The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum MJM, 5-Point Calvinism and the Bible

First, welcome, MJM! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" />

MJM said in the Essentials thread:


What caused this? Why do you think you were wrong to accept 5-point Calvinism as Biblical? How would you describe your current beliefs?

Hi SemperReformanda,

Thanks for the welcome.


> "What caused this?"

A number of reasons played a part in my decision to reject Calvinism. First, I became despondent with the attitude and behaviour of certain Christians within the Reformed circle for reasons I cannot divulge here. Suffice it to say that I felt one could so easily wrap themselves up in the "truths" of the doctrines of grace, and yet fail to demonstrate the love and mercy of Jesus Christ in their lives.

Of course, this did not "cause" me to reject Calvinism. There can be a lack of Christ-likeness in both camps (i.e. in Calvinist and Arminian Christians). But it did lead me to (1) examine my own life, and (2) re-examine Calvinian theology which I had cherished for so long.

After studying the arguments from both sides, I began to doubt my belief in the Calvinian view of God's divine decree, in which God determines human decisions, and even human sinfulness. After that I saw huge flaws in the doctrine of unconditional election, especially as it related to the justice and mercy of God and the responsibility and accountability of moral agents.


> "Why do you think you were wrong to accept 5-point Calvinism as Biblical?"

I don't think I was "wrong" to accept Calvinism. Immediately after the Lord saved me, I found myself in a Reformed Baptist church where I was told that Arminianism taught a "different gospel". I read books by Boettner and Berkhof, incl. Calvin's Institutes, etc. So I think I was rather ignorant of what Arminians really believe. And I do believe that most Calvinists have misrepresented what Classical Arminians believe. This is clear from Pilgrim's response to me in the essentials thread, where he said, "the theology of Arminianism ... denies the doctrines of Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus". This is simply not true. And I can quote sources from Arminians, including Jacob Arminius, to prove it.


Also, I wouldn't say that Calvinism is "unbiblical". Again, to do so would be to place my Reformed brethren outside of the Body of Christ. Rather, I would say that I agree with the Arminian interpretation of predestination than the Calvinist's. I may believe that Calvinists are sincerely wrong in what they believe, but I would never say that they are believing in "heresy" or a "different gospel".


> "How would you describe your current beliefs?"


Reformed Arminianism <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Yours in Christ,
MJM

With what you wrote it appears your decision is based on feelings (i.e. (1) I became despondent with the attitude and behavior of certain Christians, (2) Suffice it to say that I felt), and without Scriptural support (you supplied none in your post).

Could you please give Scriptural support to your statements and explain more to the point what you mean by:

• (1) “I began to doubt my belief in the Calvin view of God's divine decree, in which God determines human decisions, and even human sinfulness,”
• (2) “After that I saw huge flaws in the doctrine of unconditional election, especially as it related to the justice and mercy of God and the responsibility and accountability of moral agents,”
• (3) “And I do believe that most Calvinists have misrepresented what Classical Arminians believe. This is clear from Pilgrim's response to me in the essentials thread, where he said, "the theology of Arminianism ... denies the doctrines of Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus". This is simply not true. And I can quote sources from Arminians, including Jacob Arminius, to prove it.”
• (4) “Rather, I would say that I agree with the Arminian interpretation of predestination than the Calvinist's.

MJM said, now he believes in:
There is no such thing, <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" /> but all Arminians do need reforming. But, if you think you can prove that you are, please do so from Scripture <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

(Fred) With all due respect Joe, there is such a thing as "Reformed Arminianism." The word "Reformed" is not exclusive to Calvinistic thought and no Calvinist, at least in my opinion, should think he has a corner of exclusivity with its usage. Dr. Robert Picirilli of the Free Will Baptist College in Nashville asserts his position as a Reformed Arminian and wrote a book on the subject defending it. There is a gracious review of it written by Roger Nicole found here at the Founders website:

Founder Journal reviews

Scroll down to the fourth review.

And I have reviewed that book at my own site, which I think I have linked here on other posts in the past:

Picirilli Review

The FWB consider themselves "Reformed" in the sense that they affirm Jacob Arminius's initial theology that he articulated before his death. Reformed Arminians embrace the substitutionary view of the atonement as opposed to later Arminian development (with in the first generation of Arminianism) of the governmental view of the atonement developed by the lawyer Grotius. Reformed Arminianism also embraces the five solas of the Reformation. So as much as we Calvinist may crinkle our noses at the thought of Arminians holding to Reformed thought, I believe it is being historically dishonest to blanketedly claim there is "no such thing."

However, on the other hand, the fact that historical Reformed Arminianism had to "adjust" its theology, almost immediately after Arminius's followers published their Remonstrants, demonstrates the bald inconsistency of the entire system. Honest, Bible believing Arminians cannot affirm the 5 solas for too long before their system implodes upon itself, because it cannot withstand any meaningful exegetical criticism. I think some of the more thoughtful critics of Reformed Arminianism in recent years has been from the Open Theism camp. They are honest enough to recognize the problems inherent with Arminianism.

Also, Arminius himself was heavily influenced by Molina and middle knowledge, even though he picked and chose those parts of molinism that he favored for his interest. Reformed Arminians tend to gloss over this fact and pretend there is nothing to that, though it reveals that Arminius gained a lot of his thinking from Roman Catholicism rather than the theology of the Reformation.

Anyhow, I will be curious to read how our new friend will defend his theology. I am always eager to learn from dissenters.

Fred

With all due respect Fred my point (which I am sure you understood) is that one can not be a full Calvinist and an Arminian at the same time. The two systems conflict. Contrary to what MJM said, "they are different gospels." This is what MJM was referring to (never mentioning any idea of Nichole's article) and was what I was commenting on. MJM said, "I may believe that Calvinists are sincerely wrong in what they believe," which reveals he is Arminian (or, ?), not Calvinist, Reformed, et. al. We do not wish to add even more confusion to an already confused state of the soul--this is not a good apologetic.

MJM said:
"After that I saw huge flaws in the doctrine of unconditional election, especially as it related to the justice and mercy of God and the responsibility and accountability of moral agents."

Unfortunately, what Arminian doctrine, in effect, says is that there are standards outside of God - that He must live by. So for example, they would say that God would not be merciful if He foreordained some to election and some to reprobation. Why? Based on what standard is that not merciful? Upon what standard is it unjust?

Joe,

From what I gather from MJM and Fred, MJM might have been using the term, "Reformed" in the sense that he was referring to Arminianism which flowed from the Protestant Reformation in that it too shared in the breaking away from the RCC. In other words, he might be be using the word "Reformed" in a strict historical sense and not a theological one. To say the least, to do so, IF that is the case and perhaps MJM will be kind enough to explain what he REALLY intends to convey by the use of the word, "Reformed", it does lend itself to confusion.

Be that as it may, even the purest form of Arminianism, i.e., that espoused by Jacob Arminius and expressed in the Remonstrance, is still heretical and contrary to biblical teaching as it is inherently self-contradictory. For example, the affirmation of a substitutionary atonement cannot be consistently upheld by also affirming a universal atonement. And again, Sola Gratia cannot be held when one also affirms Free-will.

I am sure we ALL would like to see MJM defend his position. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Hi MJM!!

You quoted:

"After studying the arguments from both sides, I began to doubt my belief in the Calvinian view of God's divine decree"

I am genuinely curious what materials did you study on both sides?? What did you read on the Arminian side that made you change your mind?? Now I am pretty familiar with this label because I go to an "Arminian" church right now! Have you read some of the stuff I have??

Now ironically I am kind of in the opposite position of you. I have been in "Arminian" churches all of my Christian life and now just in the last few months (and a big part because of this web site) I have discovered that alas there is a "label" and a name to the theology that I have always kind of always "known" in my heart - Reformed theology. And indeed I have to also agree (from what I've read so far) that Arminianism does counter greatly with the 5 Solas and I can attest that from my experience in my current church. My eyes have been so opened to these 2 views!!

I hope you will dialouge here. This is a discussion board and it takes time to talk and learn here.

Janean

Perhaps he was using the term Reformed as you and Fred are saying? If so, he was not consistent:

Clearly, taking MJM’s words in their context he’s using the terms Reformed and Calvinist, Calvinism, and Calvinian synonymously above. Thus, I do not think his foregoing statements are using the word Reformed in a strict historical sense…., but in a theological one. Of course with statements like, “I wouldn't say that Calvinism is unbiblical" contrasted to "Calvinists are sincerely wrong in what they believe,” it is already confusing at best! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

My point exactly. I use the word "Reformed" alongside Arminianism in that sense of the word (i.e. 5 sola's).

