For years, every time Vox has gone on one of his anti-Calvinist or anti-Piper sprees, I have thought that it would be very enlightening if he were to allow himself to be questioned about his theology (in contrast to just reacting negatively to another theology.)
To help illustrate my motivation, I’ll go back to Monty Python and its ‘Crunchy Frog’ skit.
Bear with me and let me share a part of that skit with you. To explain the setting, “Mr.Praline” is an inspector from the ‘Hygiene Squad’ and Mr. Milton is the “Sole Proprietor and Owner of the Whizzo Chocolate Company”. They are talking about some of the candy sold by this company.
====
Praline Next we have number four, ‘Crunchy Frog’.
Milton Yes.
Praline Am I right in thinking there’s a real frog in here?
Milton Yes. A little one.
Praline What sort of frog?
Milton A dead frog.
Praline Is it cooked?
Milton No.
Praline What, a raw frog?
Milton We use only the finest baby frogs, dew-picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in the finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and then sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk chocolate envelope, and lovingly frosted with glucose.
Praline That’s as may be, but it’s still a frog!
Milton What else?
Praline Well don’t you even take the bones out?
Milton If we took the bones out it wouldn’t be crunchy would it?
Praline Well, the Superintendent thought it was an almond whirl. People won’t expect there to be a frog in there. They’re bound to think it’s some sort of mock frog.
Milton (insulted) Mock frog? We use no artificial preservatives or additives of any kind!
Praline Nevertheless, I must warn you that in future you should delete the words ‘crunchy frog’, and replace them with the legend, ‘crunchy raw unboned real dead frog’ if you want to avoid prosecution.
==
It is my thought that Vox has long been passing off his theology as a Crunchy Frog theology, when in actuality it is Crunchy Raw Unboned Real Dead Frog theology, at least in the eyes of most people when they actually see it. Which many hadn’t because Vox was only focused on Calvinism.
So when Vox accepted MarkkuKopenan’s challenge to respond to answer five questions, it was my hope that the oddness of his theology would be made clear. And here’s the good news: It was made clear.
====
So let’s go through the five questions, shall we?
Question 1: A Summary of What Vox Day Believes
Vox was gracious here in answering the question, because (A) It wasn’t a question about a Bible passage which many assumed all the questions would be and (B) it wasn’t really a question, it was a statement that said “Edit this.” But Vox did edit the paragraph, changing surprisingly few words.
When I wrote the question, I made a guess as to what he believed. And I tried to choose the portions of his belief that made his theology unique. It was after his response to Question 1 that I decided that I should start compiling a list of his unique beliefs, so that they would be in one concise spot.
This turned out to be a good idea.
Some were disappointed (or saw it as a weakness of our case) that we didn’t force Vox to give Bible references to support his answer, but that wasn’t the goal of that question.
Question 2: Vox explains why your hairs most likely aren’t numbered.
It was in this post that I saw that things were going well, given my goals. Vox chose to say that the context of the “God Knows when a Sparrow dies” passage and the “Your hairs are numbered” passage should be understood only in the context of the Sending of the Twelve and were thus only meant to apply to the 12 Disciples.
When I pointed out that in Luke the Sparrows and Hairs passage are 3 chapters away from the Sending of the Twelve, he said that the book of Luke was based on Matthew and we thus can disregard the context in Luke. He shows his Bible Is Not Innerrant bent here, but it’s worse than that. He doesn’t even give Luke the benefit of the doubt that he would give a regular secular book that had compiled words from another source.
I’ll just note that it was in the comments of this question that Nate called me “sugar britches”, which is by far the nicest thing he’s ever called me.
Question 3: Vox Embraces An Interesting Theology and Says X = Not Xn
In this response, Vox stated that “it is incorrect to describe me as a Arminian since my theological stance is more accurately described as Pelagian”.
I will tell you this. If Vox stating that he was a Pelagianist was the only thing that came out of all of these questions, it would have been worth it. Today I googled “Pelagianism Boyd” and found this statement: “Grace helps people live for God, but Pelagians deny that people are saved by grace alone. For this reason, evangelicals are in agreement that Pelagianism is an unbiblical belief system.” This is from the glossary of “Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology” a book where Greg Boyd is one of two authors.
So when I saw that statement from Vox, I thought that that was all I needed from that question. But then I looked at his Chain of Events and saw these two statements:
(A) The Father draws everyone.
