Responding to Dave Mallinak on Anti-Calvinism

Dave Mallinak has been writing an interesting series on what he wishes would change within the Independent Baptist stripe. It is written “from within” and I appreciate that spirit, and found things with which I generally agree.

His most recent article addresses what he perceives to be a problem in how Independent Baptists oppose Calvinism. He writes from a perspective of someone who once found Calvinism intriguing, so it is a personal issue for him, and I find it well-argued to the point to which he takes it. I hope that this is taken not as a refutation, but as a modest redirection, in the gracious spirit in which I intend.

At the risk of being repetitive, my purpose in responding is not to argue that Dave is arguing incorrectly, but that in his scrutiny of his personal experience, he does not fully identify the crucial issue at play. To explain, I will quote two pivotal (and good) portions of his post.

Because when I went to examine Calvinism to prove the slanders true, I found that the slanders were just that. And that nearly caught me. I was surprised to discover that most Calvinists give good Bible reasons for their position. I don’t believe they are applying Scripture rightly in some of their conclusions, but I cannot join with those who claim that this is a man-made system. 

Third, deal honestly with what Calvinism actually teaches instead of drawing caricatures to refute. If you want to win the day, this is how to do it. And since you hold the Biblical position, this shouldn’t be hard. In my experience, people only need to slander someone else’s position when they don’t have an answer to it.

In my opinion, these quotes represent the heart of Dave’s argument, and it is very good. The issue (I almost wrote “problem,” but that would be unfair; problem is far too strong of a term) is that it does not go far enough.

Dave is focused on opposition to Calvinism due to his own experience of studying it, so he describes the problem with unfair characterizations of Calvinism and the potential problems that can create. Dave is describing the classic logical fallacy known as the “straw man argument.” In short, a “straw man” is a misrepresentation of an opponent’s position that is developed to make it easy to refute.

This is a real concern, and I am glad that Dave is discussing it. However, his experience with Calvinism causes him to address this in a way that is too narrow.

The crucial issue is not that Independent Baptists harm arguments against Calvinism by using straw man arguments; the crucial issue is that Independent Baptist (in conformity with the worldly nature of many other ideological groups) make widespread use of straw man arguments against many different forms of error, leaving Christians vulnerable not just to Calvinism, as Dave describes, but also to any and all other forms of error.

Poor arguments against theological and practice problems within Christianity and against scientific and political issues outside of Christianity not only prepare Christians poorly to encounter those issues in real life, but make it easier for them to be attracted to those errors. Dave’s description of how he, as a younger man, found that the arguments he was provided against Calvinism were so easily punctured by the actual beliefs held by Calvinists is important. When someone hears that “Position X is stupid and only fools hold it,” and then find that the people who hold Position X are not only not fools but have good arguments for it, that person will question the people that told them Position X is stupid in the first place.

I know, because unlike Dave, I was never intrigued by Calvinism. I grew up first charismatic, then contemporary evangelical, and finally essentially a vaguely religious secularist immersed in the intellectually elitist atmosphere surrounding the University of Michigan. Where he has experienced straw man arguments detonated by encountering actual Calvinistic arguments, I have and continue to see (and cringe) at weak straw man arguments presented against concepts like evolution and modern social movements. Not because I agree with those positions, but because I know, and have seen, and have on occasion experienced in my own life such arguments being easily swept aside by adherents of those positions.

It is tempting to do this because destroying a straw man is easy and makes people think highly of you, and because understanding opposing arguments and countering them is challenging intellectual work. The byproduct is damage to our discipleship, as Dave describes, but just as troubling, damage to our witness as well.

A skeptic of Biblical Christianity will not be persuaded by straw man arguments; indeed, he or she will find such arguments confirmation to their presupposition that Biblical Christianity cannot answer their arguments at all. Such arguments actively damage our ability to witness and proclaim truth.

When we misrepresent opponents in our writing, teaching, and preaching, we will get some cheap “Amens.” But in so doing we abandon our responsibility to persuade those with whom we disagree in favor of boosting the egos of those already on our side. And we leave those seeking truth more vulnerable to persuasion by those opponents by giving the impression that we do not have good arguments against those positions at all, since we so readily resort to bad ones.

It is more than a problem of arguing against Calvinism. It is a problem whenever we argue against all forms of error.

A thought on the purpose of prophesied events.

I’ve felt led to resume writing in more coherent ways. Starting is usually the hardest part of writing for me (finishing being a close second), so I thought I’d warm up the blog with something I already wrote to get the pistons rotating a bit.