Joe, when I speak of "Reformed theology" I'm referring to TULIP.

The question REMAINS is how you embrace and define the 5 solas. Please explain each "sola" in detail using Scripture to defend each of your positions? Please give definitions for "terms" as well. Congratulations on your achievements of earning a L.Th & B.Th. BTW.

Hi Janean,


On the Calvinian side I used:

(1) "Institutes of the Christian Religion" (Calvin)
(2) "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" (Boettner)
(3) "Systematic Theology" (Berkhof)
(4) "Chosen by God" (Sproul)
(5) "Born Slaves" (Luther)
(6) "Freedom of the Will" (Edwards)
(7) "No Other God" (Frame)

On the Arminian side, I used:

(1) "Introduction to Christian Theology" (Wiley)
(2) "Grace, Faith, Free Will" (Picirilli)
(3) "The Grace of God and the Will of Man" (Pinnock, et al.) * Good collection of Arminian essays, but there are a couple of Open Theist essays.
(4) "Grace Unlimited" (Pinnock, et al.) *Pinnock was still an Arminian here, before he embraced Open Theism, which I believe is aberrant.
(5) "Why I am not a Calvinist" (Walls)
(6) "Election & Predestination" (Fisk)

Also used "four views" books such as "Predestination & Free Will" (Basinger), and "Debating Calvinism" (White & Hunt).

Yours in Christ,
Michael

Interesting list, but why do you believe Arminianism has a better interpretation of Scripture and a better grasp on the whole of Scripture?

Hi Joe,

You had written:


My decision to reject Calvinism was not based on feelings. As I said in my previous post, this did not "cause" me to reject Calvinism. However, it did cause me to re-examine Calvinian theology.



Allow me to deal with one point at a time:

For me, the weakest link in Calvinism was their view of God's exhaustive divine sovereignty in that God, by his divine decree, had determined and foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. Reformed theologian, John Frame, says, "God brings about our free decisions. He does not foreordain merely what happens to us, but also what we choose to do" (No Other God, 2001, p. 65). Notice that Frame says, "free decisions". Here he has stated an oxymoron. How can our decisions be free if God determines what decisions we should make?

Perhaps James Sire's description of Deism best describes Calvinism's deterministic worldview:

[In Deism] the universe is closed to human reordering because it is locked up in a clocklike fashion... Fenelon put his finger on a major problem within deism: human beings have lost their ability to act significantly. We can only be puppets. If an individual has personality, it must then be a type which does not include the element of self-determination. (The Universe Next Door, 1997, p. 45)


According to Reformed theology, God not only predetermined our decisions, but also our sinful actions! Again, Frame says, "However we address the problem of evil, our response must be in accord with the great number of Scripture passages that affirm God's foreordination of everything, even including sin" (No Other God, 2001, p. 68). Of course, this would make God the author of sin, so Calvinists such as Paul Helm, Loraine Boettner, and RC Sproul have attempted to respond along the lines that God ordains evil only in the sense of "willingly permitting it" (Helm in Divine Foreknowledge, 2001, 158-9).

First of all, this contradicts the statements of other Reformed theologians who taught that God causes people to sin (e.g. see Martin Luther, Born Slaves, 1984, p. 67). And secondly, it contradicts the Calvinian assertion that God's eternal decree is unconditional and not based on his foreknowledge (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 1958, p. 105). In other words, if God permits sinful actions, he has to know beforehand that it will occur. But then God's foreordination or permission of sinful actions is based on his foreknowledge, it is dependent on human actions, and God&#8217;s decree is conditional.

When one reads the biblical narratives in the Old Testament, one does not have a picture of a closed system where human actions are the result of an all-determining, unconditional and forceful decree. Instead, God's plans and purposes are a reaction, or response, to man's free (in the true sense of the word) will and actions. For example, man freely rebelled and sinned against God. God reacted in judgment, but also in mercy. God foreknew that man would fall, and thus, in eternity past he purposed / determined to send his Son into the world in order to save the world (Jn. 3:16; Acts 2:23).

Because of sin, man often rebels against God, resisting and rejecting his will for their lives (Lk. 7:30; Acts 7:51). Their rebellious actions are outside of the will of God. Yet, God permits them to reject his purposes because they are free will beings.

On the other hand, Calvinists believe that nothing is outside of the will of God, even when people sin, for their sinful actions may oppose God's preceptive will (i.e. his desires, precepts, laws), but not his decretive will (foreordination of everything). This view of the will of God is incompatible with moral responsibility. Allow me to illustrate by way of a true story:

A few months ago, a young lady was kidnapped from her college and held to ransom. Leigh's father paid the kidnappers R50 000, but she was never returned. In the end, the kidnappers deliberately decided to take her life by firing 3 gunshots into her body. So Calvinists would have us believe that this monstrous act was against God's preceptive will, but not his decretive will. God did not desire that Leigh should be murdered, but according to his eternal purpose, he foreordained it. God did not desire or want the kidnappers to murder Leigh, but it was his purpose that they should decide to murder Leigh.

I would contend that God did not desire that Leigh should be murdered, neither was it his purpose that the kidnappers should murder Leigh. Yet, the omnipotent God permitted it. Why? Here is an extensive quote from C. S. Lewis who, I believe, best expressed the answer:

God created things which had free will&#8230; And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata &#8211; of creatures that worked like machines &#8211; would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight&#8230; And for that they must be free. Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk. Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with Him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes&#8230; If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will &#8211; that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings &#8211; then we may take it, it is worth paying. (Mere Christianity, 1997, pp. 39-40)

Welcome to our little place. Please enjoy your stay and thanks for replying in a gracious manner. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

Could you show from scripture that man has free-will?

MGM
Risk? Risk what? Didn't God know the outcome already?


How do you make the atonement both universal AND vicarious?

MGM
If Gods purpose was to save the entire world, did He fail? Or are you supporting a merely possible salvation?


God bless,

william

Thank you for your reply <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" />


How can God be God and not know all things? If He knows them (which He does) and permits them (yes free decisions--), how can He not be the Determiner (in some form) of them all (compare: Lk 6:45 w/ Prov 21:1 & Ps 33:5 and then Rom 9:17 w/ Ex 9:16, 12:36, 14:4, and of course, Prov 16:1, 9; 19:21, etc.)? As Frame further says (page 65, footnote), “Inference may be made on the basis of God’s exhaustive knowledge of the future. If God knows our free decisions before we are born, then certainly we are not the ultimate source of them.” Do you believe in a god who is not all-knowing or have an exhaustive knowledge of the future (called, open theism)? Is this your theology, if so please provide personal biblical proof and exegesis?


Man is not a puppet, but, the Scripture also teaches that God is not a puppet, but you make Him one with you definition of free decisions, for God in your estimation must not know the future and be at the unending, but conflicting free-will (Arminian) of all His creatures…. How can there be any order in the universe? Please compare what you and Fenelon assert with Acts 2:23.

Your problem basically appears in the rest of your post to deal with the problem of evil—which is of course a mystery as is the freedom of the will and the sovereignty of God, the Trinity, etc. Thus, let me attempt to shed some light on this by asking you a question(s).

If God cannot prevent the corruption of rational beings, then how is He able to make some creatures incorruptible (glorified saints, angels)? If He can, but chooses not to, then the problem of evil recurs at a different level: why did He choose not to prevent the fall? Will you be free to sin when you get to Heaven?

Joe,

As I also wrote, I wanted to hear (read) how MJM himself defined the word "Reformed" before making any wrong assumptions. And, he has done just that by saying he is using the word "Reformed" to be representative and synonymous with the "Five Solas". So, a "Reformed Arminian" is one who holds to the Five Solas AND to Arminianism which totally rejects the Five Solas as they were penned originally. Doubtless, MJM has REdefined the terms to suit some personal reason. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

The historic definition and understanding of the Five Solas are summed up nicely here: The Cambridge Declaration, which I am particularly linking for the benefit of MJM and anyone else who might care to read them for the first time or as a refresher. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Okay.... now to focus upon MJM's "god" who lives out its existence as a thermometer in contradistinction to the LORD God Almighty of the Bible Who is more like a thermostat.

