The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is compatibilism the only true Calvinist response?

All defenses of the sovereignty of God, including the above analogy, are helpful. If anything I've said is taken as in any way diminishing to that sovereignty, I misspoke, I apologize, I repent, and I ask for your forgiveness. I admit to being clumsy in speech, and slow in articulation. I want to affirm the Five Points of Calvinism without equivocation. I don't want to be like Tiessen, fiddling with "middle knowledge" or other Arminian / Semi-Pelagian quagmires. When I said, I admit that I was being clumsy, at best. I'll clarify, if God wills it.

I believe that (i)humanity exists in a fallen state of "total depravity" since the original sins of Adam and Eve; (ii)whomsoever God saves, He saves through "unconditional election"; (iii)Christ's atonement on the cross was "limited" to the elect, and was not for the doomed; (iv)God draws His elect to Himself through "irresistable grace"; and (v)whom God elects and justifies, He "perseveres" to the end. I believe in the Five Points of Calvinism without equivocation. So I'm a Calvinist to the extent that I believe in these five points. But I also believe that there are serious problems in the "covenant theology" that has been produced through the "analogy-of-faith" hermeneutic. If the reformation were perfect, then there would be no reason to try to build on the foundation that the reformers laid. I follow John Piper in holding fervently to the sovereignty of God, while simultaneously taking a cafeteria approach to "dispensationalism", "covenant theology", and "new covenant theology".

My biggest living Christian heros are R.C. Sproul and John Piper. Among the other educational institutions that Piper attended was Fuller's Theological Seminary, where he became close to Daniel Fuller. I'm not familiar with Fuller's position with respect to the Five Points of Calvinism, but I know he's been critical of both the "face-value" hermeneutic used by dispensationalists and the "analogy-of-faith" hermeneutic used by covenant theologians. In his book, "The Unity of the Bible: Unfolding God's Plan for Humanity" (pp. 100-101), Fuller suggests using a different hermeneutic. Among other things, he says,
In reading the remainder of "The Unity of the Bible", I was disappointed at how superficial it seemed compared to the Bible itself, and compared to what I've read of Edwards. So I concluded that the hermeneutic that Fuller was suggesting needed some work. Among other things, I've concluded that a viable hermeneutic needs to segregate (i)things that don't change (God, God's attributes, God's eternal law and eternal covenant, God's basic relationship with His creation, including His immanence and transcendence, the Trinity, etc.) from (ii)things that do change (especially human beings, human history, human cultures and laws, etc.). Since the former category pertains to things that don't change in biblical history, a topical, timeless, analogy-of-faith approach can be taken to subjects in the first category. Since the second category pertains to things that DO change in biblical history, the kind of chronological approach suggested by Fuller is essential. The conclusions of the topical approach can be used as a control in the chronological approach. By separating the timeless from the time-bound, it's possible to use the topical as a control in the chronological without superimposing time-bound stuff from later passages onto time-bound stuff in earlier passages. I see the Five Points of Calvinism as a thoroughly reliable distillation of conclusions of such topical approach, and therefore as controls in such chronological approach.

From my admittedly flawed perspective, a hermeneutic like this might simultaneously satisfy (i)the Calvinist concern for moral free agency and compatibilism, and (ii)concerns of people like Tiessen about the "traditional Calvinist model that God is absolutely timeless". The need for "middle knowledge" and other Arminian schemes should evaporate under this hermeneutic because the schism between foreordination and "free-will" is eliminated at the outset.

Charles,

1) "Analogy of Faith" is a biblical principle that originates from Scripture itself and is not some man-made idea. It simply means "comparing Scripture with Scripture". A simple but unassailable example is the New Testament which is comprised of nearly 85% of Old Testament quotes and references. Jesus admonished the Jews of His day to "search the scriptures" (cf. Jh 5:39) which all testified of Him. If one rejects the "analogy of faith" in order to ascertain the truth then the old adage rings true, "A text out of context is nothing more than pretext!" <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

2) There are several legitimate methods of studying the Bible, all of which are complimentary to each other. For example, there is "Biblical Theology", "Systematic Theology", etc. Each is dependent upon using the "analogy of faith".

