Part I of an email chain, which started with my email linking to Peggy Noonan’s column today. (You should read it.)
Joel is Calvinist (Presbyterian), Nate and Marc are Roman Catholics, Jonathan is Southern Baptist (though raised Methodist), and Jack is United Methodist.
Pay no attention to the time stamps — some of them appear off due to time zone differences, while others have been rearranged for the sake of coherence.
The real meat is in Part II, which will be posted next.
From: ___________, Joel E.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:12 PM
To: ___________, Jonathan B.; Burden, Jack; ‘___________, Nate’; ___________, Marc J.; __________, Robert J.
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
The article is humanist rubbish. We will pull ourselves up from our bootstraps blah blah blah. Nonsense. And I reject her premise that beginning in 1984 we saw incredible progress. Baloney – we saw movement, but movement is not equated with progress. So what if we can send an email from an airplane. Who gives a rip? How does that make us more noble or more godly?
I reject the religion called Humanism. Give me progress, not merely prosperity.
From: Burden, Jack
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:33 PM
To: ___________, Joel E.; ___________, Jonathan B.; ‘___________, Nate’; ___________, Marc J.; __________, Robert J.;
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
Wow…I too reject Humanism, but didn’t think Noonan – who wrote that acclaimed, glowing biography of Pope John Paul II – was trying to engage Humanism in this seemingly innocuous column on how crappy the economy is, how sorry our politicians are, and how people feel about it. I was struck by this sentence, the one Jonathan referenced, near the end: “They [our political leaders] claimed to be quintessentially optimistic, but it was a cheap optimism, based more on sunny personal experience than any particular faith, and void of an understanding of how dark and gritty life can be, and has been for most of human history.” That doesn’t sound particularly Humanist to me. Nor do I think acknowledgement of the possibilities of human achievement necessarily connote devotion to Humanism.
In any event, I refuse to take this message seriously because it was sent via email. Please re-transcribe on parchment.
From: ___________, Joel E.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:36 PM
To: Burden, Jack; ___________, Jonathan B.; ‘___________, Nate’; ___________, Marc J.; __________, Robert J.;
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
Valid criticism. I suppose if I want to connect to today’s youth I have to pierce my navel and ink my thoughts on skin via indelible tattoo.
Noonan is emblematic of the problem. She’s religious, but from her writing (if that be a fair and representative sampling), she believes that man fundamentally can solve most of his problems. I think such a belief is utter nonsense and has been conclusively rejected by the past 200 years of history.
From: Burden, Jack
Sent: Fri 2/20/2009 2:43 PM
To: _________, Joel E.; _____, Jonathan B.; _________, Nate’; _________, Marc J.; ________, Robert J
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
I agree completely with your last sentence. I just think you’re over-reading Noonan’s column and setting up a straw man so that you can give your man John Calvin a high-five.
Which raises the question: if we are totally depraved, how can there be such a thing as “progress” toward “godliness”?
From: ___________, Marc J.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:39 PM
To: ___________, Joel E.; Burden, Jack; ___________, Jonathan B.; ‘___________, Nate’; __________, Robert J.; ”
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
Me thinks you are going a bit too far with your criticism. We are called to transform society, not simply to wait for the end and change “on the inside.” We should all be Christian humanists – the only rational “humanists” that could be, I would argue. We should be involved in the arts and sciences and such. We have not done that, and those institutions have deeply suffered (see contemporary Christian “art”).
From: ___________, Joel E.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:57 PM
To: ___________, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; ___________, Jonathan B.; ‘___________, Nate’; __________, Robert J.; ”
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
I disagree that acknowledgement of Total Depravity requires us to withdraw from society. Jonathan Edwards did not withdraw. William Wilberforce was a Calvinist too, and he changed the world for the better (so I knock down your straw man too, sir).
From: ___________, Marc J.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:59 PM
To: ___________, Joel E.; Burden, Jack; ___________, Jonathan B.; ‘___________, Nate’; __________, Robert J.; ”
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
I am glad for it. The problem is that too many do not think as you do, and remain in a somewhat Gnostic over-spiritual funk.