Simply put IMHO he has made the "wrong assumption" thinking he can mix the terms 5 sola and Arminianism. I can refine a cat to be a rat, but that does not mean my cat is a rat (though it may look like a rat, that is fat and taking a nap). IMHO he holds to the 5 solas in word only, but his further explanation of them and his god will I am sure reveal in actuality he does not hold to them the way we do ......, thus in actuality there is no such thing as Reformed Arminianism (5 sola Arminianism), but in his dreams--which are but a nightmare of his own depraved imagination as opposed to the Word of God. Even as Fred posted, "Arminians cannot affirm the 5 solas for too long before their system implodes upon itself, because it cannot withstand any meaningful exegetical criticism."

And I agree 100%! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

(Fred) There is just way too much stuff to handle at once, so I will just deal with one aspect of your post. The Bible is clear that all men will die and the reason we die is due to our sin. Would you agree with that? The early chapters of Romans affirms this truth. Also, Hebrews 9:27 states that it is appointed unto men once to die, then the judgment. One nuance of Hebrews 9:27 is that men have an appointment with death and I believe God is the one who sets that appointment. Death is the inevitable outcome of all humanity, even Christians, except for those who are alive at the coming of the Lord. God has determined the deaths of every person who has ever and will live as he sees fit.

However, with the illustration you mention above, you would seem to disagree with that. I agree that Leigh being shot to death is a horrific crime, but her murder was an appointed means by which she was brought to her appointed meeting with death and judgment. My father suffered with the lingering, paralyzing effects of a massive stroke for nearly a month before he died that robbed him of his ability to move, talk, and communicate with his family. How was his death, according to your position, any less cruel? At least with Leigh, she was killed instantaneously. Was God not in control of those events in my father's life? It would seem from your belief system that God apparently was not and that if the biblical Calvinist view of God were true, then God is a torturous monster with regards to my father. However, our family saw the whole event as a faith building time that eventual brought my dad into the presence of his Lord at death.

Your position, by raising this illustration of the murdered girl seems to suggest that it is cruel of God to allow anyone to die at all. I guess you think the least amount of cruelity would be to let all people die peacefully in their sleep after they have concluded their lives with absolute joy and happiness with the absence of any trials.

I was particularly disturbed by the sheer lack of any meaningful exegesis your post contained. I have to confess that I did find your advocated position to be more philosophically driven by emotional considerations than built around the Bible. My wife and I are currently doing our daily Bible reading in Isaiah. Yesterday, we came across a rather disturbing prophecy made by Isaiah in chapter 13. God speaks through Isaiah against Babylon and states that he will bring destruction against their nation. In fact, God even states that he will bring "Cruel destruction" (13:9) and goes on to outline that cruel destruction by stating he will have women raped and little children dashed to pieces and any pregnant women will be eviscerated. Sounds to be graphic. Was God wrong to have moved with such judgment?

Fred

I'd like to add to Fred's comments with text from Boettner's "Objections Answered", from the section on God not being the author of sin:

MJM- If you're reading this, you might feel a bit ganged up upon witha ll these responses and challenges. Remember, though, we're arguing against issues, not people, so don't take things personally! We love a good discussion and eagerly await your responses.

Henry,

Thanks, brother. I'm bound by what the Scriptures say, and I'm convinced that the Lord is Sovereign over all things. That's why I speak the truth in love.

So God's will can be thwarted? Is God really in charge, if God's purposes can be thwarted? How would you respond to the following Scriptures?:


If God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love Him, to those called according to His purpose, then doesn't it follow that God is in control of all things? According to this passage, if Leigh had a Christian sibling or was a Christian herself, Leigh's death was for the good. In fact, it was for the good of all Christians! As my pastor put it once, "every atom bouncing off the walls is for our good." And, if God's will and purpose can be thwarted, how can we trust that this will happen?



I found this interesting in that the Psalmist attests God's sovereignty, and then he attests to the fact that man is responbsible for his own sin.

Hi all,

I've attempted to answer most of the comments and questions posed by William, Joe, Fred and Marie. Apologies if I haven't answered all of them.


(1) WILLIAM:

You asked:

> "Could you show from scripture that man has free-will?"

It is implicit in the creation of man in the image of God that we possess a free-will.

Man being created in the natural likeness of God presupposes that he was created with a relative amount of autonomy to rule over the lower order of creation (Gen. 1:28). And man being created in the moral likeness of God (cf. Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10) presupposes that he was created with the faculty or ability to either obey or disobey God. The intellectual and moral responsibility of man is indispensable to the existence of free will, even after the fall of man and entrance of sin into the world.

Even with an inherited sinful nature, Cain was a free moral agent who had the ability to master sin by not murdering Abel (Gen. 4:7). So although the image of God in man is corrupted and distorted because of the fall, he nevertheless continues to reflect the moral image and likeness of God (Gen. 9:6; Jas. 3:9).


> "If Gods purpose was to save the entire world, did He fail?"

As a Calvinist I also used to reason this way: If God desires that all should be saved, but we know that all are not saved, then God's will must be thwarted (but, of course, I couldn't believe that humanistic Arminian interpretation!!!). So, either (1) God truly desires, out of his benevolence, that all should be saved (cf. Ezek. 18:23, 32), but it is not his elective purpose to save all. Or (2) "all" does not refer to every individual person, but rather, to classes or groups (v. 2).

However, (2) does not hold water since groups are made up of all individuals. And (1) is extremely puzzling and illogical, for God desires that all should be saved, and yet, he witholds his saving grace from them!


(2) JOE:

> "If He knows them (which He does) and permits them (yes free decisions--), how can He not be the Determiner (in some form) of them all?"

Determiner of free decisions in what sense? In God being the First Cause of those decisions?

Loraine Boettner says that God foreknows what will occur because he has, according to his good pleasure, "freely and unchangeably foreordain[ed] whatever comes to pass" (Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 46). In other words, God foresees all events and actions because they have been fixed and rendered certain according to his good pleasure &#8211; "the great first cause".

Therefore, it is my contention that if Calvinists maintain that human actions are fixed and set, not according to God's foreknowledge of them, but according to his good pleasure, then the Calvinian claim that God only permits sin is totally misleading. In the end, God is the first cause of all human actions, including sinful ones.

> "Do you believe in a god who is not all-knowing or have an exhaustive knowledge of the future (called, open theism)? Is this your theology, if so please provide personal biblical proof and exegesis?"

No, I do not believe in Open Theism. In my post to Janean, I said that OP is aberrant. God is all-knowing.

> "Man is not a puppet..."

If man can make a free decision, then by definition, it was possible for him to decide otherwise. But Calvinian theology says that man's decisions are determined by an unconditional, efficacious decree. In my estimation this does indeed make man a puppet on the strings of causal determinism.


> " ... but, the Scripture also teaches that God is not a puppet, but you make Him one with you definition of free decisions, for God in your estimation must not know the future."

As I said above: I believe that God does know the future. God is not a puppet. God foreknows all of the future free decisions of man, and, in lieu of his foreknowledge of them, he sometimes turns the hearts of men (Pro. 21:1) or prevents them from fulfilling their plans (Pro. 16:9) in order to accomplish his own purposes (Pro. 19:21). Man's freedom is limited. God is still sovereign.


(3) FRED:

> "There is just way too much stuff to handle at once..."

Totally agree... but we seem to be progressing <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


> "The Bible is clear that all men will die and the reason we die is due to our sin. Would you agree with that?"

Of course. By the way, sorry to hear of your father's death. I'm glad to hear that he knew the Lord. My wife and I have just been to visit a friend in hospital who is dying of cancer. What the disease has done to her body is pretty horrific. Please pray for Margie as she is not a Christian, but it is clear that the Holy Spirit is working in her life as she is afraid to die and wants to know more about God and Jesus Christ. My wife shared the gospel with her and we prayed for her salvation (in her presence). We've given her a book by John Blanchard, "Ultimate Questions". (Heard of it?)

As you pointed out, at some time death will be knocking on all of our bodies unless the Lord returns.

I believe, however, that you may have misunderstood my point about Leigh's death because I am not suggesting "that it is cruel of God to allow anyone to die at all". Perhaps you will understand my point if I ask the following questions:

(i) Did God foreknow what would happen to Leigh, and permitted it?
(ii). Did God foreordain the means to Leigh's death? (Remember, according to Calvinists, foreordination is not based on God's foreknowledge because God is the First Cause of "whatsoever will come to pass".)
(iii) Did God bring about the decisions of the kidnappers to murder Leigh?
(iv) If God did not foreordain the kidnapper's decision to murder Leigh, could they have chosen otherwise?

