The Difference Maker
Hodges' Argument
Hodge argues that unless grace is resistible, the ultimate reason some believe and not others is found in us and not in God. Hodge says this would make believers better, more impressible or less obstinate than other.1
Problem Non-Unique
Personally, I find this one of the most powerful Calvinistic arguments. The idea that I can take credit for my salvation is intolerable, as is the idea that I am better than someone else. But the Calvinist solution is no solution, and it creates more problems than it resolves.
Let’s take the argument that believers can take credit for their faith. But Calvinists also say people believe. Therefore Calvinism entails that people can take credit for their faith.
It does not good for Calvinists to object that in Calvinism, grace is the sufficient cause of faith and in Arminianism, it is not. That doesn’t impact responsibility. In Calvinism, people are responsible for their actions, even though they are predetermined by sufficient causes. The objection at first seems appealing, because it is built on the intuitive Arminian assumption of the link between LFW and responsibility (i.e. faith is predetermined, therefore we are not responsible for it.) But since Calvinists are compatiblists, this view entails the contradiction that we are and are not responsible for predetermined actions.
So Calvinism doesn’t solve the problem. Worse, it opens the can of worms regarding the reprobate.
Why Can’t Believers Boast?
Faith is a good thing. God commands faith and people are chided and punished for unbelief (1 John 3:23, Mark 16:14, John 12:48). Even the belief of demons is called good (James 2:19). Faith is listed among the three abiding virtues (1 Corinthians 13:13) and Hebrews 11 gives the so called “hall of faith”.
On the other hand, the command to believe is evangelical, not legal. Faith is not a work of the law, it excludes boasting, and it’s consistent with grace. (Romans 3:27-28, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:5, Romans 4:16)
How is it that faith is both good and not a work of the law? God’s commands reflect His holy character. (Matthew 5:48, also cross reference Mark 12:28-31 with 1 John 4:8) But God never repented or trusted Christ for salvation. He has no need to. So faith is not a part of the image of God or Christ. In this sense it’s not a virtue, and that’s why it doesn’t earn God’s favor. Apart from God’s mercy, faith is worthless. And that’s why believers cannot boast. This resolves the difficulty for both Calvinists and Arminians.
The Ultimate Reason Some Believe and Not Others
We have already seen that faith is nothing to brag about, such that even if we are the ultimate reasons we believe, we still are no better than anyone else; but is it true the ultimate reason we believe is in us not God? Given our very existence depends on God, no, clearly not. But even in the less ultimate sense, assuming our existence, I still don’t think so. God, knowing how we would freely respond, decides to call us. 2 Hodge discusses this view, and concludes that since we freely believe, the ultimate reason is still in man. (link) But this ignores God’s role. It’s not an either us or God - the question is a false dichotomy. The ultimate reason is in both us and God, not either/or.
1Interestingly Hodge does not appeal to 1 Corinthians 4:7 (at least not directly, but he does quote Bellarmin who uses the passage). Perhaps the issue is in the translation. The KJV’s “who maketh thee to differ” seems highly supportive of Hodge’s case. But recent translations have moved away from this sense to “who sees anything different in you” (ESV, RSV and NRSV) or “who regards you as superior” (NASB). The Greek diakrino does seem to relate more easily to deciding something rather than making something. But in any case, Hodge doesn’t use this text. The passages Hodge does cite are those he supposes teach unconditional election, but don’t describe the nature of grace.
2I am an Molinist which opens this way of explaining things. It’s called congruism (i.e. the idea that God’s grace and man’s choice are congruent). I personally think Arminius was a congruist, but not all Arminians hold to this.
Comments
I think you have some errors of premise in there, that, if removed, would obviate the need for your creative solution.
In Calvinism, [people's actions are] predetermined by sufficient causes.
This makes it sound like God puppets people around-- which in turn implies that it is against a person's will. Or, said another way, your statement implies that all human actions are monergistically initiated by God. This is not the case. While indeed God does foreordain sin, and his foreordination means that it can be no other way... nevertheless the sin action itself is conceived and acted out by the human alone. Only regeneration (the new birth) is monergistically caused by God. There is no "erg" on the part of God when it comes to humans sinning. All "erg" of sin is human-- sin is monergistic, but monergistically human. The reverse, as it were, of the new birth.
the contradiction that we are and are not responsible for predetermined actions.
There is no contradiction when we see that sin is not initiated by God. There is a difference between foreordaining something and causing it.
So Calvinism doesn’t solve the problem. Worse, it opens the can of worms regarding the reprobate.
Again, while God foreordains the non-elect as reprobate, this is not the same thing as causing them to take the actions they take toward that path. They themselves are the cause of their sin... that God has ordained to allow them to proceed on this path, even ordained their every action... does not change the fact that they themselves conceive of and do the actions they do.
On the other hand, the command to believe is evangelical, not legal. Faith is not a work of the law, it excludes boasting, and it’s consistent with grace.
Faith excludes boasting BECAUSE it is the result of God's work in the person (which itself is by God's grace).
You are right that faith is not a work (and therefore not part of the Law). Faith is better described as a state of being. However, the issue is not "faith" but "making a decision"/"changing ones mind"... the issue is repentance. And this is a work under the Law.
The point of conflict with Arminians (or other LFWers) and Calvinists is not "faith" but "how one comes to faith".