3) The system that Fuller has created is much like "Biblical Theology", i.e., starting at the beginning of redemptive history and working through to the end of God's written revelation to mankind. And if my assessment is accurate, then one would be remiss if they didn't read through Geerhardus Vos' Biblical Theology.

4) Daniel Fuller is hardly a Calvinist and methinks one would have to play linguistic gymnastics to include him in that circle. Further, Fuller Theological Seminary is hardly conservative and it's liberal influence has caused John Piper no little friction over some of the things he has written.

At this point I am going to have to admit that I'm not quite sure what alleged "problem" you are trying to resolve? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> Historic biblical Calvinism has had no problem asserting the full sovereignty of God, the full responsibility of man and affirming that God has and does interact with the world and individuals. In what reading I have done, every single person who has set forth some kind of "disclaimer" to what the Reformed Faith teaches; particularly in this area of the freedom of the will is decidedly opposed to God's ultimate control and the limits with which man is endowed. But again, I am not sure what it is you are wrestling with. And I, for one, would be grateful if you could perhaps communicate that in another way and possibly I might be able to better understand. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Middle Knowledge and Open Theism fall into the same camp—non-Reformed and unbiblical. All shades of either are contrary to Reformed theology. See Richard Muller, “Grace, Election, and Contingent Choice: Arminius's Gambit and the Reformed Response," in The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will, ed. Schreiner, Ware II:251-278. If you can’t find it try Schreiner and Ware’s Still Sovereign (same book different name).

PS: As to a “cafeteria approach to dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology,” you will find the serving line closed once you understand CT more completely.

Pilgrim said, Here's a quick and dirty attempt at clarifying what I'm wrestling with:

(1)Regarding whether "Analogy of Faith" is a biblical principle or a hermeneutic: I don't have any stake in insisting on it being one way or the other. To me, it's another terminological issue. I called it "hermeneutic" only because Daniel Fuller has (eg., "Gospel & Law: Contrast or Continuum? The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology", p. 25) and John Piper has (back cover of same book). Calling it a "biblical principle" instead of a "hermeneutic" suits me fine.

(2)I in no way want to intentionally sidestep Christ's admonition to "search the scriptures". Like Pilgrim says, "A text out of context ...". As far as I can tell, it's the insistence on keeping context that drove Fuller to write "Gospel & Law: Contrast or Continuum?" (GL/CC) in the first place. In that book, he claims that exponents of the "face-value" hermeneutic (what he calls the hermeneutic used by dispensationalists) have claimed that the "analogy of faith" hermeneutic "allowed the mind, in its desire to see oneness, to ride roughshod over some of Scripture's intended meanings" (GL/CC, p. 26). He suggests a remedy: Fuller may agree completely with Ryrie on this "literal" interpretational policy. My studies have led me to agree with the "literal" policy in part, and to disagree in part, all for the sake of keeping context. I have little to no interest in defending Fuller. I bring him up only because he defines a problem that is crucial to what I'm "wrestling with".

(3)If I genuinely love Jesus Christ and the Bible He teaches me to revere, then when I feel outrage about the secular laws that other people impose on me and mine, about the rates of taxation and kinds of takings they impose on me and mine, and about the manner in which those taxes and takings are disbursed, then I should be able to go to Scripture to find guidance, help, and comfort.

• If I listen to Arminian lawyers, they point to Romans 13 and say, "Obey! Obey!".
• If I listen to theonomists, I hear them claim to be Calvinists and adherents to covenant theology, while their "rhetoric sometimes suggests total continuity between Mosaic law and our present situation" (John Frame's Toward a Theology of the State, #21 of "Hermeneutical Prolegomena") and they "sometimes underestimate the complexity of the continuities and discontinuities" (Frame's Prolegomena, #20).
• If I turn to this website's article by John Frame, I find an apparent Calvinist who proposes basing the State on the family, which tells me that he doesn't understand biblical jurisdictions well enough to avoid inadvertently proposing another nanny state.
• If I read John Witherspoon and other Presbyterian pastors from the American Revolutionary era, I find Christians who are strangely both Calvinistic and "libertarian" (the latter word meaning different things to different people, the same way "free will" has different meanings in different schools of theology).