Just a simple "yes" or "no" to each question would suffice (and be much appreciated).


(4) MARIE / Semper Reformanda

> "So God's will can be thwarted? Is God really in charge, if God's purposes can be thwarted?"

Yes, God's will can be thwarted (Lk. 7:30; Acts 7:51). And, yes, God is in charge in spite of the sinful actions of men (Gen. 50:20). It is not God's will for us to plot murder or sell people into slavery againt their will (as in the case of Joseph's brothers), but God used their sinful actions to bring about his ultimate purpose: "the saving of many lives". However, in order to accomplish his purpose, God did not bring about the evil thoughts or actions of Joseph's brothers. Yet, Calvinian theologians would have us believe that God did (John Frame & RC Sproul). This would make God the author of sin.


> "If God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love Him, to those called according to His purpose, then doesn't it follow that God is in control of all things? According to this passage, if Leigh had a Christian sibling or was a Christian herself, Leigh's death was for the good."

Yes, if Leigh was a Christian, I believe that God WORKED, not CAUSED, this situation for the good, especially in lieu of the fact that she would be with him in heaven. I'm not disputing God's sovereignty. Please see my response to Fred and my questions to him.


> "I found this interesting in that the Psalmist attests God's sovereignty, and then he attests to the fact that man is responbsible for his own sin."

Yes, God does whatever he pleases. But does he cause men to sin? Calvinists would answer no, but then, affirm (their view of) sovereignty by saying that God does foreordain sin. You can't have it both ways.

Yours in Christ,
Michael

In my response to William I said:

"If God desires that all should be saved..."

Forgot to add the reference: (1 Tim. 2:4)

Michael

The semi-Pelagian and Arminian position is easily and thoroughly refuted here:

An Exegetical Study of 1Timoth 2:4.

<script language="JavaScript" src="includes/ubbt_blink.js"></script><span id="blink"><blink>ENJOY!</blink></span><script language="JavaScript">blink();</script>

Jesus says otherwise;

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (KJV)

The Church denounced free-will as heresy as well.

You even contradict yourself concerning it...

I think we might serve a different God. Mine is omnipotent.


God bless,

william

If He is not then He is not sovereign? See below…


Yep, isn’t it grand that God is He who is—God, who can do all things according to His holy nature. Just like Him to do something MJM (or anyone) can’t fully understand. I guess that is what He gets for being the boss. Being God has its privileges.


Yes, your contention is Arminian—. Though God is the FIRST CAUSE of all that has/will/can happen He may do this without violating the “free agency” of man and thus hold man accountable for sin. He does this as only God himself can do it (Acts 2:23). May I ask you as God does in Scripture, “Who art thou that repliest against God” (Rom 9:20)? Are you the POT going to tell the POTTER He can’t do as He pleases with His creation? Are you an Arminian so willful that you are willing to wave your will in the face of God and tell God His will is wrong?

—I do believe it is better to interact with the Scripture, so once again, how do you exegete Acts 2:23, where we see perfect sovereignty and free agency:



Yes, man can chose otherwise—you got it <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />, but he will chose to make a foreordained choice (for his own various reasons) which God fore-ordained (without being accounted guilty of sin, etc.)—Acts 2:23. Remember I told you it was a mystery. Would the illustration of one of Shakespeare's plays assist here, or have you already dismissed that example?


Now think about your statement here that is dependent only on God’s foreknowledge and not on His fore-ordination of all things. While I do believe as you stated, “Man's freedom is limited” and “God is still sovereign” it is not merely because of God’s foreknowledge—it something more? Ask yourself, “Can God have foreknowledge of something He did not first foreordain?” <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" /> God's foreknowledge and fore-ordination run together as the two sides of an eternal coin. Consider this, if God does not first ordain “something” then He could not be God, but the one who foreordained “it” would be ? Put another way, if God did not first foreordain something then someone else must (or else it would not exist for God to have knowledge of it), and thus he could foreordain that God can no longer be God and have no knowledge of this fact and thus cease to exist—if this where true Satan would have foreordained it long ago. God is not a puppet because He foreordained He would never be one-and He knows it.

Rom 8:29-30

(Fred) I appreciate the sentiment about my dad's death. That was way back in 96. Just out of curiosity, under your view of libertarian autonomy, is it even proper for the holy spirit to work in your friend's life? Would not God be meddling with her will, influencing it in some direction? Yes, I am quite familiar with Blanchard (he's a Calvinist by the way).

I will attempt to be brief. I see you are deluged with a lot of responses to others.

(fred) So the issue with you is the means by which God brings about the person's death? God is not allowed morally to bring about a person's death by the hands of sinners? Say for instance the two fellows beheaded in Iraq this week?

(i) Did God foreknow what would happen to Leigh, and permitted it?
Yes, he not only fore saw what would happen, he ordained it.

(ii). Did God foreordain the means to Leigh's death? (Remember, according to Calvinists, foreordination is not based on God's foreknowledge because God is the First Cause of "whatsoever will come to pass".)
Yes, and it is not just "according to Calvinist;" it is biblical doctrine. God cannot foreknow something that he did not ordain. That suggest there are events that developed in time apart from God's creative act.

(iii) Did God bring about the decisions of the kidnappers to murder Leigh?
If by "bring about the decisions" you mean to say, "Did God force them against their will" then no, God did not force them. He did not force the kidnappers to murder Leigh anymore than he forced the Assyrians to go into Israel, slaughter the nation of people more cruelly than what Leigh suffered (Isaiah 10). Moreover, the Assyrians were the chosen means by which to bring about judgment upon the northen kingdom.

(iv) If God did not foreordain the kidnapper's decision to murder Leigh, could they have chosen otherwise?
No, that would suggest that they could have thwarted God's appointed time for Leigh's death, something that had been determined in eternity past, before he created the world. The question could also be asked of you in regards to a biblical example. Peter specifically states that Jesus was delivered up by the predetermined and ordained purposes of God to be murdered at the hands of the Jews and the Romans. In light of the necessity of fulfilled prophecy, could Pilate had chosen to release Jesus inspite of the Jews demand to crucify him? What about Joseph's brothers who sold him into salvery. Seeing that it was God's preordained intention to save a nation of people alive (Genesis 50:19,20), could Joseph's brothers chosen to be good toward their brother and not mean evil against him? Their evil act was clearly the vehicle God used to save the people.
Fred

Marie,

I hope you didn't take what I said as an apology for the responses you or anyone else have been making. I just know that sometimes new folks here, holding views such as MJM's, sometimes get intimidated by the deluge of well-made arguments and may decide to react in a manner not unlike the behavior of small rodents when dropped into the middle of a pack of Dobermanns. While this may not apply to MJM at all, I was just trying to be friendly.

Keep on "speaking the truth in love"!

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Seriously, I understood what you were saying. I didn't think I or anyone else on here was overstepping any lines. I was just thankful for what you said, and I was reiterating why I speak as I do.

Michael

Whatever others may say, you have thoroughly and vigorously defended your newfound belief. And it is evident by the exhaustive research you've completed, that your change was well thought out, sure and deliberate. Though I disagree with Arminianism and believe its natural conclusion to be along the lines of the Palagean heresies (i.e. that man is morally neutral and can equally choose good or evil), I admire your stout and informed defense.

Life is hard. God is good. Heaven is sure.

catholicsoldier <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />

Have you read your Catechism lately MJM?

Seems to me that the Roman Catholic Church is just as Arminian as MJM So I guess that the magesterium was wrong on this? Looks like their not infallible. Oooops they did it again <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Responses to Joe and Fred:


(1) JOE / Jonathan Edwards

You wrote:

>> "Though God is the FIRST CAUSE of all that has/will/can happen He may do this without violating the &#8220;free agency&#8221; of man and thus hold man accountable for sin."

How can God be the first cause of our sinful actions, and yet hold us accountable to them? Are you saying that God caused me to sin, but I am still accountable for it?


>> "Are you the POT going to tell the POTTER He can't do as He pleases with His creation? Are you an Arminian so willful that you are willing to wave your will in the face of God and tell God His will is wrong?"