But God never repented or trusted Christ for salvation. He has no need to. So faith is not a part of the image of God or Christ. In this sense it’s not a virtue, and that’s why it doesn’t earn God’s favor.
You present this as your explanation for why faith is not part of the Law.
Remember though, that God commands HUMANS that they shall not murder... but it is right and just for God to kill a human. The Law is God's requirements for the Creature... God is not bound to the same requirements. (Note, God will always behave holy and just. However, just because he commands the Creature to behave in a certain way, does not mean that He himself must behave in the same way.) What I'm getting at is, you can't use the observation that God doesn't have or need faith, to prove that faith is not part of the law.
You wrote:
“Hodge discusses this view, and concludes that since we freely believe, the ultimate reason is still in man. (link) But this ignores God’s role. It’s not an either us or God - the question is a false dichotomy. The ultimate reason is in both us and God, not either/or.”
Some thoughts on this. First, I keep seeing Calvinists bring up this argument that if we **do** anything in the process of salvation, then we would have reason to boast that we saved ourselves, that God is not the one who saves us. This is mistaken for multiple reasons. The bible itself says that saving faith **excludes** boasting (that alone should be sufficient, the bible explicitly says that saving faith excludes boasting so that should be the end of it for those who supposedly claim to be basing their views on scripture alone). For those who engage in evangelism and are fortunate to see souls saved, in observing these folks, we see that genuine saving faith leads to humility on the part of these people with them focusing on what God did, not upon their faith. Then there is our own conversion experience: if one of these Calvinists brings up this argument we need only ask them about their own conversion experience (did saving faith make them boastful? Did saving faith make them acknowledge that they were sinners completely undeserving of God’s grace and mercy? Have they boasted about their own faith saving them? And if not, why not? We could multiply the questions but he point is that their very own experience argues against their argument and that is a fatal flaw if there ever was one).
Second, I have problems with the word “ultimate”. It seems to me that we as finite limited created beings, our every action is **contingent** upon a whole host of factors, so we are never ultimate in anything that we do (if something is contingent then it is never ultimate, so our faith which is contingent upon the work of the Spirit is never ultimate). It seems to me that only God is ultimate. “Ultimate” in my thinking is closely related to absolute. Again, we are not absolute in our being or our actions, we are always limited, and at the mercy of other factors. God on the other hand is absolute, He is ultimate. He created the world and maintains it in existence, thus making our every action possible. If God had not created the world, and the processes and laws present in it, we could not do a thing. So ultimately our actions are not even possible unless God creates the world and maintains the world. We may do an action but our action is only possible because God has already created and maintains the world in existence. So **ultimately** our actions are dependent upon God the absolute, his action of maintaining the world being what ultimately makes any action possible.
Third, you make a very good point that it is not an either/or situation (i.e., that when it comes to our faith it is either totally God at work and us doing nothing, or us having faith with God doing nothing). The biblical picture is that God initiates things, for example, He sends Jesus while we were yet sinners, with Jesus dying on the cross for our sins before we believe, when we had nothing to do with God and were separated from Him by our sin. God initiates, he also enables us to have a faith response via the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts before we believe. Without this prior work of the Spirit we would not be convicted of our sin, convicted about our need for a savior, convicted about the identify and work of Jesus, convicted about and having it revealed to us that Jesus is the way of salvation and that we must trust Him and repent of our sin and turn and follow Jesus. But all of this work by the Spirit which does not save us, but makes salvation possible, is all God’s doing. When another person makes something possible for me, I don’t go around talking as if it was ultimately me that made it happen. Instead, if I correctly understand that the other person did all the work to make it even possible for me to do something, then I have gratitude towards that person not boasting about how “I did it”. An analogy I often use, is imagine immigrant parents who work and save for years to make it possible for their child to go to college. When the time comes, if the child decides to go to college, who is “ultimately” responsible? Whose work makes it even possible for the child to go? The parents and their years of work and saving. Similarly, Jesus did the work of atonement on the cross, he did all the work that was necessary and he did it way before we ever came on the scene and were in position to trust Him. If we trust Him we acknowledge that it was his work on the cross that saves us not we ourselves. And our trust is completely contingent or dependent upon His work. So our salvation really is not based upon our work but His.
Your point is that both God and us are involved in our having faith: and that is correct. God makes it possible, the Spirit enables faith, and we choose to trust. But it is not an either/or situation or even close, take away the work of the Spirit and it is impossible for us to be saved.
Robert
can you both address Theo's words here?:::>
The point of conflict with Arminians (or other LFWers) and Calvinists is not "faith" but "how one comes to faith".
Do you agree that this is the point of conflict between Calvinists and Arminians ?
The bible itself says that saving faith **excludes** boasting (that alone should be sufficient, the bible explicitly says that saving faith excludes boasting ...
You seem to suggest that the reason boasting is excluded is that God has commanded that there shall be no boasting... either that, or you seem to be suggesting that people simply "turn humble" when they have saving faith (and this is the reason they don't boast).
While it is true that God has commanded humility, and it is true that those coming to faith are humbled by the truth of the Gospel in their life... Romans 3 isn't talking about that.
Paul says that boasting is excluded "by the law of faith." (Note he does not simply say "by faith"). With the term "law of faith", Paul is referring to what he just described in vv 21-26 above... i.e., the mechanism of justification.