--- So if I love Jesus and the Book He teaches me to revere, then I'll find guidance, help, and comfort for this problem by sticking as close to the Book as I can, ignoring all the noise as much as possible, and appreciating wisdom wherever He shows it to me. --- The core problem that I'm wrestling with is the same one that Frame addresses in Toward a Theology of the State, i.e., defining a theology of the state.

(4)It's reasonable to wonder how this theology-of-the-state problem relates to the problem I marked above in Tiessen: not the "free-will" problem, the "compatibilism" problem, or the "middle knowledge" problem, but the "the traditional Calvinist model that God is absolutely timeless" problem. Rather than address this [i]timelessness issue directly, I'll address it in passing by getting really brazen, and issuing a call for rotten eggs, putrid vegetables, and brickbats to be hurled in my direction (If only I could stir up that much interest!); by writing here an abridged, alternative "Hermeneutical Prolegomena":

• First six points are identical to Frame's first six points.
• In deference to Pilgrim's description of the "Analogy of Faith" biblical principle (I find no reason to doubt that his description if accurate.), I'll abandon following Fuller's use of this term. Nevertheless, I've learned something from Fuller. Specifically, I've learned that it's important, for the sake of keeping context, to take great care with time-sensitive passages. I have no reason to doubt Pilgrim when he says,
  Quote

  the New Testament ... is comprised of nearly 85% of Old Testament quotes and references.
  But all of these are either not time-sensitive, or they are treated with the care that time-sensitive material demands. Here's an example of what I mean by time-sensitive: Genesis 9:6 says,
  Quote

  Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man. (NASB)
  If we think we can apply the "Analogy of Faith" biblical principle without being careful about chronology, then we might assume that we should apply this mandate to events that happened before the flood. After Cain killed Abel,
  Quote

  Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is too great to bear! Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." So the LORD said to him, "Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold" And the LORD appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him. (4:13-15; NASB)
  So if we apply Genesis 9:6 to Cain the murderer, then we're asking God to take vengeance on us sevenfold. This clearly doesn't make any sense. It makes sense to understand Genesis 9:6 as applicable to post-diluvian humanity, but not to antediluvian humanity. So one of the crucial points in this "Hermeneutical Prolegomena" is that time-sensitive material needs to be distinguished from timeless material. Since God doesn't change (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8, etc.), God, God's attributes, God's eternal law and eternal covenant, God's basic relationship with His creation, the Trinity, and many other issues fall into this "timeless", topical category. I call this approach to exegesis "topical" because it's possible to focus on one topic at a time, and largely ignore chronology, and reach fairly reliable conclusions. Calvin certainly did that in his Institutes when he "outlined his systematic theology in categories". But the fact that at the beginning of the 21st century, Christians are still trying to define a "theology of the state" tells me that Calvin and Calvinists have failed to adequately do so, and I'm convinced that this failure relates in part to a failure to sufficiently harmonize "Biblical Theology" and "Systematic Theology". Admittedly, Fuller has gone to an opposite extreme that has serious limitations. But by studying some of what he had to say, I learned how time-sensitive human-oriented passages in the Bible are. Positive law as it appears in the Bible is extremely time-sensitive. --- Conclusion: This hermeneutic proposes to distinguish God-centered issues (best approached topically, because God doesn't change) from man-centered issues (best approached chronologically, because mankind does change), using the results of the God-centered topical exegesis as a "control" in the man-centered chronological exegesis.
• Based on common sense, accept the ancient classification of law into eternal, divine, natural, and positive. Positive law is law imposed by humans upon other humans. Who can claim that there is no such thing in the Bible? Divine law is law communicated to humans through divine revelation, and recorded in what reformed people accept as our canon of Scripture. Natural law is God's law that humans, by the light of reason, are able to perceive. Any denial that natural law exists is tantamount to a denial that science exists. It's obvious foolishness. Since these three kinds of law exist by common sense, and since God is sovereign and supreme over all of creation, it's unreasonable not to believe that there is an overarching category of law, eternal law, that encompasses these three lower forms of law.
• Assume that Scripture has rational integrity.
• Assume that every passage needs to be taken at face-value, and comprehended on its own terms, before integrating it into a larger literary unit.
• Search for the author's intended meaning.
• Distinguish biblical law from biblical fact, and use biblical law as a "control" in the chronological exegesis. The distinction between law and fact is crucial to any kind of jurisprudence that attempts to be righteous. It's foolish to think that Biblical jurisprudence is an exception. So the distinction between Biblical law and Biblical fact is crucial to deciphering a reliable theology-of-the-state. The distinction between a Biblical fact and an ordinary fact lies in the mechanisms relied upon to establish the fact. Ordinary facts are established as true, i.e., they are verified, through physical (and perhaps other) data. In other words, the combination of reason, raw perception, and testimonies of trusted witnesses establishes what humans accept as ordinary facts. But a Biblical fact isn't primarily about reason, raw perception, or testimonies of witnesses. Instead, it's about taking truth-claims made by Scripture at face value. Scripture does not posit such truth-claims primarily as law. They are posited primarily as historical facts. A Biblical fact is a subset of the divine law.
• Divide Biblical law into constitutional law, statutory law, and case law; and divide constitutional law into the organic constitution and its amendments. --- For anyone who lives in a constitutional republic, this should be common sense. It is no more an imposition of extra-biblical material than the categories that Calvin used in his systematic theology. --- Biblical facts contribute to the understanding of Biblical law in a manner that's analogous to the way ordinary facts contribute to a court's deciding ordinary case law (At the common law, the judge decides what laws apply to a case. The jury decides the facts of the case. If necessary, the judge massages the law in the light of the jury's decision.). So Biblical facts are an essential aspect of the divine law, but Biblical law is the divine law's control for understanding Biblical facts.

This is quick and dirty, and it obviously needs a lot of work. But this is what I've been wrestling with.

Charles,

If this is your "quick and dirty" version, I would hate to see your full-blown version! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wow1.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

Now, if I have grasped what you wrote, you are wrestling with a hermeneutical issue, first and foremost.

1) J_Edwards did a nice job of dealing with the "Analogy of Scripture" and "Analogy of Faith" matter. I would agree that the Dispensational hermeneutic of the "plain meaning of the text", aka: "literal" reading of the text is in error. This has been dealt with thoroughly, particularly after the 1860s by myriad authors. Of course, their refutation of it doesn't seem to have made a dent with its promulgation throughout the Evangelical communities. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

2) The Theonomist/Reconstructionist rendering of Scripture is certainly a newer problem, but that too has been adequately dealt with by many over the past 30 years as well.

3) Fuller's proposed hermeneutic also suffers from inherent errors due to his Liberal presuppositions.

4) I can agree with many of the things you brought up, e.g., the difference between the eternal law of God and those laws which are "time bound" or "culturally bound"; not to be confused with the modern Antinomian use of the term. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> However, like J_Edwards, I would have to disagree on the relevancy of Gen 9:6 which you say is only applicable to post-deluvian societies. I would suggest that it was applicable to all of mankind beginning with Adam. You cited the case of Cain whom God ordered "off limits" in regard to being put to death for the murder of his brother. My answer would be that this was a "special dispensation"; a exception to the rule which God had put in place for a special purpose. In fact, I would like to suggest to you that the entirety of the "Ten Commandments" were in force from creation. For example, the commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy was known to Adam and his immediate family. For a indepth study of this truth see here: The Covenantal Sabbath, by Dr. Francis Nigel Lee.

5) Methinks that the real issue lies more with the "application" of scriptural truth more than its "interpretation", although I'm not dismissing the latter as being relevant in some areas. More specifically, I see your wrestling with the "continuity" vs "discontinuity" of God's law(s); the perpetuity or suspension of specific laws which we find established by God. And, in addition, the validity and application of man-made laws which may or may not be based upon the divine law(s).

6) In regard to the latter, it would be a serious error, not that I believe you are doing so or are even tempted to do so, to follow the Pharisees and many of the Jews of Jesus own day, to think that God is going to establish a physical kingdom here on earth before His return or before the final Judgment. There is no possibility of a Theocracy of any kind being established on this earth. Calvin and some of the Puritans unfortunately erred in this area. But of course, John Calvin, as great a man of God as he was is not the standard to which we must conform, is he. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

7) Lastly, I see no reason to attempt to re-invent the wheel in the area of hermeneutics. I do believe that the Scriptures are self-sufficient and thus give us the proper method of interpreting it in order to understand the will of God. Yes, there have been and always will be those who will depart from that method and/or truth. But I cannot believe that the Lord God has left the Church to wander blindly for thousands of years not knowing how to rightly interpret His inspired, inerrant and infallible Word. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

First, let it be noted that Daniel Fuller has MANY problems. He denies plenary inerrancy of Scripture. In addition, he appears to back away from the historic Protestant stance on justification by faith alone.

Second as to his book it has been looked at and already refuted. You may begin by reading, Covenant Theology under Attack, by Meredith G. Kline.

Third, you may enjoy reading Sam Waldron's doctoral dissertation, Faith, Obedience, and Justification: Current Evangelical Departures from "Sola Fide, where he exposes how Daniel Fuller, Norman Shepherd, and Don Garlington have deviated from the historic Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Fourth, your claim that, “So if we apply Genesis 9:6 to Cain the murderer, then we're asking God to take vengeance on us sevenfold. This clearly doesn't make any sense. It makes sense to understand Genesis 9:6 as applicable to post-diluvian humanity, but not to antediluvian humanity,” is not accurate. You fail to correctly understand what Analogy of Faith entails. By definition it means:

As one may note the Analogy of Faith includes, literary structure, original meaning, and modern application, etc. in its examination of the original text. If one cannot establish how the Analogy of Faith is relevant to the original meaning then how may they know if it is being properly applied today?

Can Genesis 9:6 be analyzed in reference to this definition? Of course it can and it has relevance for us today, as well for them of yesterday (before the flood). Genesis 9:6 is actually consistent with Genesis 4:15 (and yes, there are dispensational discontinuities in every dispensation, but we must also fully regard the consistencies).

Do you really think there were no commandments regulating society prior to Moses writing them down? If so, what right did God have for approaching Cain for his sin? The Scripture says the law was written upon our very hearts (Rom. 2:15). In addition, many of the Mosaic laws are only "very briefly" worded, and are almost unintelligible without certain presuppositions which were assumed to be generally held. Moreover, the lives of Jacob and Joseph's brothers reveal they "knew" they had done wrong prior to the written law of Moses. Adam himself did not see the written law of Moses, but "knew" he had sinned both by a (1) convicted heart, and (2) the VERBAL, not written, law of God (Gen. 3:1 says, hath God said, not hath God written).

The fact that Genesis 9:6 was already in effect is proven by the fact that God “appointed a sign for Cain, lest any finding him should smite him,” otherwise he would have been killed before accomplishing God’s will. Post-flood Genesis 9:6 screams at us to look once again at pre-flood Eden when it uses the phrase, "For in the image of God made he man" (compare, Gen. 1:26-27). Furthermore, where do you think the definition of murder came from so post-flood humanity could understand Genesis 9:6 -- pre-flood humanity. As far as the "sevenfold" cursing I could say that this was carried forth as well--read imprecatory Psalm 79 or Lev. 26:28, however, it would also be true that in Cain's case God made an exception to His normal law (God also kept Pharaoh alive for many years though he murdered Israelites-Rom 9:14-18, etc.), so His divine purpose could be fulfilled in Cain. And then we could raise up the question of what "sevenfold" vengence is. Does this mean to the seventh generation as Luther taught or does it mean complete, full and absolute justice (K&D; John Currid; Bruce Waltke, etc.)? As Willet comments, "he would be visited more severely than Cain, as being guilty not alone of homicide, but of transgressing the Divine commandment which said that Cain was to live (Willet, per Spence of The Pulpit Commentary). Genesis 4:15 is relevant because it reveals that Cain feared man and not God (compare, Matt.10:28). I would continue but IMO Genesis 9:6 is relevant to antediluvian humanity and post-diluvian humanity!