Not at all! God is sovereign in showing mercy to us. We do not deserve to be the recipients of his mercy, but if you carry on reading Romans 9:20ff, there is the wonderful truth that he has chosen to show his mercy to the Gentiles who, in Old Testament times, were not his people (vv. 24-25). Paul is not dealing with unconditional election in terms of individual salvation.


>> "I do believe it is better to interact with the Scripture, so once again, how do you exegete Acts 2:23, where we see perfect sovereignty and free agency"


Peter says, "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death..."

This same apostle, later says in his first epistle that Jesus was "chosen before the creation of the world" (1:20). God purposed that his Son should redeem the world through his precious blood (v. 19). The wicked acts of the Jews, however, was according to God's foreknowledge. God foreknew that in sending his Son, the Jews would crucify the Messiah. In other words, God foreknew the free acts of his creatures, and purposed that the Son should be crucified by their wicked hands, because through it, his blood would atone for our sins.

There is nothing in Acts 2:23 which would suggest that God caused the Jews to act sinfully - they did so out of their own free will.


>> "While I do believe as you stated, "Man's freedom is limited..."

Man's limited freedom doesn't meant that he doesn't have free will. Without a free will, there is no freedom (limited or not). I therefore question your statement that you believe man's freedom is limited. According to Calvinism, man is not free - I was taught that he was only free to sin!


>> "it is not merely because of Gods foreknowledge;it something more? Ask yourself, Can God have foreknowledge of something He did not first foreordain?"

I agree that there are certain events which God first foreordained, such as the choosing of Israel as his people, the sending of his Son, and the means of salvation. In this, his foreordination was not based on his foreknowledge. However, sometimes his foreordination is based on his foreknowledge, in particular, individual salvation (e.g. Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:4; 1 Pet. 1:2).


(2) FRED

You wrote:

>> "Would not God be meddling with her will, influencing it in some direction?"

Does meddling equal influencing? Does an irresistible will equal wooing?


>> "So the issue with you is the means by which God brings about the person's death? God is not allowed morally to bring about a person's death by the hands of sinners? Say for instance the two fellows beheaded in Iraq this week?"


The "means" - correct. Did God move the hearts and minds of the terrorists to behead the two Americans?

You said that God foreordained the means to Leigh's death. So are you saying that in order for God to accomplish this murderous act, God must have forced / meddled / persuaded their wills to decide to kidnap and murder Leigh. Correct?

You seem to deny this in your next answer: "If by 'bring about the decisions' you mean to say, 'Did God force them against their will' then no, God did not force them."

Then how did God foreordain the means to Leigh's death without forcing them against their will? Did God foreknow that they were going to do this out of their own free will - for Calvinists do admit that man is free only to sin - and then he foreordained that it should happen as such? If you agree, then you are saying that foreordination is based on his foreknowledge. Of course, Calvinists could never admit to this.

In answer to my question if the kidnappers could have chosen otherwise (i.e. not to murder Leigh), you answered "No". So, they weren't forced to commit the deed, but they couldn't have chosen otherwise? I'm sorry, but the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty and man's accountability is contradictory and illogical.


>> "Peter specifically states that Jesus was delivered up by the predetermined and ordained purposes of God..."

Yes, but you missed out that one word from Acts 2:23: "foreknowledge".


>> "In light of the necessity of fulfilled prophecy, could Pilate had chosen to release Jesus inspite of the Jews demand to crucify him?"

Yes, Pilate could have chosen otherwise, but God foreknew that he wouldn't. Again, "foreknowledge" in Acts 2:23 always seems to go amiss with Calvinists. It did with me.


>> "What about Joseph's brothers who sold him into salvery. Seeing that it was God's preordained intention to save a nation of people alive (Genesis 50:19,20), could Joseph's brothers chosen to be good toward their brother and not mean evil against him? Their evil act was clearly the vehicle God used to save the people."

Yes, God wonderfully USED the evil acts of Joseph's brothers in order to save his people from famine. However, the text doesn't say anywhere that God CAUSED the sinful actions of Joseph's brothers. The brothers could have chosen that which was right, and God would have provided another way of sending Joseph into Egypt.

Yours in Christ,
Michael

Hi Catholic Soldier,

Thanks for your kind words.

Of course, I would have to disagree with your belief that the "natural conclusions" of Arminians would lead to the Pelagian heresies. I know that what I wrote about Cain could have been construed that way, i.e. that man is morally neutral. However, I must point out that I was speaking of free will in regard to moral choices, and not concerning the choice of salvation: "There is no one righteous; no one who seeks God" (Rom. 3:9f). We are not saved by free will, for even if Cain could have chosen otherwise, (i.e. not to murder Abel), it wouldn't have meant that he was right before God for we are justified by faith alone.

My point was: Cain could really have mastered sin, otherwise God wouldn't have asked him to (Gen. 4:7).

Open theism is heresy. Your god is a reactive god. The God of scripture is a proactive God.


Accordingly, Pharaoh could have chosen to do good, despite the Word of God saying otherwise.


God bless,

william

MJM

I thought I would give you something that helped me understand the matter a little better.

This is part of a mock debate between John Gerstner & RC Sproul.

"Dialogue on God’s Sovereignty and Predestination

Gerstner: "If God is sovereign, then it was determined from all eternity that you would be sitting here with me right now."

Sproul: "That makes me a robot."

Gerstner: "Well wait a minute. Are you telling me you didn't choose to come here tonight?"

Sproul: "I did."

Gerstner: "You weren't forced to come here against your will, were you? Did you have a sense of some force inhabiting your body, causing you to be here even though you had chosen not to be?"

Sproul: "No."

Gerstner: "Did you sense something interfering with your will, causing you to do something you didn't want to do, or had no intention of doing?"

Sproul: "No. But how could I have had any choice in the matter when God determined that I was going to be here?"

Gerstner: "But you just told me that you did choose to be here and exercised your will to come tonight. You did have a choice. You did exactly what you wanted to do. You weren't forced here against your will. So however God got you here, it wasn't by forcing you to be here against your will, as if moved involuntarily by a strong wind."

Gerstner's approach was to appeal to the objector's own experience, where they know infallibly that they haven't been forced to do anything against their will, but have always, in every case, done exactly what they had chosen to do. It's tough to keep up the robot argument in the face of that knowledge.

Tom

From what are we saved when we believe in Christ?

What is the need of faith in Christ if we can master sin of our own free will?

How does one accomplish mastery over sin without faith (isn't unbelief a sin itself)?

I have created two other threads for defense of arminian theology. The first one deals with free-will and can be found here, John 3:16 teaches free-will?. The notion that man is capable of choosing to save himself from within a sinful nature was deemed heretical at the Council of Orange. What the arminian claims is that man is merely sick, not dead. This is classical semi-pelagianism.

The second is the dilemma you keep putting forth that is unaccountable if God foreordains everything. It can be found here, Responsibility before God. Let it not be thought that any type of Christian avoids this problem. ALL of Christianity upholds an omnipotent, omnipresent God who foreknew that none would accept Him without intervention. To deny this is to uphold Open Theism which is a heresy. Even if we accept the arminian belief of predestination, God still created people He knew would burn in hell.

You may wish to peruse another thread as well. This one dealt with the wesleyan/pelagian view that man comes to a state of spiritual equipoise. It can be found here, Spiritual Equipoise false. This is another view not taught in scripture, but held by many today.


God bless,

william

Arminianism is semi-pelagianism. If I am wrong, please show this. I have created two other threads for defense of arminian theology. The first one deals with free-will and can be found here, John 3:16 teaches free-will?. The notion that man is capable of choosing to save himself from within a sinful nature was deemed heretical at the Council of Orange. What the arminian claims is that man is merely sick, not dead. This is classical semi-pelagianism.

The second is the dilemma you keep putting forth that is unaccountable if God foreordains everything. It can be found here, Responsibility before God. Let it not be thought that any type of Christian avoids this problem. ALL of Christianity upholds an omnipotent, omnipresent God who foreknew that none would accept Him without intervention. To deny this is to uphold Open Theism which is a heresy. Even if we accept the arminian belief of predestination, God still created people He knew would burn in hell.

You may wish to peruse another thread as well. This one dealt with the wesleyan/pelagian view that man comes to a state of spiritual equipoise. It can be found here, Spiritual Equipoise false. This is another view not taught in scripture, but held by many today.


