I've used the example of Joseph and his brothers a few times in my paper on Determinism and Freedom. I would ask you to check it out at www.determinismandfreedom.blogspot.com
But I'll cite a couple of portions thereof:
***
God was ultimately in control in spite of the sinful actions of the brothers. It was not God's will for them to plot a murder or to sell Joseph into slavery, 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 for this would make God the author of sin (Jas. 1:13). Therefore, control does not equal causation. [Section 3 #4]
***
In his debate with Dave Hunt, James White says that compatibilism is biblically tenable, and he provides an example from Genesis 50:20 where Joseph said to his brothers (who had sold him as a slave to Egypt) that they "intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives"... Hunt responds by saying that God did not decree (i.e. cause) the brothers to intend to kill or sell Joseph into slavery, and White replies that their intentions indeed came from their hearts, but that it was still part of God's eternal decree (2004:52, 56). White then chides Hunt for not understanding compatibilism. However, I believe that White does not fully understand the implications of holding to this compatibilistic view as defined by his fellow Reformed brethren. John Feinberg had explained that compatibilism teaches that the eternal decree includes not only God's chosen ends (in this case, the preserving of his people), but also the means to such ends (Joseph's brothers intentions to kill him, and later to sell him into slavery). And in order to decree the means to such an end, sufficient conditions, brought about by God, existed in order for the brothers to act without constraint. This would mean that God brought about the brother's evil intentions, so that they acted without constraint, in order to accomplish the preservation of his people.
White is therefore presumptuous to say that Genesis 50:20 presents the "truth" of compatibilism. The truth is, both Calvinists and Arminians would agree that God intended it (i.e. the brother's evil actions) for good to accomplish his ultimate purpose. The disagreement comes in as to how God exercised his intention. The text is silent here. So we are left to ask ourselves: Did God intend to accomplish his purpose by bringing about their evil intentions and actions (without constraint), or by allowing and using their self-determining actions to accomplish his good will? I believe the latter to be in harmony with the rest of Scripture.
It was not God's will for them to plot a murder or to sell Joseph into slavery, 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 for this would make God the author of sin (Jas. 1:13).
Quite confusing. First you claim their plot was not Gods will. Then you claim it WAS Gods purpose. Then you assert that ..."in order to accomplish his purpose"... I am totally confused. What is Gods "ultimate purpose" if not bringing about His will ?
If I understand the word "vicarious," then the answer would be yes!
Q. For what reason did Jesus die?
A. "He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." (Isaiah 53:8)
Q. For whom did Jesus die for?
A. "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." (John 10:11)
Q. In Revelation 3:20, Jesus said "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." So who are the ones that will hear His voice?
A. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" (John 10:27)
Q. To whom will Jesus give eternal life too?
A. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." (John 10:27-28)
Q. Who will be saved from their sins?
A. "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)
Q. Can a person who is not a sheep believe the Gospel?
A. "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." (John 10:26)
Q. Can a person come to Jesus on his own free will alone from God?
A. "And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." (John 6:65)
Q. Who teaches men that Jesus is the Christ?
A. "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Mattew 16:13-17)
Q. Does everyone that is taught of the Father come to Jesus?
A. "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." (John 6:45)
Q. Does God purposely reveal truth to some and with hold truth from others?
A. "And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." (Matthew 13:10-11)
Q. Why do believers love God?
A. "We love him, because he first loved us." (1 John 4:19)
Q. When did God first love us?
A. " According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:" (Ephesians 1:4)
Q. Why has God chosen some and by past others?
A. "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:4-6)
Q. By what authority does God do this?
A. "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" (Romans 9:14-24)
Q. The words "we" and "us" used in the New Testament refer to all of mankind or just believers?
A. The Scriptures were written by believers to believers. A distinction is made between believers and the rest of the world. The Word declares that we are not of the world, so in most, if not all, the words "we" and "us" refer to the elect of God and not to all of mankind.
"We love him, because he first loved us." (1 John 4:19)
Q. John 3:16 states "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." and doesn't this contradict the election of God?