(B) Some . . . do not permit themselves to be drawn.
Later he agreed to the statement “Some who God draws are not drawn.”
This, I maintain, is a contortion at least as bad as what he claims the Calvinists make.
Question 4: Vox states that his God unintentionally causes bad things to happen to people.
I just want to point out that Vox, who is very outspoken about his beliefs that the US Government often makes laws with good intentions but that have unintended negative consequences, has a God that does similar things.
Question 5: Vox says that Hate is most likely Hyperbolic. Calvinists agree.
Here I’ll quote MarkkuKoponen’s comment:
That was the whole point of this exercise. It started from my comment to Vox in Skype; It is nearly always Vox who is on the attack, so he gets to choose the verses. Of course he is going to choose the verses where the plain reading is in line with his own view. And therefore it looks as if we need to give seemingly odd explanations for any verse.
So, we changed places for a while, so that we’d put out verses where Vox has to go looking elsewhere in order to prove that the plain reading is not the correct one.
Indeed.
===
Summarizing my summary, I will say that during this process, the personal emails that I got stating that they’ve now seen that Vox is wrong, the comments on my blog posts encouraging me, or making suggestions of items to put on the list of what he believes, and every comment on Vox’s posts that began with something like , “I’m not a Calvinist, but Vox you’re wrong when you say . . . ” has encouraged me that some truth is getting out.
Now, I have prayed that those who are wrong (and I’m not saying this isn’t me) about the nature of God will see where they are wrong. I want God to be glorified and I believe that whatever is true about him will glorify him. So I will still pray that we will all understand what God does and doesn’t do.
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 10, 2012 at 5:01 am
JK
Well done Jamsco.
March 10, 2012 at 5:02 am
JK
oh and Team Calvin
March 10, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Markku Koponen
“So when Vox accepted MarkkuKopenan’s challenge to respond to answer five questions, it was my hope that the oddness of his theology would be made clear. And here’s the good news: It was made clear.”
To be clear, I didn’t come up with the challenge. Vox did. All I did was complain that it gives a distorted view of our supposed contortions when it’s always his side on the attack. I didn’t propose any solutions to this.
March 10, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Mr. Nightstick
Good Job to Team Calvin! I think over time Vox may realize how silly some of his views are. God’s word does not return void.
March 12, 2012 at 5:33 am
Rantor
Jamsco,
Great summary and good job. Thanks to Markku too. This has been for the most part, a great conversation. It is difficult for many to understand reformed theology and I see that in most of the irrational or uninformed opinions about the implications of Calvinism in the discussions on VD’s site.
If you are ever in the Washington DC area and need a place to stay or church to attend, feel free to contact me. Fourth Presbyterian in Bethesda MD is my church and our teaching elders, especially Rob Norris, are first rate.
March 12, 2012 at 7:17 am
rhology
I who had a hand in proposing question 3 about John 6 was very pleased with his incoherent and rambling answer.
John 6 is pretty much the graveyard of the non-Calvinist theology.
June 25, 2015 at 11:03 am
Johnny
I’ve become a semi-Calvinist if for no other reason than its the Calvinists like Sproul and others who have the radio ministries. And they speak to the issues of the day. I don’t know what the Arminians are doing but it isn’t effectual to keeping the church progressing forward. I don’t know what has happened in the last 100 years, but something went wrong for us to go from solid belief in Jesus in the U.S. majority to the glorification of greed (Wall Street) and abortion as normative choices. This article was helpful. I just read John 6 again and was blown away. Thanks!
June 25, 2015 at 11:05 am
jamsco
Thanks for the kind words, Johnny
March 23, 2012 at 4:08 pm
theerrantpilgrim
A little surprising to hear Vox align himself with Pelagianism. Given his statements on human nature, I would have believed he held to the idea of original sin. Unless he skews “Semi-Pelagian.” Anyway, good to have a better picture of his theology out there. I love Vox’s commentary, but it’s like I always told anyone I directed to his blog. “Enjoy the commentary. Ignore the theology.”
March 25, 2012 at 8:24 am
matthew2323
The following are some of my thoughts on the answers given to the TC Challenge. I know it’s somewhat after the fact, but life is like that.