God bless,

william

(fred) Could you be a little more specific as to your questions? If by influencing and wooing you mean to say does God act directly upon the will of sinners so that they are freed from the blinding aspect of sin and have the ability to come to Christ and most certainly will, then I guess I would have to say yes.


(Fred) God did not force them in the sense that he put a "spiritual" gun to their head and the terrorist, with shaking hands and weepy hearts, killed Leigh against all their moral fiber because they had no other choice. It is better to stay with biblical examples here. Back to Isaiah 10. Did God "force" the Assyrians to attack Israel against their will, or did they freely go? Yet, at the same time, God states emphatically through the prophet Isaiah that He is the one bringing them against Israel. What about Joshua 11:20? God is said to have "hardened the hearts" hearts of the Canaanites to go out against Israel in battle that He might utterly destroy them and that they might receive no mercy. Did God put these Canaanites in a long cattle car train in some Nazi-esque manner where they had no choice, or did they go freely out to battle Israel? On the other hand, did God "force" Abimelech against his will to not have sex with Sarah when God told him, "Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart. For I also withheld you from sinning against me; therefore, I did not let you touch her" (Gen. 20:6). Abimelech's integrity is directly established by the fact God would not allow him to touch her. Essentially, God "forced" him against his will. All of that to say that man's free decisions, whether evil or good, are made in accordance to God's foreordained purposes.


(Fred) Calvinist could never admit to this, because the Bible never admits to this. The Arminian places an artifical distinction between foreordination and foreknowledge. But an omniscience God cannot foreordain anything that he does not foreknow. I would also say that God cannot foreknow anything that he hasn't foreordained. In other words, there is no corner of knowledge any where in God's creation that He cannot know because God has created all things. The Arminians seem to suggest a couple of things:

a) God looks a head in time to see what will happen and then ordains according to the knowledge he gathers. But God is all knowing. How could he even begin to look a head in time to see what will happen? Is there a time continuum that has events playing themselves out apart from God that God, because he has the advantage of being eternal and outside that continuum, can look ahead into so as to establish his decrees?

b) God has granted his creatures some measure of libertarian freedom, including the ability to exercise the choice to determine their spiritual fate. That libertarian freedom can result in a variety of possible contingencies. However, once again, such a position cuts against what we have revealed to us in scripture of who God is. There is no contingency that he could not know, and this position cannot meaningfully explain why the exercise of a libertarian freedom that can result in a variety of possible contingencies will always result in God's will being done anyway. Arminian prof., Dr. Picirrili, concocts this notion of necessary events that some how keep the contingent events in check, so that God's decrees are not thwarted, so to speak. But, the thought of any necessary event overriding a contingent event stabs at the heart of the Arminian's core value of freewill. At some point, man's will has to be "forced," to use your terminology, or prophecy can't even exist in a meaningful manner.


(Fred) It is "contradictory and illogical" because the Arminian is bringing to bear upon the discussion pagan philosophy and loading the definitions of words with unbiblical terminology. Like I stated above, having no ability to chose otherwise does not equate being forced to do something. The men who killed Leigh were not acting against what they wanted to do, hence they were not being forced. Moreover, accountability has nothing to do with ability. This was Pelagius's dilemma. Biblically, accountability/responsibility simply means answerability. In other words, man is held accountable because he is answerable to his creator. A good discussion on this subject can be found in another discussion thread here at the Highway. Some of us engaged a fellow named Mike aka, "koreahog," who raised many of the same objections and problems you have. To save time with not repeating myself, I will direct you to those discussions here: Fred's response to KH. Scroll down to the 12th entry on that page and you will find my fuller discussion on the nature of answerability.


(Fred) No I didn't. Foreknowledge can be translated as "ordained purposes." I would be interested in your definition of foreknowledge, because I think you are mistakenly defining "foreknowledge" as we human's would define foreknowledge, meaning, looking forward in to time. The Bible never uses the word in this manner, especially in decribing the acts of an omniscient God. In a similar cross reference to Acts 2:23, Peter states in Acts 4:27,28, For truly against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do, whatever Your hand and Your purposes determined before to be done. Here, predetermined is a synonym for "foreknow." Like I stated above, God foreknows because he foreordains. He is not some being sitting aloft a skyscrapper able to see the parade from the beginning to the end and is able to see what will happen as the parade rounds a corner. He know what will happen, because he is the creator of the parade and the determiner of its course.


(Fred) Then please explain what you mean. I believe I am basing my definition and understanding of the word foreknowledge upon biblical exegesis. Please show me why my definition is wrong. By the way, if Pilate could have chosen to free Christ, what other way do you think God would have provided to have Jesus crucified as our substitute? Christ had to die in order to save sinners and atone for sin, and I can't see Jesus committing divine suicide.



(Fred) I would agree with you that God did not cause the sinful actions of Joseph's brothers. They sinned against Joseph freely and willingly. The problem with your answer is multifaceted, but the most troubling for me is that your philosophy suggests that there were a variety of options open to God, but somehow willing chose not to intervene to help Joseph or was powerless to do so. It is as if we have God sitting in heaven sighing to himself and saying, "Well, this is not the way I would have preserved my people, but I can't override the freewills of Joseph's brothers, let me see how I can make lemonaide out this big mess of lemons." It implies that God was surprised by what happened and had to move to plan "B." However, in Genesis 45:1-8, Joseph is quite clear that it was God actively sending him into Egypt. All of the contingencies were necessary for Joseph to come to the place of authority that he came for him to act as the preserver of his family and God's people. Those contingencies were unique in what they were and how that played out to raise Joseph through the political ranks of Egypt.

Fred

Hi Fred,

I promised I would respond to your post on foreknowledge, so here goes:


The Greek for "foreknowledge" is "prognosis", and unless I'm mistaken it has never been translated as "ordained purposes". Only in 1 Peter 1:20 has "proginosko" been translated as "foreordained" in the King James Version.

In Acts 2:23 I believe that there is a distinction between "determinate purpose" (Gk. horizo boule) and "foreknowledge" (Gk. prognosis), although they are closely related to each other.


My definition of foreknowledge is simply a dictionary-definition: Knowledge of something before it occurs. I have recently purchased a four views book called God and Time (IVP). I haven't read it yet, so I won't pretend I know (at least not yet) all the philosophical and theological arguments of the matter. At the moment I do know that I hold to a "simple foreknowledge view" as advocated by David Hunt (although the author remains an "agnostic" as to how God knows the future):

"God has complete and infallible knowledge of the future." (Divine Foreknowledge, IVP, 2001, p. 65)

And like Hunt (and Augustine), I believe that God's foreknowledge of what man will do "does not cause, force or coerce him... simply knowing what the person will do is not an interference of any sort" (Ibid, p. 88).



Yes, Acts 4:28 speaks of God's predetermined purposes (Gk. "proorizo boule"). But it doesn't mention anything about an unconditional determinative decree which is not based on foreknowledge. However, if you want to assert that predetermination or foreordination is synonymous with foreknowledge, then that's fine. But I think that such an interpretation is based on one's premise that "God foreknows because he foreordains". But I believe that God foreordains certain events on the basis of his foreknowledge of future volitions (even sinful ones).


You are quite correct. My apologies if I implied this. As I pointed out in my paper on Determinism and Freedom, soft determinists believe that one is free if there are nonconstraining causes that influence their desire to act in the way which God has determined (see p. 12).


Not at all, but again, I deal with this false assertion - Boettner also argued this way - in my paper (see p. 25, esp. the quote from Clines).

God bless,

Michael

I would be very careful about anything put out by IVP, if I am not mistaken it is Roman Catholic.

As to Dave Hunt, if you knew very much about him, I don't think you would have used him in your post. The man lacks credibility to say the least.
For one thing, he believes that CH Spurgeon was not a Calvinist and this is despite even some of his Arminian friends telling him otherwise.

You can find out more about Dave Hunt at the following URL:
http://www.whatloveisthis.com/home.html

Tom

Tom,


"IVP" is, I think, InterVarsity Press. They're not Catholic.

Tom,

I quoted from DAVID Hunt (professor at Whittier College), not the DAVE Hunt of the Berean Call (and "Debating Calvinism").

Yes, IVP is Inter Varsity Press.

Michael

That's because that is the scriptural premise concerning the matter.



The question then arises, what "volitions" have come into existence outside Gods will?


God bless,

william

That is interesting because a few year ago I unknowning ordered a Roman Catholic book on Apologetics. It was put out by IVP.
I have since seen quite a few Roman Catholic books with IVP on them.