Boasting is excluded not by some magic properties of "saving faith" or by some restraining act of the Holy Spirit... but it is excluded because we see in vv 21-26 that there is simply no room for boasting. Boasting is not simply squelched or contained... it is literally excluded. Off the table, because of what Christ and the Father did on our behalf, even despite our merits.
We do not suggest that non-Calvinists boast of their faith. What we are saying is that the ordo salutis is such that boasting is actually excluded... therefore, a soteriology that does not literally exclude even the hypothetical notion of boasting, must not be consistent with scripture.
I see that natamllc has already touched on this... but I would like for you to elaborate on your statement, "we choose to trust".
What is involved in "choosing"?
can you both address Theo's words here?:::>
The point of conflict with Arminians (or other LFWers) and Calvinists is not "faith" but "how one comes to faith".
Do you agree that this is the point of conflict between Calvinists and Arminians ?
Yes. At least for me that's a big part of the difference.
God be with you,
Dan
Thanks for your thoughts on this important topic.
your statement implies that all human actions are monergistically initiated by God.
Not exactly. I am saying God's"erg" determines our "erg". Why the lingo "grace is a sufficient cause of faith" may be somewhat unfamiliar to Calvinists, it's equivalent to Hodges normal expression: "effectual grace" or "effectual calling". Paul Helm puts it: "the call that brings a response". Sure it's two part: God's call and our response. But in Calvinism the person can't not respond. That's all I am saying by "sufficient cause...". BTW, do you agree with my understanding of the key issue? (link)
If I understand you correctly, your saying repentance is a choice, but faith is not (i.e. repentance is a change of mind and faith a state of mind). I don't have a big problem with that, but I don't see how it resolves the issue. That would mean that we can take credit for repentance.
Again, the solution is that repentance is evangelical, not legal, and that repentance is not part of the image of God. God has never repented. Repentance isn't keeping the law, but after we break the law we need to repent.
As for God's being "above the law", as Lawgiver and more importantly as Sovereign, yes there are some things He can do that we cannot. Vengeance is His not ours. But He can't lie because He is the truth. I can't imagine a world in which God is hate and the ultimate value is hating God and man. Morals are part of the divine image. Even killing (but never murder) is ok for those in authority – government’s limited authority reflects God's ultimate authority. But repentances and faith are not part of God's image at all, and without God mercifully forgiving the penitent and justifying the believer, repentance and faith are worthless.
God be with you,
Dan
“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us.” (Isaiah 33:22)
God be with you,
Dan
ah, did I miss something?
You did not explain it.
Can you now?
Theo touched on where I am going with my inquiry, to my surprise!
I would be interested in your explanation of Romans 3 as you explain how you come to His Faith?
michael
I'm going to remain somewhat silent, looking forward to your response/discussion with natamllc.
In the mean time... you said, I am saying God's"erg" determines our "erg".
I guess I'm a little confused now as to what "you" are saying and what you say Calvinists are saying. Could you clarify what concepts you uphold, and what concepts represent your understanding of Calvinism?
Theo the Brainy Bird! :-) How wonderful to see you, always a great treat. I love you as an debate opponent.
I understood your position, forgive me for more simplified version, as: Humans have FW to choose within the limits of their sin nature, so we can choose one sin over another, but all that will still be sinful choice. We can’t however choose to repent or believe on our own, God grants that ability to elect only, monergistically.
That is how I saw it, if you kindly endorse of correct it,please.
I’ll wait if Robert answers your q-n on choosing, if he doesn’t, I promise I will, think I have a pretty decent grip on FW/A view of this subject by now, thanks to all, esp. Dan of course.
However, I have a contra- question for you: how do you see “sin action itself is conceived and acted out by the human alone” in actuality ? What causes a desire to act one way over the other? A reaction to a sum of influences? That would essentially equate it to puppetry, which you specifically dismiss.
Do you view the FW choice as being possibly contrary to those influences ? That is the only way I see FW choice being possible. If you disagree may I kindly ask you to give your own explanation of how you see the choice being made.
Thank you in advance ,dear John,
again appreciate your views, as always.
O.
Let me put it this way: All humans choose according to their strongest desire (i.e., they choose as they please). Fallen humans choose to not repent and they choose to not believe (still choosing as they please).
Yes, God regenerates the elect (only), and regenerated (reborn) humans are pleased by God... and so they too choose as they please, this time for God (i.e., they repent and believe).
I have a contra- question for you
A person acts in the manner of their choosing. They choose according to their strongest desire. They may have conflicting desires-- and these desires may be very strong, even to the point that when the person finally makes a choice, he makes it "reluctantly", or "with doubt" or "with misgivings" or "uncertainty." But in the end analysis, what they finally choose at any given juncture is that which they desired the very most. The same happens when people have to choose between "the best of two evils". They may truly dislike all options, but if they choose one of them, they choose it because the other options were more undesirable than the one they finally chose.
But note: It is not a reaction to external influences. It is the product of the person's nature-- which is their own self. They are not being "puppeted" by anyone other than their very own self. The only influences on their will, are their own desires. And that's not puppetry, but freedom.
(Note... I'm simply talking about how I see the will working. I maintain that God ordains all actions (and not in a reactionary way)... but that's a different part of the puzzle).
