Skip to content

Shai Linne Singing an Owenic Psalmody: We Want More

January 16, 2009

Gene Cook has posted a… cough, cough… …should I call it a song… by Shai Linne. Go here for the heavenly …grimace… song.

But seriously, We WANT high Calvinists to do stuff like this. We WANT them to reduce the entirety of their polemic to arguments that 4 years olds can pull part, while asleep, with half of their brains tied behind their backs.

HT to Tony

Keep it coming Gene… ;-)

Hey Seth, so what thinkest thou now of Shy Lin?

Post-Script: I just saw Tony’s last comment #6. It is very good and worth reading.

To steal it without his permission:

The either/or dilemma is presented [in this song] that the cross does NOT render all men saveable, but it actually saves. So the cross actually saves all the elect, but it does not make the non-elect saveable, since Christ did not suffer for their sins. How then can you maintain that the gospel or Christ is actually being offered to any of the non-elect? They’re not saveable but they are offerable [and that even in a “well-meant” way]?! That makes no sense! If the non-elect are not saveable because of the cross, then how can the cross render the gospel offerable to them? Let’s do away with indiscriminate “offers” entirely [especially “well-meant” offers to all] and get back to authentic Calvinism! For such “offers” undermine the truth of particular redemption.”

You’d be better off saying that:

(1) the cross does render all men saveable AND actually secures the salvation of the elect [both/and],

rather than saying that:

(2) the cross does NOT render all men saveable but actually secures the salvation of the elect [false either/or dilemma].

Option #1 is the view of Charles Hodge, but it necessitates an unlimited imputation of sin to Christ, thus undermining the double-payment argument [which Hodge also rejected]. For that reason, some choose option #2, and thus, unwittingly, undermine any basis for thinking that God is “offering” salvation through Christ to the non-elect. Then they complain when hyper-Calvinists follow their own logic and go on to reject the notion that God himself is offering salvation by Christ through our preaching to any of the non-elect.

[Bold mine.]

David: Tony is spot on here. Even if we allow the flawed attempt to separate “sincere offer” from “well-meant offer” the result is the same. Even if the proponent is a high Calvinist, the result is the same.


2 Comments leave one →
  1. January 30, 2009 8:00 pm

    Um, that and I have a problem with the so-called holy-hip-hop, in that many of these brethren claim to be reformed, and I can’t see this as conforming the Regulative Principle.


    Does the theological words used in these raps (Owenic or otherwise)constitute the Regulative Principle?

    And does the end justify the means?

    I’m in no way in disagree with you by the way. I wanted to throw out something else.


  2. January 30, 2009 8:02 pm

    Sorry I meant to say disagreement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: