|
 Years
ago a young, inexperienced preacher asked this young,
inexperienced preacher to serve as his moderator in a debate.
The subject was the “Security of the Believer,” and my
friend’s opponent was well versed in debate maneuvers.
One
night he drew a bottle on the chalk board, read John 5:24 (“He
that believeth... shall not come into condemnation-”), put a
“B” (for the “believer”) in the bottle, and sealed
the bottle with a large stopper which he labeled, “God’s
SHALL NOT.” Then he challenged my friend to get the “believer”
out of that bottle.
What
he didn’t know was that these two young squirts had a large
bottle-opener sitting in the pew behind us — the veteran, bro.
J. Early Arceneaux. He hastily scribbled a note, “Put the
unbeliever in a bottle,” and threw it over my shoulder. We got
the point. My colleague drew another bottle, read John 3:36 (“He
that believeth not.. .shall not see life-”), put “Un” (for
“unbeliever”) in the bottle, and sealed that bottle with a
stopper labeled, “God’s SHALL NOT.”
“You
get the unbeliever out of my bottle, and I will empty yours.”
Debating
was quite simple — with
|
|
brother Arceneaux sitting close by. If
man believes as an act of free-agency (Rom. 10:17), and thus
gets out of the “unbeliever” category; he can “shipwreck”
“deny” or “err” from the faith by that same free-agency
(1 Tim. 1:5; 19; 5:8; 6:10 etc.), and thus get out of the first
bottle. As long as the believer, or the unbeliever, remain
in their state of faithfulness or rejection, as the case may be,
the destiny of those in such states remain their God-appointed
lot.
Our
opponent’s fundamental theology was Calvinistic, and to remain
consistent with this, he would have to say God elected and
foreordained each individual to his final destiny, and there
could be no “bottle escape.” But our respondent was
committed to free-agency — at least in the matter of “faith”
— so now he had to say the unbeliever could exercise such
choice but the believer could not; or face a contradiction in
revelation. (He put a new argument on the board, and “forgot”
the one he erased.)
A
little experience with those old arguments and recognition of
where they lead, could keep “neo-Calvinists” of today from
getting bottled up.
[Previous
Article] [Next:
Vol.13, no.1, p.1]
|