You see, I consider that we are free indeed... but freedom does not mean being free of everything including your own self (like the "FW view" proposes). And freedom does not require God having no say in your decisions. Biblical freedom (and therefore real freedom) is choosing as you please. No more, no less. So, yes, I consider what is called "the free will view" to be contrary to the above... and contrary to scripture.
Regarding your Key Issue post...
I disagree with your "what it's not" number 2. Calvinists do not affirm prevenient grace. PG is a form of resistible grace, and is therefore central to the dispute. PG is also only made necessary if one rejects unconditional election while accepting total depravity.
Your #3... Calvinists will affirm the concept of Common (non-saving) Grace... and will affirm that God applies this both internally and externally, both to the elect and to the reprobate. However, we would not agree that this is a "call" except in the sense of making His majesty and mercy plain to people. This is not the same as the effectual call of regeneration, which is saving grace, and is given only to the elect.
#6... I quibble with terminology here. Faith is "being sure of what you hope for" and so is not a choice but a state. However, correct: we all agree that DECIDING TO believe is a choice.
Over all, I think that while I agree that I/R grace question is large... I think this difference is secondary to the issue of conditional/unconditional election.
Prevenient (resistible) grace is only made necessary if election is conditioned on the will of man.
I think the Key Issue is, in fact rather, the importance of the will of man in his own salvation.
I think the difference is that Arminians say that man under grace can still choose not to believe, as I explained in this post. Perhaps the issue of the order of salvation is getting in the way. I was planning on dealing with it latter, but maybe I will post on it next.
God be with you,
Dan
While Hodge uses the term prevenient grace, you’re right that he didn’t explain the term the way Arminians do.
I agree conditional/unconditional election is a highly related and vital issue. If election is conditional, grace is resistible (and vice versa). After Hodge, I plan on blogging through Boettner’s Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.
I think the Key Issue is, in fact rather, the importance of the will of man in his own salvation.
Hum… The point I was trying to make above was that in both Calvinism and Arminianism, man has a will, but his choice doesn’t save. God saves.
God be with you,
Dan
I hear you say, and I believe you sincerely mean (and would have no other way), that God saves and man has no effective part in it.
The persistent problem is, under Arminianism, man becomes the "gatekeeper" as it were to his own salvation.
As such, no matter how you want to describe man's role as gatekeeper, or how man might accomplish this without doing any work... in the end, man is the gatekeeper under non-reformed viewpoints... and as such, if a man is saved it is because of something about the man (whether something he does or something he is).
We find this unconscionable.
well, that's a start.
But after some time pondering Romans 3 and all that God by the Sanctifying work of the Holy Ghost through the Apostle because of the "peace" He establishes with His Elect through the Blood of Christ's Cross, I still don't see how your presuppositions line up with God's clear Word?
Maybe I could suggest, instead of explaining what men mean to mean Scripture means, you could just go through Scripture and venture to put forth what it means alone?
Theo's point is still well taken and it seems there is some obstruction between what he is so clearly saying and your ability to acquiesce to his point.
Maybe you could exegete Romans 3? And then based on Romans 3, how does one such as yourself "come to faith"?
My position is "dead" people don't do anything for themselves.
It does seem to me this matter seems to come close to swallowing camels and straining at gnats?
Let me reiterate Theo anew:
[[The persistent problem is, under Arminianism, man becomes the "gatekeeper" as it were to his own salvation.]]
It does seem to me from where I sit that this is what you believe, yes? I mean to say that you believe you are the gatekeeper to your own salvation in very slight parts of the whole work of His Faith being worked out by Him in your life and mine and all who believe?
By the way, that's a hint that last bit there: "and all ""who"" believe?".
I am suggesting if you will read Romans 3 with "all" believers in mind, you will see something you never ever saw before or at least I trust the Holy Ghost will give you His understanding of what He means by "all believers".
Here's a Biblical hint too to make the point to what I am pointing to:
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
and
2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
2Co 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
2Co 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
2Co 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
This again brings me back to the "sad" explanation Christ gives His disciples who asked Him what He meant when He gave the parable of the tares and the wheat:
Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
Mat 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
Mat 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
Mat 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
Mat 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
The term Prevenient grace simply means "preceeding grace" or grace that preceeds....goes before.
I maybe wrong about this, but I think Saint Augustine was the first to use the term in this way.
Now what he meant by it is still unknown to me at this time.
But he did use it, and I believe Arminius quoted his ussage of it......in one of his works about the fall of man and the freedom of the will.
As seen here:
chapter XIV in the work called
"ON THE FREE WILL OF MAN AND ITS POWERS"
""Subsequent or following grace does indeed assist the good purpose of man; but this good purpose would have no existence unless through preceding or preventing grace. And though the desire of man, which is called good, be assisted by grace when it begins to be; yet it does not begin without grace, but is inspired by Him, concerning whom the Apostle writes thus, thanks be to God, who put the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for you. If God incites any one to have 'an earnest care' for others, He will 'put it into the heart' of some other person to have 'an earnest care' for him." Augustinus, Contra. 2 Epist. Pelag. l. 2. c. 9."",
As you see he was quoting Saint Augustine.
