balance the tension between Israel’s unique role in God’s plan and the Church’s inclusion in the promises, especially when texts like Romans 11 seem to suggest more continuity than discontinuity.
5. New Covenant Theology:
Key Idea: New Covenant Theology emphasizes the single, unified covenant of grace that culminates in Jesus Christ. It often downplays or reinterprets the Old Testament covenants (such as the Mosaic Covenant) as fulfilled in Christ, and views the New Covenant as a singular covenant for both Israel and the Church.
Reexamination: This view does a better job than others at recognizing the New Covenant’s universal implications, bringing Israel and the Church into one family under Christ. There is a strong biblical case for the idea that Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes and that the Church is included in the blessings of the New Covenant. However, the challenge is in how to view Israel’s continuing role—whether it’s entirely fulfilled or if there is still a future, specific role for ethnic Israel in God's plan (Romans 9-11, Revelation 7).
6. Progressive Covenantalism:
Key Idea: Progressive Covenantalism argues that God's covenant promises to Israel find their ultimate fulfillment in Christ, but that these promises are progressively revealed and applied through Scripture, culminating in the New Covenant, which includes both Israel and the Church in the same plan.
Reexamination: This view has a lot of promise in terms of integrating Old Testament promises with New Testament fulfillment. It seeks to honor the continuity of God’s plan while recognizing that the Church is now the people of God, but also acknowledges Israel’s continuing importance in God’s plan. The strength of Progressive Covenantalism is in its robust treatment of Scripture as a unified story, but it also faces the same challenge of reconciling Israel’s national future with the fulfillment of God’s promises in the Church today.
7. Classic Covenant Theology (Credobaptist or Paedobaptist):
Key Idea: Classic Covenant Theology emphasizes the continuity of God's covenant of grace, which is seen as operating through the covenant of works (before the fall), the covenant of grace (after the fall), and the covenant of redemption (between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Paedobaptists or credobaptists apply this framework differently in regards to infant baptism versus believer’s baptism.
Reexamination: Covenant Theology offers a deep sense of continuity between the Old and New Testaments, emphasizing the idea that the covenant of grace is the same throughout all of Scripture. The challenge here, however, comes in how to handle Israel's distinct role in redemptive history. Is Israel truly superseded by the Church, or does it continue to have a role (Romans 9-11)? Paedobaptists, in particular, wrestle with how the sign of the covenant (baptism) applies to children in light of the New Covenant, which might be at odds with the explicit New Testament teachings on faith as a prerequisite for baptism.
What Fits Best?
After considering these views, Progressive Covenantalism seems the most promising framework that both aligns with Scripture and offers a coherent theological understanding. It provides a balanced view of continuity and discontinuity between Israel and the Church, while also recognizing the fulfillment of God's covenant promises in Christ. It sees God's covenant as progressive—revealed over time, culminating in Christ—while acknowledging the Church's integral place in that story without denying Israel’s ongoing, future role.
This framework avoids the extremes of dividing Israel and the Church too sharply or disregarding Israel’s continuing significance, allowing for a fuller and richer understanding of Scripture. It also captures the New Testament's emphasis on the unity of God’s people (Jew and Gentile together in Christ), making it an excellent fit for those seeking a unified, biblical theology of redemption.
Friday, January 31, 2025
More Protestant Apologetics from Gavin Ortlund
Many of my blogposts in this blog are to Gavin Ortlund's defense of Protestantism. Here are more videos by him all grouped together.
How Do We KNOW the New Testament Canon
https://youtu.be/06ItjoHCp28
How Protestants View the Papacy (Debate Reaction)
https://youtu.be/Lx6GzN_qgiM
The Immaculate Conception A Protestant Evaluation
https://youtu.be/PR9EbapyPcg
Augustine on the Rock of Matthew 16 (This Will Surprise You)
https://youtu.be/Mslw0lS1ZLQ
The Biggest Misunderstanding About Protestantism
https://youtu.be/Fsjd8xY9OSM
Answering Taylor Marshall on the Eucharist
https://youtu.be/t7xn5hyYiKk
A Protestant Take on Ignatius
https://youtu.be/z42SQYXuXok
A "Worship Problem" For Protestants?
https://youtu.be/lupFft2GqOc
Sola Scriptura is Totally Medieval!
https://youtu.be/3NuskiZmfb0
Did Protestants Remove Books From the Bible !
https://youtu.be/WnzbNkIKwUQ
No, Jerome Didn't Accept a Larger Canon
https://youtu.be/rpHUeTZjeuQ
Origen on Praying to Saints: FINAL Response to Joe Heschmeyer
https://youtu.be/fayEcMfouOc
Proto-Protestantism [Wikipedia article]
We all know that Wikipedia isn't infallible and in fact makes mistakes. Nevertheless, here's an interesting Wiki article on Proto-Protestants. Meaning, people prior to the Protestant Reformation who taught (often in bits and pieces) similar things that the Protestant Reformers taught.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)