This is a comment I made in a private forum in which someone asked how one would respond to this question:

“Why would God restore the land to Israel only to destroy the world and create and new heaven and Earth?”

My comment, lightly edited:

The basic answer? Because He promised He would.

The intervening 1000 years are quite relevant; that’s a long time. We could ask the similar question, “Why would God bring the Israelites into the Promised Land, only to kick them back out?” Time and events obviously make a difference.

I think a challenge here comes from our natural tendency to look at tribulational eschatology as a study of “The End,” when really it is just a study of “what’s next.” If we believe in a literal millennial reign of Christ, then the Tribulation is simply the next step in history, not the end of it. The disciples in the time of Jesus made the same error, believing that His coming was The End instead of merely the next step in God’s progressive plan for His people.

The church was a mystery to the Jews. It is highly likely that there are aspects of the Tribulation and the Millennial Kingdom that we have no idea about, even in time periods for which we have considerable prophetic documentation.

My personal theory is that each dispensation provides humanity a test in which we are provided a different economy under which to live. In each case God demonstrates his Grace, and people are offered an opportunity to trust Him by faith. And in each case humanity flunks the exam. A paradise in which there is only one regulation? Flunked. An anarchist-libertarian dreamworld? Flunked. A time period with some human government and an opportunity to freely choose God in ignorance of sin? Flunked. A time when God provides a comprehensive list of guidelines of life and worship, chooses a people to be his direct witness, sprinkled with direct prophetic revelation and miraculous events? Flunked. A time when all might receive salvation by faith through Christ without the deeds of the law? We’re flunking again. A time when God the Son Himself rules on Earth with a rod of iron and his saints right there to assist? The Bible tells us that will be flunked, too.

So God’s purpose, for his own glorification, hasn’t been fulfilled yet. And, by my theory (and it’s just my theory, not Bible doctrine) the Millennium has a particular purpose in God’s plan.

My .02 here only.

Jesus Christ Died on Thursday. If You Disagree I Guess You Should Feel Bad but Hey Whatever

It is the best of arguments, it is the worst of arguments.

It is the best of arguments because there is copious chronological information from which to synthesize a conclusion. It involves the most important event in the history of the universe. And it is an argument in which well-meaning, intellectually honest people can disagree.

It is the worst of arguments because the Bible never explicitly identifies the day of the week by number or sequence. There is copious chronological information to work from, yet one cannot come to a conclusion without de-emphasizing certain Biblical evidence no matter what one’s conclusion is. It involves the most important event in the history of the universe, yet well-meaning, intellectually honest people cannot come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.

I believe Jesus Christ died on a Thursday.

There is plenty of Biblical evidence for this. Engaging all of it would involve more space than the scope of this post merits, but there are a few important highlights worth mentioning.

A pivotal verse in this timeline is obviously Matthew 12:40. Jesus speaks of Jonah’s three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, and draws a direct correspondence to the three days and three nights he will spend in the heart of the earth.

Those who would argue for a Friday crucifixion, if they are using Biblical evidence, must argue that Jesus is somehow not speaking literally. Dwight Pentecost(1) writes this off as Jesus speaking “idiomatically,” for example. However, there is no evidence for Jesus speaking idiomatically or otherwise being anything other than literal in a plain reading of the text. He is drawing a direct, one-to-one comparison between Jonah’s time in the whale and his own time in the grave.

Further, the Gospel of John goes to some length to provide information that sheds light on the chronological situation. To begin with, it is quite clear that the evening following the trial of Jesus is the “official” passover feast as observed by the Jewish leaders(2), since the leaders would not defile themselves in the judgment hall so that they would be able to partake of the passover meal later that day (John 18:28). God through John further elaborates that it was the “preparation of the passover” in John 19:14.

This is important, since the passover feast took place at dusk of the 14th day of the month of Nisan (or Abib; the name was changed after the captivity), and the feast of unleavened bread followed immediately on the 15th, a day that would start in the evening immediately following the passover feast (See Leviticus 23:4-8). That day was a sabbath.

And John 19:31 makes it clear that the sabbath being prepared for was a “high” day, that is, a special sabbath taken as required for the first day of the feast of unleavened bread.

The implication here is that Jesus was crucified on Nisan 14 and hung on the cross as the paschal lambs were being slaughtered for the passover; he was then removed from the cross and buried immediately prior to the fall of darkness that evening, the beginning of the feast of unleavened bread, a high day sabbath. On a Thursday, this would result in two consecutive sabbaths, followed by a Sunday morning in which the Mary and company would be anxious to finally anoint the body.

