JP Holding's critique of unconditional election

[john_Mark]

Holding's article is entitled Un Conditioning: A Foray Into the Doctrine of Unconditional Election .

The article starts by telling us that the U is probably the most controversial of all the TULIP. Maybe, maybe not depending on the individual. My experience has been that the L has been the most controversial and toughest to except. Which is probably a reason for Amyraldianism. Just wanted to point this out.

Holding then starts off with a few strawman examples using Ephesians 1:11 which he admits are facetious.

Mark 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

As I have noted elsewhere, "All things? Including the living habits of sea slugs?" The example is facetious, but nevertheless makes a certain point. "All things" is not a literal expression but has contextual limits; the phrase expresses completeness within a context.

Then he goes on to put forth the question that establishes somewhat of a wrong starting point, In my humble opinion.

And the question then arises: Does God need to decree and cause, actively, every movement of a finger to accomplish His purpose? And does suggesting that He does not somehow denigrate Him?

If we are to learn about God and His actions from what He's revealed to us in Scripture then our standard should be Scripture. Questions like "Does God need to do x,y or z" beg the question of: Does God need to do anything He's done? Rather we need to look at what Scripture tells us of the hows and whys of God's actions in as much as it's revealed to us.

Holding does, however, go on from here to expound further on his questions of God's decreeing.

That's a start for now.......