So it's not really, strictly an Arminian thing. It was used by Saint Augustine 1,600 years ago, and even the Eastern Orthodox used the term some 336 years ago, in the "Confession of Dositheus: Synod of Jerusalem (A.D. 1672)"
Now like I said before, how Augustine used the term is unknown to me at this time.
So the Reformed can use the term "prevenient grace". Just because they choose not to, doesn't mean Dan was wrong. Dan was right in using that term.
Not all Calvinists will agree with the view of "common grace".
The Reformed Protestant "Herman Hoeksema" fought against it in his day. And I personally know of 1 or 2 Calvinists I have met on the internet that also reject the idea of "common grace".
So the real issue is "grace that preceeds" the human will. And the term "Prevenient grace" represents the issue at hand perfectly.
So Dan was correct in his ussage.
JNORM888
ensenuating myself into your comments to Theo, I hope Theo does not mind as you likewise, you quote Augustine:
[[...assist the good purpose of man; but this good purpose would have no existence unless through preceding or preventing grace.]].
What do you say? Does this imply that there is a "good" purpose in man?
This is a common objection but Arminians don't claim to save themselves but accept what is offered. I don't think it is a powerful argument because I have never thought of my choices as having the power to get me into heaven, just that I won't get there if I refuse the offer.
If a person is stuck on a mountain and someone offers him a rope, it is the rescuer that is saving him. That he has to grab the rope merely differentiates whether he will accept the offer to get off the mountain or reject it. He is still unable to get himself off, he is reliant on his rescuer.
theojunkie: We do not suggest that non-Calvinists boast of their faith. What we are saying is that the ordo salutis is such that boasting is actually excluded... therefore, a soteriology that does not literally exclude even the hypothetical notion of boasting, must not be consistent with scripture.
Rather one that excludes any legitimate reason for boasting. Anyone could boast about anything, even with no reason. So using my analogy above, while someone could boast about holding the rope, it is not like this has any legitimacy. An appeal to Paul is reasonable as he is saying that there is really nothing to boast about.
So what does ordain mean? Know or cause or intend or plan or something else?
It appears that Augustine was describing the concept of "common grace"... that being, the grace that prevents a person from being as wicked as they could/would be if left to their own devices... and/or spurs the natural man to do good works.
Common grace-- unlike "prevenient grace"-- is not saving grace. It causes people to do good things, and could be called a form of general revelation, but does not regenerate a person-- does not turn the stone heart to flesh.
I have no comments regarding the "Calvinists" you met who deny common grace, because I don't know them. However, they might not be really reformed... or they might be using a different term for the concept.
Ordain means to intend/plan/find mete and proper/declare that something shall be.
me again.
Turretinfan on his blog wrote this:
TF:Less dramatic than either of those departures from orthodox theology is the Arminian position. One of the consistent Reformed criticisms of the Arminian position is that it converts faith into a work, and makes faith the meritorious cause of salvation. Thus, while Arminians would affirm the futility of works for salvation, they inconsistently undo that affirmation by converting faith into a work. It should be noted that some of the papists have done the same more boldly by substituting "faithfulness" (i.e. obedience) in place of faith.
Can you comment on that?
Bethyada, you wrote this to TheoJ:
B:If a person is stuck on a mountain and someone offers him a rope, it is the rescuer that is saving him. That he has to grab the rope merely differentiates whether he will accept the offer to get off the mountain or reject it. He is still unable to get himself off, he is reliant on his rescuer.
Why not rather accept my edition of it?
Here is my edit:
Bethyada said this Michael's meant way:
B/M:A person is stuck on a mountain because he is dead and someone/Our Heavenly Father offers him a dignified burial/baptism and sends helpers/Angels with a rope to tie him securely to that rope/Christ. Everyone on the morning news watching this rescue see clearly he is dead on that mountain and if not rescued will be eaten by the wild animals roaming that area, so everyone knows already it is the rescuer that is saving him from such a terrible end. Because he is dead he has no hope of getting buried in a dignified way so for him to grab the rope merely differentiates whether he will in his ability try to save himself, being dead to himself and God, cannot save himself or simply to accept the offer to get off the mountain, or reject it, the Gospel and be left on that mountain to be eaten by the wild animals in that area. He is still unable to get himself off, either way, he is reliant on his rescuer or fate. He is dead just as the Scriptures say:
Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
Col 2:14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
Now for the Scriptures that deal with being eaten by wild animals on that mountain where he is clearly dead:
Job 18:10 A rope is hidden for him in the ground, a trap for him in the path.
Job 18:11 Terrors frighten him on every side, and chase him at his heels.
Job 18:12 His strength is famished, and calamity is ready for his stumbling.
Job 18:13 It consumes the parts of his skin; the firstborn of death consumes his limbs.
Bethyada, care to comment on my edit?
thanks for the answer.
I apologize for maybe not making my question clear. What i am trying to ask is your definition of FW choice from a Calvinist viewpoint.
They are not being "puppeted" by anyone other than their very own self. The only influences on their will, are their own desires. And that's not puppetry, but freedom.
You mean the nature, or self is capable of FW choice ? Would you explain a bit more how desire which produces choice, comes about ? If you say it’s not the influences that absolutely determine it, do you have any additional thoughts on mechanics of "choosing"?