A. No.
"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Daniel 4:35)
JOHN "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth." - ROMANS 8:33 geocities.com/johncw1000
> "For example, in another thread on the atonement, you mention 1 John 2:2 as some proof text against actual atonement, but you do not demonstrate how the actual atonement view is disproven by the text. "World" in John's writings can mean many things, but primarily he has the idea of the world of humanity other than the nation of Israel (John 11:51, 52; Revelation 5:9,10)"
Correct, "world" (Gk. kosmos) has a variety of meanings in John's writings. It may mean Gentile nations in John 11:51-52 and Revelation 5:9-10, but there is no indication of this usage in John's first epistle. Instead, John uses the term to denote the condition of the human race in opposition to God: the sinful desires of the flesh (2:15-17), separated from God and hostile to the children of God (3:1, 13), belonging to the hostile forces of deceiving spirits (4:1ff), under the control of the evil one (5:19). It is to this "world", John writes, that God the Father sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to be the Saviour of it (4:9) and to die as an atoning sacrifice for their sins (2:2; 4:10). John repeats: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world" (4:14).
Therefore, to interpret "world" in 1 John as referring to non-Jewish people (the elected Gentiles) is to distort the whole message of 1 John.
> "The Arminian argument against Calvinism has always been driven by emotionalism, rather than the text."
I would say that the Calvinian argument for "world" has always been driven by exegetical gymnastics, viz. taking a few passages out of this book and that one, and then forcing that meaning in a totally different text and setting.
It is true that we act according to our nature, but not all of our choices have been determined beforehand. There may be outside forces influencing us to make a certain choice, but we can still choose otherwise. (Temptation is a good example.) The people of Israel really could have chosen not to have sacrificed their children. Yes, they acted according to their sinful nature, but not everyone sacrifices their children because they have a sinful nature.
(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.
Quote
As to your second disagreement: No, nothing surprises God - not even the rebellious actions of men which are contrary to His will. God is in full control of the situation as he pronounces judgement on the people (Jer. 7:34). However, this does not mean that God caused the sinful actions by an unconditional, efficacious decree.
(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.
Quote
Thirdly, I would have thought that the DVD illustration best fits the deterministic view of Calvinism: God creates the DVD (all future events, actions, choices of men, etc.) and then plays it at the beginning of the world so that everything which will happens has been set in eternity past. The Bible, however, portrays God as acting with (and reacting to) his creatures. Please read "God's purposive will" in Section 3 of my paper on determinism and freedom.
Yes, God foreknows and foreloves his people, but he also foreknows future events (Is. 44:7) and human actions (Ps. 139:1-4).
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
"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
Therefore, to interpret "world" in 1 John as referring to non-Jewish people (the elected Gentiles) is to distort the whole message of 1 John.
I know you are going to tire of my asking, but could we get something a litle deeper than a proof text and a single sentence? You offered nothing for interpretation, context, historical setting or theological evaluation.
Quote
I would say that the Calvinian argument for "world" has always been driven by exegetical gymnastics, viz. taking a few passages out of this book and that one, and then forcing that meaning in a totally different text and setting.
Ummm.......you did it again. I'm beginning to think you may just be preaching.
Correct, "world" (Gk. kosmos) has a variety of meanings in John's writings. It may mean Gentile nations in John 11:51-52 and Revelation 5:9-10, but there is no indication of this usage in John's first epistle. Instead, John uses the term to denote the condition of the human race in opposition to God: the sinful desires of the flesh (2:15-17), separated from God and hostile to the children of God (3:1, 13), belonging to the hostile forces of deceiving spirits (4:1ff), under the control of the evil one (5:19). It is to this "world", John writes, that God the Father sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to be the Saviour of it (4:9) and to die as an atoning sacrifice for their sins (2:2; 4:10). John repeats: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world" (4:14).
(fred) Yes, these are Picirilli's categories if I can recall from his section in his book on the atonement. I would agree with his assessment of the use of Kosmos. However, he does not interact with the complete syntactical and grammatical nuiances of the text, or fully with those who would react to his conclusions. That leaves his position vunerable to significant criticism. There are two major ones I mentioned in my review of his book.