Lastly, you may find it helpful to read several books on hermeneutics from a Reformed perspective: "He Gave Us Stories, The Student’s Guide to Interpreting Old Testament Narratives," by Richard L. Pratt, Jr. would be an excellent beginning point.

(sorry, but I had to repost this as the first post was not being seen by everybody--anomaly?)

This post is a response to posts by J_Edwards and Pilgrim. I esteem you both as brothers in Christ, and I don't want my words to venture outside the boundaries of that brotherhood. In case I do happen to venture outside those boundaries, I ask in advance for your pardon. In the spirit of iron sharpening iron, with due diligence "to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace":

J_Edwards said: You tell me that I "fail to correctly understand what the Analogy of Faith entails". Then you give explanations for what Analogy of Scripture and Analogy of Faith are. But when I read these explanations, I don't see my failure, but my vindication.

There's a distinction between positive law and eternal law. Eternal law is God-made law. It exists everywhere, at all times, inescapably. Positive law is law that human beings impose upon other human beings. Scripture may not spell out this distinction explicitly, but an inductive reading of it makes the distinction undeniable. Given that this is the case, it looks to me like you might want to give due consideration to the following:

• I agree that the law against murder is eternal law that existed from the beginning. Even so,
• The first time in the biblical chronology that positive law is overtly prescribed or mandated by God is in the Noachian Covenant. This is a fact. I dare you to disprove it.
• The fact that the Genesis 9:6 mandate contains a penalty, retribution, to be imposed on anyone guilty of bloodshed, makes it unavoidably obvious that the mandate is positive law. Positive law without a penalty is a mere recommendation, because positive law without a penalty is positive law that can't be enforced by humans, and is therefore not really positive law at all. Again, both an inductive reading of Scripture and common sense make this unavoidably obvious.
• In answer to your question,
  Quote

  Do you really think there were no commandments regulating society prior to Moses writing them down?
  No! I don't believe this. I never claimed to believe this. In the few posts that I've made, I don't think I've even mentioned Moses. I see Genesis 9:6 as a commandment regulating society that preceded Moses. I also believe that contracts have been ubiquitous in human societies since well before the flood. Contracts, by definition, establish positive law that's imposed upon the parties to the contract. Contracts are so basic that a Bible study on Hebrew b'rit, "marriage", "treaty", "covenant", etc., leads one to the conclusion that human societies probably can't even exist without contracts.
• In answer to your question,
  Quote

  what right did God have for approaching Cain for his sin?
  God didn't need a right for approaching Cain. God is sovereign. He's only limited by the laws He imposes on Himself.
• In response to
  Quote

  the lives of Jacob and Joseph's brothers reveal they "knew" they had done wrong prior to the written law of Moses. Adam himself did not see the written law of Moses, but "knew" he had sinned both by a (1) convicted heart, and (2) the VERBAL, not written, law of God (Gen. 3:1 says, hath God said, not hath God written).
  I say: "Amen!" See! This is proof that the eternal law is pervasive. Does this prove that positive law is also pervasive? No!
• Regarding
  Quote

  The fact that Genesis 9:6 was already in effect is proven by the fact that God “appointed a sign for Cain, lest any finding him should smite him,” otherwise he would have been killed before accomplishing God’s will.
  This looks like a stretch to me. The fact that Genesis 4:23-24 (NASB) says
  Quote

  Lamech said to his wives, "Adah and Zillah, Listen to my voice, You wives of Lamech, Give heed to my speech, For I have killed a man for wounding me; And a boy for striking me; If Cain is avenged sevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold."
  is evidence that people were probably getting away with murder generally. That this whole era from the fall to the flood was anarchic is also proven by passages like Genesis 6:5-7:
  Quote

  Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."
  From the beginning God wanted people to live by their own consciences, i.e., by eternal law. He had so little regard for positive law that He put a mark on Cain to keep people from executing justice against him. I can't find any reason in Scripture to believe that Cain was special and deserved a mark, while Lamech was not special, and didn't. Since "God is not one to show partiality" (Acts 10:34; NASB), why should He prefer Cain over Lamech, or over anyone else? It doesn't make sense. What makes sense is that God wanted people to live by eternal law, and He allowed the global positive law against bloodshed only very reluctantly. He preferred a period of anarchy to show us how little regard He has for encouraging us to impose ourselves on other people non-consensually.

J_Edwards, I'm only addressing your forth point here because I don't think the others pertain. It looks to me like the others essentially set up a straw man named "Daniel Fuller" for you to throw darts at, to which I say, "Good shot!".

Pilgrim, you clearly have much more knowledge and expertise in theology than I do. I just read the Book and pray the Lord will lead me to make sense of it in a way that glorifies Him. When I check my conclusions against those of other people, I often find big differences. But our God is the Lord of all, and whatever it is He's doing, it must be good. --- Regarding what you say about the Genesis 9:6 mandate against bloodshed, the case of Cain, and the Ten Commandments being in force from creation, what I say above applies here. I don't doubt that the Ten Commandments existed as eternal law from the beginning. But that's not the same as their existence as positive law.

Regarding I know that this is the majority opinion in the English-speaking Christian community. I don't know whether I agree or not. Could you explain how, based on Scripture, you come to this conclusion?

When you say I say, "Amen!".

Thanks to both of you for responding to my posts.

1) In the second paragraph I perceive a possible contradiction within your own use of the 2 terms, "Eternal Law" and "Positive Law". Gen 9:6 iterates the "Eternal Law" prohibiting the shedding of another man's blood with the sanction of capital punishment to those who violate it. Noah didn't impose this law upon his progeny; God did. Thus it cannot qualify as "Positive Law" by your own definition. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

2) On the "inductive" method of interpreting Scripture see here: Induction and Deduction with Reference to Inspiration, by Dr. Roger Nicole.


Again, I must disagree with your self-determined and self-imposed terms, their definitions and application. Although the exact nature of the penalties to be exacted upon those who violate both the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Commandments, the nature of those penalties cannot be denied that they are severe. These are incontrovertibly, by your terminology, "Eternal Law" and not "Positive Law" even though they carry with them inseparable punishment.

However, unless I am mistaken, in a previous reply you clearly stated that you believed that Gen 9:6 applied only to post-deluvian societies. Again, referring to my remarks above, the prohibition against murder and its consequent punishment of death was "Eternal Law" established by God upon all of mankind from the beginning of man's creation. That men were obligated and held accountable to apply God's law among themselves is indisputable. Likewise, that the majority of mankind failed to do so which eventually led to the entire destruction of the human race, except for Noah and his immediate family is likewise indisputable. But man's failure to conform to the "Eternal Law" of God does not negate its existence nor relegate it to some form of "Positive Law".

All laws, unless specifically belonging to a specific group or person(s) and for a particular period of time and/or purpose, are of necessity, "Eternal Law", i.e., they originate with God either by direct command or principle and are perpetually binding upon all men. For example, the moral law of God is perpetually binding upon all men, but the ceremonial and civil laws of the O.T. were given to the theocratic nation of Israel and were in essence precursors to the person and work of the Lord Christ. Any laws originating out of man's own imagination and not founded upon biblical principle and/or authority may be disregarded, IMHO. Romans 13 does not give carte blanc authority to worldly governments nor does it require Christians to offer unfeigned obedience to those governments. As in all things, Christians are to obey the authorities established by God and their laws "as unto the Lord", i.e., as long as "Positive Law" (to use your term) is in accord with God's "Eternal Law", a Christian is under obligation to obey. If any law of man violates God's "Eternal Law", either specifically and/or in principle, there is no obligation to obey it.