So far all my highly respected C opponents generally dont go any deeper then “Choice is acting as you please”, but that is also FW view definition ,so generally the debate at this point comes to a halt :)
The Reformed Protestant "Herman Hoeksema" fought against it in his day. And I personally know of 1 or 2 Calvinists I have met on the internet that also reject the idea of "common grace".
would you,friend,mind expanding on what basis they disagree with CG? I am interested.
To me TheoJ’s recently given definition of Common Grace is indeed better, and makes more sense then, for ex., Piper’s (who, I agree with Turret, is a pretty weak theologian): Jesus saves all men from the immediate eternal punishment they deserve all during the time they are allotted to live on the earth, but He saves only the elect from eternal punishment after they die
That view doesn’t make much sense and doesn’t – as I see it- fit the definition of grace. For those predestined to damnation its no grace at all It would have been better for them to not have it , for every moment of such “common grace” will cost them torture in hell and makes it a bit far fetched explanation of 1 Tim4:10 "is the Savior of all men, especially of believers" .
TJ ,care to add any comment on your ( or C in general) view of the Tim verse?
Thank you.
O
TF:Less dramatic than either of those departures from orthodox theology is the Arminian position. One of the consistent Reformed criticisms of the Arminian position is that it converts faith into a work, and makes faith the meritorious cause of salvation. Thus, while Arminians would affirm the futility of works for salvation, they inconsistently undo that affirmation by converting faith into a work. It should be noted that some of the papists have done the same more boldly by substituting "faithfulness" (i.e. obedience) in place of faith.
Can you comment on that?
Sure. Many Calvinists assert that Arminians make faith a work, but they don't have a reason to do so. In the process they contradict both scripture and themselves. As I noted in my post, their view entails that we are and are not responsible for predetermined actions.
God be with you,
Dan
we are making progress towards the end of all things! :)
I am now more befuddled by that explanation than ever.
Can you exegete Romans 3 then?
michael
TJ:What I'm getting at is, you can't use the observation that God doesn't have or need faith, to prove that faith is not part of the law.
Might I add, because God is FAITH too! He need not "have" faith in Himself because of it, FAITH.
We are trying to reduce God down to our human pee brain manipulations.
God is God.
God is not the devil.
However the devil by magic arts can turn wood into creatures, snakes!
Robert:The bible itself says that saving faith **excludes** boasting (that alone should be sufficient, the bible explicitly says that saving faith excludes boasting so that should be the end of it for those who supposedly claim to be basing their views on scripture alone). For those who engage in evangelism and are fortunate to see souls saved, in observing these folks, we see that genuine saving faith leads to humility on the part of these people with them focusing on what God did, not upon their faith.
I wanted to tackle your reasoning here.
First some verses:
Rom 1:4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
Rom 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,
Rom 1:6 including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,
and
Rom 16:25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages
Rom 16:26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith--
Rom 16:27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.
and
1Co 9:10 Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.
1Co 9:11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?
1Co 9:12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ.
and
2Co 9:5 So I thought it necessary to urge the brothers to go on ahead to you and arrange in advance for the gift you have promised, so that it may be ready as a willing gift, not as an exaction.
2Co 9:6 The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.
2Co 9:7 Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
finally James:
Jas 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,
Jas 2:16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?
Jas 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Robert, based on those foregoing verses doesn't your words above that I highlighted now make null and void the Bible you use to justify yourself?
you wrote: But He can't lie because He is the truth. I can't imagine a world in which God is hate and the ultimate value is hating God and man. Morals are part of the divine image.
I can imagine that world and in fact we live in it!
Luk 14:25 Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them,
Luk 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.
Here we see Jesus/God teach us to "hate" Him/God and man.
Just thought you might want to reconsider your words and realize God's ways are not ours!
I am coming to the sense that until and unless you let go and let God, God and man will be quite a frustration to your personal life and ultimately might just turn you to bitterness?
That's just my personnal libertarian free will expression though!
Let me ask you: am I now an Arminian? :)
you wrote:
I maybe wrong about this, but I think Saint Augustine was the first to use the term in this way.
I respond by saying, "but" I think Saint Joseph was the first to use the term in this way:
Gen 45:4 So Joseph said to his brothers, "Come near to me, please." And they came near. And he said, "I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt.
Gen 45:5 And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life.
Gen 45:6 For the famine has been in the land these two years, and there are yet five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvest.
Gen 45:7 And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors.
Gen 45:8 So it was not you who sent me here, but God. He has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt.
Yes, maybe I don't understand prevenient grace then?
The FW view definition of free will requires that man be free to choose contrary to their nature... contrary to their desires... it requires that man be free of ALL influences, not just external ones.
The Calvinist (or at any rate, "my") understanding of free will is that we are free to choose as we please... BUT we are NOT free to choose as we do not please. That is, we are NOT free to choose contrary to our own natures... indeed, we WILL choose ACCORDING to our natures every time.
How does desire produce choice? When we are not being coerced (when something external to us is not pressuring us one way or the other)... then when we say to ourselves, "Self, what shall I do right now?" We ponder what we WANT to do... and we decide, "I shall do that!"
We are influenced as free creatures... the point is, we are influenced by our self-- our nature.
We do indeed have the ability to do contrary to EXTERNAL influences. If your friends are pressuring you to smoke pot... you are not bound to smoke pot. If you do not want to smoke pot, then you won't. ... but regardless of external pressure, if you do want to smoke pot, then you will. Now... a person might want very badly to smoke pot... but they might want very much more badly to not be arrested by the police. These desires weigh together, and the person chooses what they want most-- the pleasures of pot... or avoiding the discomfort of a criminal record. (Or whatever other issues are at play).
