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.
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.
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.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
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.
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.
405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297
A hard battle. . .
407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man's situation and activity in the world. By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails "captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil".298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.
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="" />
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
>> "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."
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.
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).
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.
Open theism is heresy. Your god is a reactive god. The God of scripture is a proactive God.
Quote
Exo 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. (KJV)
Accordingly, Pharaoh could have chosen to do good, despite the Word of God saying otherwise.
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.
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.
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.
Does meddling equal influencing? Does an irresistible will equal wooing?
(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.
Quote
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?
(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.
Quote
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.
(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.
Quote
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.
(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.
Quote
Fred Asked >> "Peter specifically states that Jesus was delivered up by the predetermined and ordained purposes of God..."
You respond: Yes, but you missed out that one word from Acts 2:23: "foreknowledge".
(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.
Quote
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.
(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.
Quote
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.
(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
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
I promised I would respond to your post on foreknowledge, so here goes:
Quote
Foreknowledge can be translated as "ordained purposes.
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.
Quote
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."
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).
Quote
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."
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).
Quote
Like I stated above, having no ability to chose otherwise does not equate being forced to do something."
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).
Quote
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.""
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).
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.