This in and of itself would require a considerable amount of time and space to answer. Thus, I will only ask you to consider one particular text, Luke 17:21. Being one who holds to Amillennialism, I reject any and all notions of a physical earthly kingdom being established on earth before Christ's second coming and the Judgment which will immediately follow His return. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

which is: "Is compatibilism the only true Calvinist response?"

In His grace,

Charles, I “clearly” showed in the preceding post that God’s law existed prior to the flood. In addition, I showed how the post-flood law of Genesis 9:6 tied into both pre-flood Genesis 1 and 4. The Analogy of Faith –your question—has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt!

You need to get back to the original thread—! Thus, I will make only a few more comments:

Though your use of eternal and positive law is not consistent or biblical [your definitions/use/understanding are in question, et. al], please note that God imposed a (pre-flood) positive law [your use of term; actually God imposed an divine law which became human (positive) law] in Genesis 4:15, which was more than just a mere “recommendation!” Moreover, Adam was instructed by God concerning the forbidden fruit and it was his responsibility to insure that Eve and the future human race (i.e. be fruitful and multiply) obeyed such! Adam, the covenant head, was to enforce (pre-flood) human (positive) law — given by God!

Just in case you have forgotten, the “eternal/divine” law of God is suppose to be the human (positive) law to be practiced by humanity—man is not to be a law unto himself (that’s called sin)! Thus, it is all “eternal/divine” law (unless it is a law that is ungodly and then there is no obligation to obey it …Augustine states, "Consequently, every human law has just so much of the nature of law as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it departs from the law of nature, it is no longer law but a perversion of law.")! Genesis 9:6; 4:15, and 2:16 are divine law given in time and when applied by man may be called human (positive) law for which man was/is responsible. Even you AGREED that “do not murder” is one of God’s eternal/divine laws, however, you have failed to include this in the remainder of your thought process! John Calvin said, "We must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law; for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable as the justice of God" (Commentaries on the Gospels, Vol. 1, p. 277).


God DID NOT put a mark on Cain because he merely had little regard for “positive law,” but because it was part of His plan from the very beginning! God did not do this “reluctantly,” but foreknew it because He foreordained it [insert string of verses on foreordination]. If it was just “a period of anarchy” then why are there still murders today? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" /> Sin has run wild since the fall and will continue until …. (note sin continues in hell even after the Second Coming).

God’s purpose in sparing Cain is very evident from Scripture. There are two lines: (1) the seed of the woman — Abel, and (2) the seed of the Serpent — Cain. These lines may be traced throughout Scripture. God spared for His own purposes the person of Cain. Here we see that God even has a “divine” purpose for preservation of evil ...…(compare, Pharaoh in Romans 9:17, “For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.”). Was this relevant to Noah before the flood? Of course it was! How many Christians get discouraged when they see the wicked prosper – look at Cain’s line and see how they mastered several arts-they prospered (Gen. 4:17-22)! Many wicked prosper today as well during Noah's time (I'm building a boat in the middle of nowhere and my acquaintances are becoming millionaires .... ). However, the saint of God need not be discouraged for as God rose up someone to replace Abel, and Noah triumphed in the flood, so Christ HAS triumphed in the Church, et. al. This was to be a story of hope for Israel and it is a story of hope for the Church today!!!

Of course, Cain's condition may also be seen in light of the fall in Genesis 3, etc., etc., etc. God later looked at the world (Cain's kingdom) and said what before the flood?

God had a purpose and He fulfilled it according to His Divine counsel! The battle between the two seeds is one of God’s focuses throughout all of Scripture, et. al.

PS: Your straw is on fire.

what is meant by the term "middle knowledge"?

Is this the same "middle knowledge" theory used by the jesuit luis de molina in the sixteen century?

In Christ Alone

First... welcome to the Discussion Board. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" />

The answer to your question is basically yes. Although there are variants to how some like to define "middle knowledge", it all amounts to the same thing in the end, which is heretical to classic Christian teaching.

In His grace,

I think some who follow arminianism are moving in this direction because of their view on free will.