First is the word "propitiation." It has grammatical implications when understanding the word "world." Granted, I do not see the apostle John specifically equating "world" with the "elect only" as some Calvinist are want to do. Rather, I think it expresses the extent and scope of God's love and propitiation: it is to the whole world of men. But that is in comparrison with one small group that John is writing. That is his point. Picirilli never studies out fully the theological concept of propitiation in his work and in providing a fraction of the data, he leaves his theological conclusions of universality exposed to some fundamental flaws. If it is a wrath appeasing sacrifice, which all Arminians affirm (pre-Grotius), then that means all of God's wrath against the world has been satisfied. But we know that cannot be true from the totality of scripture. Many sinners still go to hell to endure eternal wrath. The position you advocated ulitmately implies a universalist conclusion, rather than one that is squarely biblical. You made allusion to arguing this way in the past during your Calvinist days. How would you argue now while holding to the biblical satisfaction view of the atonement? Unless you hold to Grotius governmental view?
An additional difficulty not considered by Picirilli is John's usage of world in relationship to his use of it when relating to Christ's death through out all his writings. The grammatical phrase in 1 John 2:2 reads verbatim as John 11:51-52. That is a significant passage that cannot be glossed over by the Arminian. In the same way that Christ was going to die for the children of Israel, he was going to die for all the children of God spread abroad. To say that John never implied the scope of Christ's redeeming death to be all gentiles of every nation only, but instead, extend the scope of kosmos to mean every person with out exception period, does violence not only to John's intentions in his Gospel, 3 epistles and Revelation, but to the entire theology of Christ's atoning sacrifice.
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 really appreciate your responses to my post - they are well written and thought provoking (unlike one fellow who likes to hit me with one-two liner responses. I won't mention any names <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> )
I'm going away on holiday tomorrow and will only be back after Christmas, but I'll print your posts out and read them while I'm away.
Hope everyone on this forum has a great Christmas with their family and friends - and that includes you William <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> .
I really appreciate your responses to my post - they are well written and thought provoking (unlike one fellow who likes to hit me with one-two liner responses. I won't mention any names)
(fred) I in turn appreciate the kind words. I may disagree with you, but if you are attempting to honestly defend your position, rather than posting here to stir up a hornets nest, so to speak, then I want to be respectful to your posts. I too am annoyed by one line zingers, and I mean this with all due respect to some of your detractors who have posted against you. The one liners can be useful to withdraw clarifying information, but I would hope averagefellow and others would interact substantively with what you have written.
Quote
I'm going away on holiday tomorrow and will only be back after Christmas, but I'll print your posts out and read them while I'm away.
(Fred) Please take your time. I for one could use the break because I am on call for Jury duty this week, and family is coming in this weekend, and work will be shut down for the week in between Christmas and New Years, so my computer access will be when I can take the time to drop by the office. Have a Merry Christmas yourself. I will try to get to your big paper.
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
The one liners can be useful to withdraw clarifying information, but I would hope averagefellow and others would interact substantively with what you have written.
I believe I have interacted throughout this discussion. Many others have as well. In fact, due to the members here being reformed, I would say a majority of what has been written in this thread was an answer to MJM. I, and others, have provided links, commentary, exegesis and pointed out certain inconsistencies on several occasions. To think that MJM has not been "substantively" dealt with is an interesting conclusion.
I understand where you are coming from William, and I do not intend for my words to be disparaging with out reason. Reviewing the entire thread, a lot of what you posted is either one line questions or comments. Many of the comments are just statements that are not really explained. It would be helpful to explain why certain statements in MJM's posts are akin to Open Theism, for example, rather than just stating that it is. Also, articles, though good, are not really personal and interacting with MJM's posts. They tend to be "canned presentation" (though good presentation) that more than likely MJM is already familiar with. Posting articles sort of assumes your debator has to stop everything, read the article, and then respond to it point by point, rather than interacting with others who can boil down the article's salient points. See what I mean? This is, after all, a theological discussion board.
That is what I was reacting to.
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