Question 1:
In contrast to the answer given that God limits what He knows, we are told:
He counteth the number of the stars; He calleth them all by [their] names. Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding* is infinite. (Psalm 147:4, 5)
We will know by this that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart before Him in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things. (1 John 3:19, 20)
*See Proverbs 9:10 and 14:6
Question 2:
Vox concluded that because Matthew 10:1-15 are directed to the Apostles and the specific mission that was at hand, that the verses following are only applicable to the Apostles as well.
While verses 1 through 23 are certainly directed to the Apostles, verses 24 through 42 contain a mixture of specific teachings AND general principles applied to the circumstances at hand. Some of the general principles that still apply today are found in verses 24-26 (where verse 25 has a first century context). Verse 27 was applicable to the Apostles and verse 28 to all Christians. Verses 32 through 39 teach a general principle. Verses 40 through 42 teach a general principle within the immediate context of “receives you” and “these little one.” Thus, we are hardly dealing with an Apostles-only context.
In addition, how would the original Hebrew listeners have interpreted Matthew 10:29-31 in light of Psalm 33:13-15, Proverbs 5:21, 1 Kings 8:37-40, and 1 Chronicles 28:9?
Based on Matthew 12:33-37 (and John 8:44), we know that actions flow from who and what we are. What then do we make of passages that appear to teach that this God of infinite understanding does not know something or someone? We simply let God’s nature and the context of the passage speak. In the case of God’s interaction with Abraham as it regarded the sins of Sodom and those who resided there, we are told the conversation is didactic.
“Then the men rose up from there, and looked down toward Sodom; and Abraham was walking with them to send them off. The LORD said, ‘Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed? For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.’” (Genesis 18:16-19)
What better way to teach righteousness and justice to a future leader than by example?
Question 3:
Of the 5 Steps listed, let’s consider the following:
2. Some hear, learn and permit themselves to be drawn…
3. Those who permit themselves to be drawn to the Father are given to His Son, Jesus Christ.
John 6:37 tells us, “All that the Father gives Me [Jesus] will come to Me…” The phrase “will come” is one of absolute certainty. It is not that they will probably come or that they have simply been empowered to but that they will. Also, those given to the Son by the Father come to Jesus; they are not brought to Him.
What type of person would allow themselves to be drawn to God? According to the writer of Hebrews, only a person of faith will come to God. “And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.” (Hebrews 11:7)
What type of person has faith? “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’” (John 3:3) We know from Hebrews 11:1 that faith is spiritual sight and therefore, according to Jesus, the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit (John 3:5) must precede our faith.
What causes one to be born again? The Apostle informs us, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)
As shown in John 1, John 3 and Hebrews 11, only those who are born again will have the faith the come to God. Since a baby cannot cause his own birth, the similitude that Jesus uses informs us that God alone is the cause of regeneration.
The giving, therefore, is based exclusively on the Father’s will, not man’s, contra Step 3.
Question 4:
God’s will did not change when He rejected Saul as king over Israel. God entered into covenant with His people for the express purpose that, “They shall be My people, and I will be their God.” Israel was given a human king because they had rejected God as their King and sought to be like the nations around them. Despite the Lord’s warnings about the tyranny that would ensue they continued in their rebellion. (1 Samuel 8:4-22)
The account of when Saul was informed of the judgment against him reads, “But Samuel said to Saul, ‘I will not return with you; for you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel.’ As Samuel turned to go, Saul seized the edge of his robe, and it tore. So Samuel said to him, ‘The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to your neighbor, who is better than you. Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.’” (1 Samuel 15:26-29) (See also Numbers 23:19-20.)
To prevent any arguments against God’s pronouncement, an appeal to God’s unchangeable nature is made. Men are fallible and malleable by constitution; God is not. As such, He does not change His mind since this would require a change to His being. An eternal (Psalm 90:2) and immutable (Malachi 3:6) God cannot add knowledge to Himself. If He knows something now, He has always know that fact and thus nothing exists that could cause Him to change His mind.
Question 5:
I am in the hyperbole camp too, which is to say that a surface reading of The Original English is insufficient.
The Second Great Command is a summary of the Second Table of the Law and therefore has universal application, irregardless of whether someone is attempting the impossible such as “do[ing] to inherit eternal life.” We could have just as easily quoted Exodus 20:12.
May 28, 2014 at 2:42 am
Vox Day And Me – Part 3 | The Responsible Puppet
[…] the rest is publicly available and searchable history. Okay, much of the rest of it is (see, for example). Most recently he responded to one of my comments with kind of Bizzaro ad hominem that was along […]