Tom

Before we assume that Isaiah 46:9ff teaches an exhaustive divine decree whereby God determines and foreordains everthing which comes to pass, a few observations need to be made:

(1) In context, Yahweh is challenging the existence of the false gods: "There is no God apart from me" (45:21b). The futility of worshipping these so-called gods is that they "cannot save" (45:20); moreover, they are unable to "declare what is to be" (45:21a). Only Yahweh has exhaustive foreknowledge of "what is still to come" (46:10a).

(2) Not only does Yahweh have divine foreknowledge, but he is able to accomplish his purposes, his intentions, through men: "My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. From the east I summon ... a man to fulfil my purpose." (46:10b-11).

The question must be asked, "Is every event and human action and decision the result of God's intention, the fulfillment of his purpose?" For example, is it God's purpose that we sacrifice our children to false gods? The Lord's response is that it is "something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind" (Jer. 7:31). It's pretty difficult to maintain here an exhaustive foreordination of all things when such actions did not enter God's mind. Point is: not everything which happens is the result of God's purpose.

Michael

So God is not omniscient? Again, I ask, what is outside Gods will?


I don't think this verse teaches that God was surprised by anything. The last section is part of a whole verse. It is simply refering to Gods command, not Gods inability to know the future.

If there are things outside Gods control, we no longer have a God who is omnipotent either.


God bless,

william

Tom,

Many Publishers publish many titles from various denominational "types", just like CBD sells many different types of material. Go to their catalog and look around: Catalog.

William,

You asked:


Please try not to misrepresent what I believe. I never said that God is not omniscient. On the contrary I had stated, "Only Yahweh has exhaustive foreknowledge of "what is still to come" (46:10a)".

In citing Jeremiah 7:31 I had asked: "Is every event and human action and decision the result of God's intention, the fulfillment of his purpose?" For example, is it God's purpose that we sacrifice our children to false gods? The Lord's response is that it is "something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind" (Jer. 7:31). It's pretty difficult to maintain here an exhaustive foreordination of all things when such actions did not enter God's mind."

So, my question is to you: Did God foreordain (not foreknow) that they should sacrifice their children to idols? Was it part of his divine decree, not based on his foreknowledge? Was it God's will that they should do such a thing?

Michael

Yes, because God created all things. How could anything exist unless God created it? Therefore, in creating this world, God foreknew every event because God decreed the order. Did God create this world around already existing circumstances and events? I do not misrepresent your position, I elaborate on it.

How could God see their time-bound action of faith "before" it actually happened and then act in a time-based relation to it; predestining, et pass? You have placed linear time constraints on what goes on in the eternal. This the god of open theism, a reactive God who is surprised by some things.


Your claim that this passage is a mere diatribe from God against false gods is a little scant. While I will agree that the passage does indeed cover this, I believe it also shows some very serious attributes about Gods very nature.


As I stated before, I disagree that this passage upholds open theism. God, due to His omniscients, knows ALL beforehand. Your post contradicts itself. Earlier you stated that YahWeh had perfect foreknowledge, and then you attempt to use this passage to show otherwise. I don't understand. I don't see any reason to interpret the passage to mean God isn't omnipresent.


Yes. God foreordained to allow those things to happen. However, let's take the other side. What if those things can't be controlled by God?


Now, a question for you. Did God knowingly create people He knew would never believe upon Him?


God bless,

william

averagefellar

Excuse me for budding in here, but I don't think MJM is supporting "Open Theism", because he says God knows the future. I may be wrong, but based on the articles that I have read on Open Theism they believe God does not know the future.
MJM seems to be supporting more the concept of God looking down the corridors of time..., which of course there are still a lot of problems with.
I will clime back into my hole now.

Tom

Joe

You are correct of course. But it seems to me a publisher that does that is more interested in money than ministry. If they were interested in ministry over money, they would realize that by selling material that goes against what they believe, they are in essence saying that doctrine does not matter, let’s just unite under the banner of Jesus.
Which unfortunately I believe is true of a lot of publishers. Even your average Christian book store has books by groups such as Word of Faith, Roman Catholic, etc... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sigh.gif" alt="" />

If I was writing a book and searching for a publisher, I think I would sooner go with a secular publisher than a publisher with that kind of attitude.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rantoff.gif" alt="" />

Tom

What does this have to do with the "original question" that they ONLY publish Catholic works? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

William,

Unfortunately, you are misrepresenting my position. You wrote:


I ALSO disagree that Jeremiah 7:31 upholds Open Theism. I do NOT believe in OT; I believe it is aberrant, and not orthodox Christianity. Ok?

I know OTs use that passage, but the reason why I cited it was to ask you whether God decreed (unconditionally), before the creation of the world, that the people should sacrifice their children?

In response you wrote:


Ah! So you believe that God foreordained those sinful actions in the sense that he ALLOWED them to happen. Well, I agree with that! But the inconsistency within Calvinism is now obvious. They believe that everything which happens ("whatsoever comes to pass") is the result of God's eternal decree (Westminster Confession of faith + 1689 Baptist Confession). This decree, according to Calvinists is unconditional, not based on his foreknowledge. This is seen in the quote you cited from Albert Barnes:


In other words, God foreknows because he has causally determined / foreordained. And now here is the inconsistency of Calvinism: If God merely foreordained to ALLOW the people to sacrifice their children to gods, God would have to have known beforehand (foreknowledge) that it would happen. But then God's foreordination or permission (allowance) of sinful actions is based on his foreknowledge, it is contingent on human actions, and God's decree is conditional.

So which is it? Did God foreordain the sacrifice of children by causing it to happen, based on an unconditional and efficacious decree? Or did he foreknow that it would occur AND ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN? As soon as Calvinists use terminology such as "permission" or "allow", they are contradicting their divine (dark) decree doctrine!

Please don't get upset by what I've written here. My intention is not to slam what you believe, but just to point out the inconsistencies within Calvinism which I battled with for many months.

Yours in Christ,
Michael

I think the matter comes down to the two positions concerning the order of the decrees. I tend to hold to the infralapsarian view but there is also the supralapsarian view which holds some merit. I would suggest a study of both to understand the questions you are asking.

However, I must also say that despite the difficulty in answering the exact ordering of decrees, calvinism is still scripturally defensible whereas the arminian/wesleyan/pelagian views are not. The scriptures simply do not answer every intricacy of truth, but it does offer sufficient knowledge of the truth. I still don't see how this disproves calvinism.


God bless,

william

William,

Yes, I've studied Supra- and Infralapsarianism. (I used to hold to the latter). But, as I've written in my paper on Determinism and Freedom (which Fred will be familiar with), all Calvinists, if they were consistent, should reject Infralapsarianism because if God decreed to permit the fall first, and then determined to predestine an elect people, Infralapsarianism would be based on God&#8217;s foreknowledge of the fall. And if God permitted the fall before he elected, then he had to have foreknown that it would occur. But then God&#8217;s decree that man would fall is based on his foreknowledge, making it dependent and conditional upon the future actions of Adam.

Which brings me back to my question to you: Do you believe that God foreordained the sacrifice of children by causing it to happen, based on an unconditional and efficacious decree? Or do you believe that God foreknow that it would occur AND ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN?

Michael

MJM,

You may have "studied" Calvinism and more in particular Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism, but unfortunately it would appear that you didn't comprehend the truth of what they hold to be true. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

The order of the decree(s) has no bearing upon this issue of "foreknowledge", which you hold to be mere prescience (foreknown facts), which the Scriptures do not teach as the word is not used in that manner. Further, the fact according to the Infra scheme, that God actually decreed the Fall and and then elected and predestinated a remnant to be saved, does not negate the fact that it was God's eternal counsel and not some fictitious prescience of events which didn't exist that determined who would be saved.

The semi-Pelagian/Arminian/Open Theist positions are similar enough in this matter in that they all state that God's observes the actions/decisions of men and upon that basis decrees what shall be. Honestly..... the idea is so preposterous that it really doesn't deserve anyone's time to try and refute it. But the biblical truth must be defended against such novel ideas and have been throughout history. What you are proposing reminds me of something out of the fictional "StarTrek" series. It seems that there is this sub-space anomaly where there exists multiple universes; one actual and the others tentative and in a constant state of flux. I'm sure that Data could explain the phenomena better than I. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

So, you would have us imagine that God sat back and observed a non-existent world where non-existent humans made free-will decisions determined by non-existent secondary causes and upon that basis (foreknowledge) He decreed what would actually be and consequent to that "foreknowledge" created all things. The problems with this scenario are infinite, even at face value. And since I have dealt with them myriad times here over the years, I really don't care to type out yet another detailed response to show the absurdity of this view.

