Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Alex Jackson's avatar

Response:

What does Jesus deny here?

He denies:

1. that these particular sufferers were greater sinners than others;

2. that these tragedies authorize a simplistic “they suffered more, therefore they sinned more” theology.

The central error in the article is the inference:

“God was not carrying out judgment. Therefore, God did not cause that tragedy.”

From a Calvinistic standpoint, that is a non sequitur.

Why? Because, God may ordain an event without that event being a special retributive judgment for a particular sin. Providence is broader than punitive judgment.

While events seem accidental from our standpoint;

Scripture does not thereby teach autonomous randomness outside divine providence, for God works all things according to the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11).

Another key misunderstanding:

Historical reformed Calvinism has never denied that humans have free choice. We actually deny that fallen humanity has a righteous desire to choose God - Romans 3:11.

Key misunderstanding of 2 Corinthians 5:19. This verse does not teach that God no longer judges sin. Otherwise the wrath of god revealed in Romans 1 or judgment in James 5:15 would make no sense. 2 Corinthians 5:19 is about gospel reconciliation for everyone who believes, God does not impute sins to those who come to Christ.

The bottom line flaws within the argumentation in the article:

Premise 1: Jesus says the victims in Luke 13 were not worse sinners than others.

Premise 2: Therefore, their deaths were not special acts of judgment for exceptional sin.

Premise 3: If God was not carrying out judgment, then God did not cause that tragedy.

Premise 4: Therefore, some events happen by chance or free will outside God’s determination.

Therefore, Calvinism is false.

Assessment:

Premise 1: True

Premise 2: Accepted (though not necessarily true)

Premise 3: False. This does not follow. God can ordain an event without making it a special punishment for exceptional sin.

Premise 4: False. Depends on premise 3 being true.

Conclusion: Jesus denies special punitive significance in the disaster of the tower of Siloam, emphasising the need for everyone to repent. He never denies divine providence.

Instead Jesus teaches divine providence, for example;

Matthew 10:29–31 — sparrows falling; hairs numbered

Matthew 5:45 — sun and rain given to all

John 19:11 — authority given from above

Matthew 11:25–27 — hidden from some, revealed to others

John 12:37–40 — eyes blinded, heart hardened

No posts

Ready for more?