1 Tim 4...
Christ is clearly not the EFFECTIVE savior of all men, because all men are not saved (regardless of reason). Now... if we get up there to heaven and it turns out that universalism is true and God was pleased to regenerate all men and bring all men to faith in Christ and save them... then we shall praise Him ever more. But it would appear at the moment that at least some will not believe and hell will have some human residents.
Note also that Paul does not simply say, "Christ is the savior of all men." and stop talking. He says, "ESPECIALLY" of those who believe. Clearly he is making a distinction between two types of people. Those who are saved through faith, and those who are not saved.
So how can Christ be the savior of those who never believe? It is simple: Christ is indeed The Truth, The Life, and The Way. NO one comes to the Father except through Christ. There is no other name under heaven by which anyone can be saved. Further, the Father has not limited this salvation to the Jews only, but has numbered gentiles among the redeemed. Therefore, Christ is indeed THE Savior... applicable to ALL people (not just Jews)... and those who are actually SAVED are those who believe.
This is a rather weak verse to argue against Calvinism with... because if in fact Christ "saves all men" then universalism is true. (Note: universalism is not in conflict with the doctrines of Grace per se-- if everyone is saved, it just means everyone was elect).
I would add... I agree that common grace is much more than simply what Piper laid out in that quote. However, I would say that letting people go unpunished for a season is a form of grace... because if God unleashed his unmitigated justice, everyone should be put to death instantly. The only thing that mitigates justice is grace.
I could possibly live with that. I do suspect when we define things further that I allow for a lot of options with God still getting his intentions for this world done and you will have a more deterministic meaning of intend.
For example I think that God intended Jesus to be put to death for our sins, I don't think he intended Judas to betray him, though he knew he would. Judas could have chosen otherwise in which case God may have used another. I don't think God intended that Adam sinned, though knowing he would he knew the solution. It is possible in this world that Adam could have chosen not to sin.
So, while happy for "intend," I think there is still possibility for lack of agreement.
Yes, we will disagree about the ramifications of "ordain." I believe God pre-ordains all things (he is not a reactionary). However, as noted previously, no one is coerced into sinning.
Both Adam and Judas are separate subjects... and so I don't want to sidetrack Dan's post here.
Since you mentioned them, I will counter (one return comment only) that:
There are verses I think clearly indicate that Judas was the one for all time. (Yet again, he acted willingly).
I also find that God intended Adam to fall... and the big reason why is because God's primary objective with the Creation is to glorify the Son through redemption of the Creation. If the Creation did not fall, then there would be nothing to redeem.
Again, I'm not going to pursue this... just letting you know my POV since you brought it up.
One thing I'm sure we would agree on is this: God is Good.
That should be the foundation upon which every notion is evaluated or built (including evaluating what we suppose the "other camp" believes).
You said:
"It appears that Augustine was describing the concept of "common grace"... that being, the grace that prevents a person from being as wicked as they could/would be if left to their own devices... and/or spurs the natural man to do good works."
I highly doubt that, because he was arguing against Pelagius in that quote. You will have to find the work of Augustine that Arminius quoted from, and decide what Augustine was talking about.
Until then, what you just said is pure speculation. Sometime in the near future, I plan on finding where that came from and what was meant by that term.
You also said:
"Common grace-- unlike "prevenient grace"-- is not saving grace. It causes people to do good things, and could be called a form of general revelation, but does not regenerate a person-- does not turn the stone heart to flesh."
Prevenient grace has to do with Salvation. I could be wrong, but I think the concept of "common grace" was invented by Calvinists some centuries ago.
You said:
"I have no comments regarding the "Calvinists" you met who deny common grace, because I don't know them. However, they might not be really reformed... or they might be using a different term for the concept."
You could of done a google search for "Herman Hoeksema". As seen here here and here
And as far as my two calvinist friends who don't believe in common grace. I will say that, as far as I know they both call themselves Reformed.
One has a video on Youtube. As seen here
here
The same one who did that video also made another video about the other Calvinist I know who rejects "common grace". As seen here
Both Seal and King Neb are high Calvinists. They are both supralapsarian. Now the common grace view, maybe the mainstream calvinist view, but not all Calvinists hold to it.
I hope I wasn't mean to you. If I was, please let me know. Sometimes I have a bad habbit at being rude.
JNORM888
It's been a year or two since I went at it with both Seal and King Neb, in regards to this topic.
If we ever bumb heads again, in regards to the issue of their rejection of "common grace". I will make it known. I never was able to get a clear enough answer from them.
Their understanding of "monergy" seems a little different from the lower calvinist view of "monergy only in the area of justification".
I could be wrong, but it seems as if they might believe it for the area of "sanctification" as well.
I know when it comes to "people sinning" or doing wicked things. They see it as God "actively" making them do that. Whereas most mainstream Calvinists will see it as being "passive" (God ignoring them so that they will end up in Hell anyway).
Some Calvinits are double predestinationists. While most mainstream Calvinists seem to be single predestinationists.
I don't know if that has anything to do with their rejection of common grace. But you can read up on Herman Hoeksema to find out.