There are a few other pieces of evidence as well, such as when that Sunday is described as the “third day since these things were done” in Luke 24:21, and the Greek rendering of “sabbaths” as plural in Matthew 28:1. I find those important but less compelling than Matthew 12:40, which is without question the hinge verse upon which the Thursday argument turns. He said, “Three days and three nights.” Did He mean it?

I believe Christ died on Thursday.

But not everybody does.

I know good, Biblically diligent people who argue for Wednesday. That is fine, although I find there are too many problems with that view. The two at the front of my mind are the “missing day,” Friday, which in this scenario is not a sabbath (the high day sabbath being Thursday) and in which Mary and company simply wait and do nothing; and the fact that a full 72-hour three-day three-night period requires Christ to rise from the dead… at dusk Saturday night.

And I know of good, Biblically diligent people who argue for Friday.

Some argue that the immediate language used in the synoptic gospels suggests a Friday crucifixion. A plain reading of the end of Mark 15 into Mark 16 certainly suggests this: In verse 47, we see, “ And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid. And in the next verse, 16:1, we see, “And when the sabbath was past…”

When this was written, there was no chapter break. Just an unbroken narrative. So I understand the challenge those verses put to the Thursday scenario. I would point out that while these and a couple other companion verses do not state the existence of two sabbath days, they do not specifically deny them either.

Additionally, the frequent use of the term “the third day” in reference to the Sunday of the resurrection can be grammatically construed to argue for a Friday crucifixion by clarifying that the way such a term was used by those speakers was to inclusively list any part of any day. So a small part of Friday, Saturday, and a small part of Sunday.

Those are the Biblical Friday arguments that a Thursday theorist must overlook. They are significant, yes; I do not believe they are any more compelling (and, I believe, they are actually a bit less) than overlooking Matthew 12:40.

The main issue that rankles in this question is not people who argue for Friday from Biblical evidence.

The issue that rankles is the large numbers of people who would consider themselves to be Biblically diligent who hold a to a Friday crucifixion without examining the Biblical evidence at all.

Many of these people, whom I generally respect, would argue that doing or believing something just because one has always done or believed that is inadequate. That it is wrong to hold to “tradition.” They make many choices that deliberately buck “tradition,” arguing that such a choice cannot be wrong because the Bible is what matters.

But they will say the crucifixion was on Friday because that is what almost everybody else is doing.

Look, I believe that this issue falls solidly into the territory covered by Romans 14:5. I will not separate with someone over what day they think Christ died, or even with someone who doesn’t want to identify a day at all. I think it is possible for good people to disagree.

But Romans 14:5 does say that everyone should be “fully persuaded in his own mind.” For the student of the Bible, this is actually an enjoyable study, because there is lots of information in the scriptures that one can find to identify times and days in that final, awful, wonderful week. I have four pages of scripture references and brief notes just cataloguing what the Gospels say about it.

Don’t just say “It was Friday” because everybody else does. And, for that matter, don’t just say “It was Wednesday” or “Thursday” because catholics celebrate Friday or because you saw the headline of an article a few years ago. Study it. Be fully persuaded.

And then, if someone who has looked at the same information disagrees, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It is the worst of arguments, it is the best of arguments.

Yeah, I think it’s important to come to a Biblical conclusion about an issue like this. The day that Christ died is extremely important. It’s the day that He paid for my sins.

But, just as important: He is not dead anymore.

——————-

(1) Dwight Pentecost, The Words & Works of Jesus Christ, Zondervan, 1981, pg 575. Pentecost’s layout of the different arguments for the day of the crucifixion are interesting, but I find that he neglects to address Thursday arguments effectively and is too quick to ignore certain evidence. He also makes errors with regards to the chronology of the week in the Thursday hypothesis. Still, he argues from Scripture, which I appreciate.

(2) A consequence of my study of the different chronological passages is that I find a far more confusing issue involves the question of which day people celebrated the actual passover meal. A cursory scholarly search has been unsatisfactory; the best solution offered (by Hoehner, as quoted by Pentecost) is that Galileans and Judeans celebrated the passover on different days. This does fit both the Synoptic references to the passover and John’s clear reference to the passover occurring after the resurrection. It is, however, unsatisfying. I find the passages in John compelling, so at the very least it is clear to me that the majority of the city sat down to celebrate the passover as their true passover lamb was being lowered from the cross and buried in a nearby tomb.