From: ___________, Joel E.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 4:04 PM
To: ___________, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; ___________, Jonathan B.; ___________, Nate; __________, Robert J.;
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
Perhaps they err by embracing hyper-Calvinism, which I submit is bad theology and unbiblical. I believe that Calvinism, rightly and biblically understood, demands personal humility, joyous hope, and active engagement in a lost and fallen world. We don’t have to stop with folks like Edwards and Wilberforce: One of my more recent discoveries – a hero among heroes – is Adoniram Judson. His strong Calvinism did not prevent him from leaving a life of ease (and probably wealth) and to spend the rest of his life in hardship, to the point of death, trying to convert the people of Burma. Only a rock solid belief in God’s sovereignty and a complete devotion to Jesus could make a sane man do that.
From: ___________, Nate
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:14 PM
To: ___________, Joel E.; ___________, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; ___________, Jonathan B.; __________, Robert J.;
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
There’s really no practical difference between that disposition and a Thomist view of the world. The theological difference boils down to which side of the “God is sovereign”/”man is free” paradox one chooses to emphasize at the particular moment.
From: ___________, Joel E.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 4:16 PM
To: ___________, Nate; ___________, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; ___________, Jonathan B.; __________, Robert J.;
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
How do you define “free will” in the context of man?
From: ___________, Nate
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:17 PM
To: ___________, Joel E.; ___________, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; ___________, Jonathan B.; __________, Robert J.;
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
The capacity to choose to take a certain action, among a menu of options, and then to carry out that choice.
From: ___________, Joel E.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 4:19 PM
To: ___________, Nate; ___________, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; ___________, Jonathan B.; __________, Robert J.;
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
OK, let’s follow through with that definition. Does it follow then that you are completely free to choose Christ or to reject Christ?
From: _______, Jonathan B.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:21 PM
To: _______, Joel E.; ‘_______, Nate’; _______, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; _______, Robert J.; ”
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
If you aren’t, I’d say there was a problem.
From: _______, Joel E.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 4:26 PM
To: _______, Jonathan B.; _______, Nate; _______, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; _______, Robert J.;
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
Ok, let’s assume Jonathan that you choose Christ, but your neighbor does not. Why? Are you inherently more righteous than your neighbor? Why are you saved?
From: _______, Nate
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:28 PM
To: _______, Joel E.; _______, Jonathan B.; _______, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; _______, Robert J.;
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
My honest answer to that question is that it is a mystery we do well not to attempt to understand. The only things that matter for present purposes are (1) the right choice (Christ); (2) getting your neighbor to make that right choice.
From: _______, Joel E.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 4:36 PM
To: _______, Nate; _______, Jonathan B.; _______, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; _______, Robert J.;
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
Nate – you have NEVER shied away from a question. I know you better than that. I reject the conclusion that we “do well not to attempt to understand.” A better response may be, “we should see whether scripture speaks to this issue.” I submit that scripture speaks in depth to this issue.
From: _______, Nate
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:41 PM
To: _______, Joel E.; _______, Jonathan B.; _______, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; _______, Robert J.;
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
I’m not shying away from the question — I spent the better part of my life angrily posing it, and the only answer that ever came back was akin to the unsatisfying, get back in your place reply of God to Job: “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” It is a mystery. Scripture suggests answers in paradoxical conflict. Too much obsessing about it is unhealthy and paralyzing, as I can personally attest.
From: _______, Joel E.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 4:47 PM
To: _______, Nate; _______, Jonathan B.; _______, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; _______, Robert J.;
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
So did you conclude then that scripture fails to address the question? If so, I will leave you alone unless you ask me for the scriptural proof.
From: _______, Nate
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 4:00 PM
To: _______, Joel E.; _______, Jonathan B.; _______, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; _______, Robert J.;
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
Scripture addresses it all right; that’s the book of Job. It doesn’t resolve it, certainly not in the way that Calvinists or anybody pretends it can be resolved.
From: _______, Joel E.
