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

(Fred) Hey Michael it is always good to hear from you. I think the one thing we need to establish is the distinction between God decreeing and determining. I believe it is often wrongly assumed that if God is said to have decreed certain events, and those events require a set of human choices to be made inorder for them to come about, that God is actually determining those choices, in a sense forcing the persons to choose contrary to their character and thus their free will is violated. God does not determine men's choices, neither is he the direct cause of people's sin. When we say that God decrees all things, we mean to say that which is to come to pass is certain and fixed in his knowledge. Because God has exhaustive knowledge that means all things including human choices both good and evil.
God has decreed sin in that he uses evil to accomplish his good, wise and immutable purposes, yet those wicked actions of men are controlled, restrained and governed by God (Eph. 1:11).

Further, it is important to note that freedom of the will is not the ability to choose contrary to a person's character. I realize you have kicked at this before, but this is where Arminianism is heavily influenced by Greek thought. Biblical freedom is simply understood as making choices voluntarily and with out cohersion. A person can never choose contrary to his nature without divine intervention. In other words, a sinner is free to make choices, and those choices are free in that they are done voluntarily and from the person's heart, but they will always be sinful choices. The only way a person can genuinely make choices contrary to his sinful nature is by a divine act of God, ie, regeneration that raises a spiritually dead sinner from the grave of sin and frees him from the tyranny of rebellion so that he can obey the gospel and receive Christ.

Of course not everyone in Israel with a sinful nature chose to sacrifice their children. People are free to choose degrees of sinfulness. There are debase porno film stars on one end, and conservative moralists at the other; both, however, are sinful and cannot believe savingly upon Christ until there is a work of God performed in their hearts. That is the key.



(Fred) And I would agree with you, but clarify your statement by stating that God is not the direct cause of man's sinful actions. Men are moral agents, and God is the direct cause of the existence of those moral agents who are fully volitional and responsible for their choices, and that makes them the author of sin, not God. Like I stated in my first paragraph, God governs and controls wicked men (dare I say, violates their freewills) for his decreetive purposes. Thus, God does not let sinners free to travel the full course of their sinfulness.


I am not sure if you have thought through the implications of your philosophy with regards to man's freedom and God's providence. Perhaps you did in your paper. I have to confess that I have yet to read it, because I have had my free time occupied the last couple of months preparing weekly for a training class my wife and I are taking. The class ends next week, so I hope to get your paper read. It is sitting next to my bed on my shelf of Calvinistic theology <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
At anyrate, moving along to your comments here, I have to say that you have not adequately dealt with the inconsistency you present. On one hand, you claim God has exhaustive knowledge of all events that will ever be, so you would reject the openess view of God. I applaud your rejection of heresy. At the same time, you make the statement that the Bible portrays God as "acting with (and reacting to) his creatures." I would agree, but I would reject the notion that the Bible is teaching that God is changing his decreetive purposes in response to those creaturely choices, or that God is gaining information. Your objection to my DVD illustration is a prime example. If God has exhaustive knowledge of all future events, that means that every thing will happen has he has set it in eternity past. To suggest that future events are changeable implies a future that can be altered as time unfolds. If you are holding to that notion, then you are more akin to Molinsim, not Arminianism.
Another inconsistency I witness is your last comments about foreknowledge. If God foreknows future events, that means a supposed God with exhaustive knowledge had to gain information before he determined the future. That means that either A). There is a time continumm that God looks into with events playing out apart from his control of them UNTIL he sees what happens B). Or that the future was not necessarily set until God looked a head to see what would happen. Do you not recognize this theological problem? No where in the Bible when God is the subject and foreknowledge the verb, does it state God foreknew events. It is always an object, his redeemed. That is why the term foreknowledge has synonymous implications with foreloved or eternal intimacy.
This all leads me back to a question I asked you before in the discussion a few pages back now. In your view, God foresaw the wicked actions of men to crucify the Lord Jesus (Acts 2:22,23), and Peter says this was ordained by God. In your system, could Pilate had choosen to let Christ go? And if he could, how then would Jesus been crucified seeing that his death was a necessity for his people's salvation?

Thanks again
Fred