However, what I will say is that even if for the sake of argument, I accepted your premise, i.e., that based upon the foreseen actions of men God determined all things, it would still mitigate against your view for a couple of reasons. (1) If God determines what shall be, then NOTHING can change that and thus "free-will" cannot exist. For God's decree fixes ALL things, including secondary causes and thus any decisions made by men are also fixed and not "free". OR, (2) If the will of men are nonetheless "free", i.e., they are capable of acting contrary to a person's nature, then it is impossible that the end could be absolutely sure. Just these two items alone put you in an inescapable conundrum which none have been able to escape. Other insurmountable problems could be mentioned, e.g., biblical prophecy would be an impossibility, as it could never be guaranteed that it would be perfectly fulfilled in manner or time, etc.

To answer your previous question to William, re: Did God decree that men would sacrifice their children, etc... the answer is unquestionably "Yes!" Equally so, those who did sacrifice their children, did so most freely and in accord with their natures and thus they are accountable for their horrid acts. This is but a mere flash in the pan compared to the crucifixion of the Lord Christ, Who was murdered by the free acts of men which God had foreordained by His determinate counsel. When the Confessions state that God "allows" certain acts of men, it has no reference to some fictitious "foreknowlege" of foreseen events, but rather it is speaking of the manner/means by which God providentially brings these acts to pass; e.g., using secondary causes, which the WCF, for example, makes clear.

John Calvin dealt with this fallacious view centuries ago, when he wrote against Albertus Pighius. See here: Calvin's Calvinism, translated by Henry Cole.

In His Grace,

Greetings again Michael,
I only briefly read over the other posts that were posted since your last one to me. I hope not to repeat anything already addressed by someone else, so I apologize if there is some overlap.


(Fred) In my original point, I was stating that "foreknowledge" can be a synonym for "ordained purposes." The 1 Peter 1:20 verse is a prime example. If God's foreknowledge is mere prescience, as your system seems to advocate, then that means that God had to look ahead in time to see what Christ would do and then ordain his plan of salvation accordingly. However, such a scenerio would introduce a division between the members of the Godhead that the Bible clearly states cannot exist. The Father was unaware of what the son would do UNTIL he gathered the appropriate information and then determined what would happen.


(Fred) There is a slight distinction, but the grammar of the text implies a unique connection that cannot be ignored. Daniel Wallace writes about this verse under his section on the article with multiple substantives:




(fred) It is dangerous to pick out simple dictionary definitions for words in a totally different language, especially non-biblical definitions. My question could be more specifically, "How does the Bible define foreknowledge, and does it comport with your understanding of prescience? I would say no, because as I have already established, a God that knows all things exhaustively (because he created everything to begin with) cannot gather information on which to base his decrees. Such a notion is contradictory to his nature.



(Fred) Does the fulfillment of prophecy fall into the category of an unconditional determinative decree? Why or why not?



(Fred) I haven't read through your paper just yet; I am eager to do so. However, I am rather stunned to how a theological myopia has clouded your vision to the problems inherent with your position. You affirm God has exhaustive knowledge of all future events and I would heartily pat you on the back for thinking correct about this. But you seem to suggest in some of your reponses to other folks in this discussion thread that God does not have exhaustive knowledge. If God has to gain any information about the future to establish his decrees then there are only two possible conclusions about God: Either A). God is ignorant of something until he sees what will happen and then determines a course of action based upon that information, or B) God willingly chooses to be ignorant of something so as to see what his creatures will decide and then move in alternate plans to move history and reality down the path to his ultimate goal. Regardless how much a person may wish to call this a false assertion (and I will see how Clines attempts to wiggle out from this problem with out altering the scriptural revelation of God's nature), there is some serious incompatibility with affirming this notion of God's decrees and affirming a God with exhaustive forknowledge. In all honesty, I do not believe you have given a satisfactory answer to this foundational problem inherent to your system. I couldn't get Picirilli to answer this either and have yet to find any Arminian theologian try to answer this dilemma while at the same time staying with in the bounds of the exegesis of the scriptural record.

Now, one last point that deals with your comments about Jeremiah 7:31, Bruce Ware has responded to this in his book "God's Lesser Glory:"


You asked the specific question of this passage: Did God foreordain (not foreknow) that they should sacrifice their children to idols? Was it part of his divine decree, not based on his foreknowledge? Was it God's will that they should do such a thing? Well, knowing what we do about God's nature, that he has full omniscience and has exhaustive foreknowledge and that his foreknowledge cannot exist without his ordaining purposes, then yes, in God's purposes, it was his decreetive will for these things to happen. There is no way to escape this fact if we are going to stay true to scripture and allow it to inform our overall, final understanding of God, his nature and decrees. Now the question can be asked, why did he do this? All I can answer is that is for God to know at the moment and for us to accept. This was Paul's answer to his objector in Romans 9. There is no need to circumvent the clear teaching of the Bible just because what it states cuts against our sinful human sensibilities.

Fred

William,

No, it would appear that you haven't comprehended the views, unless of course you disagree with Louis Berkhof who wrote:

"Was the first sin of man, consituting his fall, predestined, or was this merely the object of divine foreknowledge? In their original form Supralapsarianism held the former and Infralapssarianism, the latter" (Systematic Theology, p. 118).

Therefore, your following statement is not true:


You wrote:


And equally, Arminians would believe that what you are proposing is a show of the grand Puppeteer, who pulls all of our strings and manipulates our decisions... but neither absurd illustrations strengthen either arguments.



Open Theists use the same arguments as Calvinists: foreknowledge is incompatible with libertarian freedom, although the former denies foreknowledge whilst the latter denies libertarian freedom. However, God's foreknowledge does not cause human decisions or actions. To quote an illustration I used in my paper:

God can foreknow that I will choose to put ham on my bread instead of jam. However, God's foreknowledge does not cause me to choose ham instead of jam; it only renders my free choice as being certain, not necessary. Given the fact of contingency (two possible choices), I could have chosen strawberry jam.



First of all, I question your definition of being "free", viz. "capable of acting contrary to a person's nature". The main premise of libertarian freedom is that man can only be free if he "could have chosen otherwise". This does NOT mean that our choices are made without the presence of influences. Rather, it means that our choices are made without being causally determined by those influences so that in the end we could have chosen otherwise.

Secondly, is it "impossible that the end could be absolutely sure"? I don't think so. For example, God has determined to bring about the New Heavens and the New Earth, and no libertarian freedom will change that!


So does God really foreordain people to sin by choosing the means (e.g. circumstances, desires, motives, etc.) to convince individuals, without constraint, to act contrary to God's law (such as murder)?

However, if humans willingly sin because of their corrupt nature, then there is no reason why it should be said that God foreordains or determines us to sin. Our sinful desires and thoughts are thus controlled and determined by our nature, not by God.

Yours in Christ,
Michael

Yes, I deny libertarian freedom of the will. I uphold the scriptural understanding. No, you chose ham just as your nature preferred. Poor analogy. The Bible makes it very clear that the unregenerate man chooses sin and is incapable of choosing good. Therefore, even though one "possibility" may seem plausible, when it comes to the unregenerate soul, there is no other end. You keep upholding mans free will despite scriptures truth.


No. Puppets have no freedom. Men do. We are free to choose, but that according to our sinful natures. This strawman has been raised and smashed repeatedly.


Why not? You stated here that man has the freedom of will to choose contrary to that plan.......


One major dilemma is that scripture defines man as sinfully inclined, not libertarian. Your starting place needs scriptural adjustment.


This is why you keep avoiding sound scriptural rendering. Let me show you a passage that shows both in action.......


Could you exegete this please? It says 1) that God predetermined these mens exact actions, and 2) these men did so willingly. Both are true, as Pilgrim stated. Please stop putting forth libertarian free will. It is unscriptural and heretical.

Here is another passage to look into.......



God bless,

william

Some people were talking about what biblical foreknowledge is. I like what A. W. Pink says about foreknowledge. He says Gods foreknowledge pertains only to people, not events.

Read his chapter on foreknowledge
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/attrib_04.htm