Sent: Fri 2/20/2009 4:03 PM
To: ‘_______, Nate’; _______, Jonathan B.; _______, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; _______, Robert J.;
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
That is a very offhanded way to summarize the book of Job and this critical doctrine. What about Romans chapter 9? What about the references therein?
I don’t for a minute believe that the reformed view of salvation answers all questions. There are some mysteries that will likely always be mysteries (such as, “Where did the first sin come from?”). But to suggest that the book of Job is the final biblical statement on these issues is to ignore a wealth of other scriptures which are clearly on point.
From: ___________, Nate
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:25 PM
To: ___________, Joel E.; ___________, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; ___________, Jonathan B.; __________, Robert J.;
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
Yes, although circumstances can limit that freedom. The island primitive who has never heard the historical account of Jesus is somewhat limited in that freedom, although an archetype of Christ, as the necessary response of a loving God to a human race that has turned away from the law of nature that is written on all our hearts, might still move him in his mind to a piety that is salvific.
From: ___________, Joel E.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:28 PM
To: ‘___________, Nate’; ___________, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; ___________, Jonathan B.; __________, Robert J.;
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
If you (being fortunate to not have been reared on a primitive Island) are completely free then, how can you be sure you will not “unchoose” Jesus and thereby incur eternal damnation?
From: ___________, Jonathan B.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:35 PM
To: ___________, Joel E.; ‘___________, Nate’; ___________, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; __________, Robert J.; ”
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
May I answer a question with a question? Would the ability to choose necessarily imply the ability to be unchosen?
From: ___________, Joel E.
To: ___________, Jonathan B.; ‘___________, Nate’ ; ___________, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; __________, Robert J.; ”
Sent: Fri Feb 20 15:45:58 2009
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
I reject that man has any ability to choose, so I’m not sure I understand your question. I don’t begrudge any good faith question, but I simply don’t understand it (remember, I’m from South Alabama, so you gots to write slowly)
From: ___________, Jonathan B.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:53 PM
To: ___________, Joel E.; ‘Nate ______________; ___________, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; __________, Robert J.; ”
Subject: Re: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
Your question presumes that you do understand. You can’t entertain the possibilty of unchoosing if you don’t first entertain choosing.
From: ___________, Joel E.
To: ___________, Jonathan B.; ‘Nate.___________ ; ___________, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; __________, Robert J.; ”
Sent: Fri Feb 20 15:57:04 2009
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
I reject choice as you’ve defined it. No, we do not have such choice. That is the “U” in TULIP. God’s call is always effectual. It is Unconditional. Period.
From: ___________, Jonathan B.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 4:02 PM
To: ___________, Joel E.; ‘Nate.___________’; ___________, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; __________, Robert J.; ”
Subject: Re: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
Then please give me a workable definition of unchoosing so I can work backwards. It is your term, so I leave it to you to clarify.
From: ___________, Joel E.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 5:07 PM
To: ___________, Jonathan B.; ___________, Nate; ___________, Marc J.; Burden, Jack; __________, Robert J.;
Subject: RE: Speaking of Caddyshack, here’s Noonan
I will reconstruct if I can. The Arminian believes he is saved because he chooses God. In other words, God is obligated to save the Arminian, because maybe he walked the aisle in an altar call, or got baptized, or in some event “put his faith” in Jesus. But fundamentally, it comes down to the Arminian’s choice.
If that be true and scriptural, then it follows that the Arminian can lose his salvation. If salvation be based on the choice of a man, surely that man (if he has free choice) can choice to do otherwise: today I will choose to believe in Jesus, and tomorrow I will change my mind and choose otherwise.
I believe the doctrine of eternal security is completely antagonistic to Arminian theology. The Arminian has no warrant to believe in eternal security of the believer.
Again, I reject Arminian theology (though I embraced it for the first 25 or so years of my Christian life).
[...] 21, 2009 by jackburden Part II of the email chain (Part I is here.) We pick up below with Joel’s (the Calvinist’s) attempted syllogism to show that [...]