Trouble with Frank Page, part two

The second chapter of Trouble With the TULIP is titled “A Brief History.” In it, he hopes to show that the Christian position was non-Calvinistic until Augustine made some previously unknown theological innovations, and then Calvin took them and ran with them early in the 16th Century. In this chapter, Dr. Page sadly begins to evince some sloppiness that is merely surprising when it first appears, but then progresses throughout the book, from surprising to flabbergasting, to frustrating, to maddening, to inspiring uncontrolled facial twitches.

The first surprising thing, for a professional of his stature, is a penchant for simply asserting things which the argument at hand seems to demand that he prove. He says it, so it must be correct.

One such instance of that is in the very first sentence of this chapter:

“The New Testament church taught that Jesus Christ died for all people.” [p.11]

Oh, well then. I guess we’re done. Here I was thinking 71 pages was laughable for disproving Calvinism, and Page has undone the whole system on page 11. I guess the following 60 must be all “filler.”

Here’s another instance of the same penchant, from page 12:

“There was no question in the hearts of the New Testament church as to the God-given ability of all persons to respond to God’s invitation.”

Again, no Scripture is brought to bear, but I guess we’re to believe that this declaration is all we need to undo the doctrine of Total Depravity. Hey, if the early church had “no question” about this, I guess we shouldn’t either.

So, with two completely unsupported assertions, Page has proven that no one in the early church believed in either Total Depravity or Limited Atonement. Man! Look how fast he’s dispatching the petals of the TULIP! Two sentences, two doctrines undone.

And in the very next paragraph, he drops the names of some early church Fathers, “Barnabas, Clement and Ignatius, etc.” [p.12], and without even a single citation or quote, confidently asserts they believed that salvation “was a God-given gift which could be received or rejected.”

Ding, ding, ding. Three shots, three shooting gallery ducks dropped! Wave bye-bye to the notion of Irresistable Grace (even though it will become apparent that Page doesn’t understand it.) Who can stand before such powerful argumentation?

Then he lists four early Church Councils, as a way of showing that the church was unified against heresies. He lists Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. I note that one council he didn’t mention was the Council of Orange, which occurred a little after Chalcedon, and which, by the way, happens to affirm a lot ideas that are now associated with Calvinistic thought.

Another surprising misstep by the holder of the Ph.D. is a particularly glaring argumentation error (not the last, either, as the progression of the book will prove.)

Page has already dogmatically asserted that “There was no question in the hearts of the New Testament church as to the God-given ability of all persons to respond to God’s invitation.” [p.12] On the surface, which is all we have, because he doesn’t bother to explain what he means by this, this declaration goes beyond classic Arminianism (which affirms Total Depravity in regards to fallen man’s native state.) It seems to assert that everyone has the native ability to obey the Gospel, and thereby be declared “righteous” in God’s act of justification. God has allowed that every sinner should have the natural ability to decide to be righteous.

Okay, then later, on page 14, in mentioning Pelagius, Page seems to endorse the church Council’s finding that Pelagianism was/is heresy. He summarizes Pelagianism as the belief “that every person could choose to sin, or choose to be righteous.”

Hmmm. One wonders which it is for Page. Does every person have the ability to choose to be righteous? Is that the consistent, unquestioned belief of the New Testament church? Or is that appropriately labeled as heresy?

Because he has effectively asserted both. Yes, the church believed this. And yes, the church uniformly condemned this a little later.

A third penchant that can only be scholarly sloppiness is one for asserting things that “Calvinists believe” which you could never find a Calvinist to agree to.

For instance, on page 17, he says that Calvin’s belief in God’s sovereignty in salvation caused him to substitute “this belief for the biblical view of salvation by grace through faith!”

Really, Dr. Page? You think Calvin displaced salvation by grace through faith? You think any Calvinist on the planet believes something other than salvation by grace through faith? This is disheartening stuff to read.

Then Dr. Page trots out the mournful violin to lament the Synod of Dort, and how unfair it was for a bunch of Calvinistic ministers to strongly reject the overtures of the Arminian Remonstrants. The deck was stacked! The jury was all Calvinistic, and the Arminians had no vote! “This well known historical fact is for some reason totally absent from most books extolling the virtues of Calvinism which emanate from the Synod of Dort!” [p.18]

Cry me a river. If I go to Philadelphia to watch a game between the Eagles and my Cowboys, and I not only wear my colors but shout incessantly that all Eagles fans should convert to the true faith and become Dallas fans, it is really dumb of me to then lament the fact that I got my butt handed to me by a bunch of drunks in Jaworski jerseys.

So, you demand to be heard in a court of Calvinists and then complain when they hold to their Calvinism. Oh, the injustice!! How devilish that man-made system must be! What a kangaroo court it was! For shame, for shame.

Lastly, Page feels the need to deal with the fact that the greatest Baptist preacher ever, CH Spurgeon, was a Calvinist, and a tremendously successful evangelist to boot. He does this by pointing out that Spurgeon despised the Hyper-Calvinists. Which is true, but I’m left wondering what effect this is supposed to have on anything. Calvinists routinely label Hyper-Calvinism as grave error at best, and heresy at worst. I think Page wants to make it look like Spurgeon wasn’t really a Calvinist, because he preached the Gospel to large crowds and urged people to repent and trust in Christ.

It’s the old canard that Calvinism is opposed to evangelism and the universal proclamation of the Gospel, and it’s as wrong here as it is everywhere else.

Page 20, and I’m already wondering how low this can go.