JNORM888
The word "Prevenient" just means "preceed".
So you can use the word for just about anything.
But in regards to this topic, it's about the issue of the human will and grace.
If "regeneration" preceeds faith, then Calvinists already believe in a form of "Prevenient grace".
Just change the word "grace" for "regeneration". And you will have "Prevenient Regeneration".
We can play with this some more to say "Prevenient free will" or "Prevenient will". Meaning that the human will "preceeds" grace.
This is why Dan wasn't wrong in using the term when talking about Calvinism.
The word "Prevenient" simply means "to preceed".
That is all it means.
JNORM888
A point of clarification needs to be made... there is a (an important) difference between "election" and "predestination". The two are not the same, though many people (including Calvinists) casually discuss them as though they are.
Election is God's choice. Predestination is God pre-assuring an outcome.
Personally, I am a single-electionist, double-predestinationist.
In other words, God only elects (actively chooses) those who will be His (i.e., saved). He does not "elect people to reprobation".
On the other hand, after electing the elect... he then predestined the elect to salvation... and he predestines the UNelect to reprobation.
But again, if we consider the real effects of the fall on the nature of man, we see that God really doesn't need to do anything when it comes to predestination of the reprobate. They truly do carry themselves to hell by their own wills.
God's activity is in those being saved. (And if/when he is active in the reprobate, it is to restrain them. His hardening of them is basically nothing more than not shedding his grace on them.)
I speak for myself.
Sometime in the near future, I plan on finding where that came from and what was meant by that term.
Good for you, and may God bless you in the endeavor.
Prevenient grace has to do with Salvation.
Indeed it does, and precisely my point. Common grace does not have anything to do with salvation.
"common grace" was invented by Calvinists
... and so who invented the concept of "trinity"?
You could of done a google search
Call me lazy. I still don't know those people.
Sometimes I have a bad habbit at being rude
We're all human...
thanks for your reply.
I knew that.
That is not my point.
My point is simply, when anyone even remotely, like one jot or tittle remotely, thinks they have something to do with anything concerning Life and death, Grace and Mercy, Salvation or free will, they remove God from being Sovereign and they fall from Grace.
Consider this about that.
Consider the "extreme" Christ went through as recorded in Matthew's Gospel and other places when Satan came to "knock" off Christ.
No one would be able to experience such extremes of physical or emotional or spiritual reality when it comes to Satan. No one.
It seems to me the argument is simple. It's God, everything and man dead in trespasses and sins or man is usurping God's authority.
In both the OT and NT, it simply is clear that God is the Savior.
Let me quote the verses from Psalms that I am considering right now:::>
Psa 52:1 To the choirmaster. A Maskil of David, when Doeg, the Edomite, came and told Saul, "David has come to the house of Ahimelech." Why do you boast of evil, O mighty man? The steadfast love of God endures all the day.
Psa 52:2 Your tongue plots destruction, like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit.
Psa 52:3 You love evil more than good, and lying more than speaking what is right. Selah
Psa 52:4 You love all words that devour, O deceitful tongue.
Psa 52:5 But God will break you down forever; he will snatch and tear you from your tent; he will uproot you from the land of the living. Selah
Psa 52:6 The righteous shall see and fear, and shall laugh at him, saying,
Psa 52:7 "See the man who would not make God his refuge, but trusted in the abundance of his riches and sought refuge in his own destruction!"
Psa 52:8 But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God. I trust in the steadfast love of God forever and ever.
Psa 52:9 I will thank you forever, because you have done it. I will wait for your name, for it is good, in the presence of the godly.
It does not get any clearer than this unless you have not received the Holy Ghost to open your mind and heart to the Truth, the Faith, the Grace, the Regeneration once delivered to the Saints.
I can only say, mysteries abound and they are quite abounding in here too! :)
In any event, thanks for your kindness towards me in engaging in this place with me too!
God made the standard of His Righteous Law and Righteous Gospel so high, no man, woman or child can claim any victory. Only Christ.
That is the message here too:
Rev 5:1 Then I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals.
Rev 5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, "Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?"
Rev 5:3 And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it,
Rev 5:4 and I began to weep loudly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it.
No one, no one, no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it.!
It seems to me from where I sit that there is this tension between what we can and will do?
Oh well, unless you have something to add, please do, I will let it rest for now.
“I could possibly live with that. I do suspect when we define things further that I allow for a lot of options with God still getting his intentions for this world done and you will have a more deterministic meaning of intend.”
The difference is between God bringing things to pass by means of freely chosen actions, and God bringing things to pass because he **directly controls our wills**. In the latter he is the puppet master pulling our strings, in the former he uses his foreknowledge to include what He knows people will freely choose to do, when he plans to bring an event to pass. In the former, we are responsible for what we freely choose to do. In the latter, responsibility becomes questionable because we do only what the puppet master pulls our strings causing us to do.
“For example I think that God intended Jesus to be put to death for our sins, I don't think he intended Judas to betray him, though he knew he would. Judas could have chosen otherwise in which case God may have used another.”
Personally I like the example of both Joseph and the crucifixion of Jesus. In both cases, God foreknew what would happen, knew what the response would be to his interventions (with Joseph knowing that giving him the dreams would lead to a hateful response from his brothers; with Jesus coming into the world and doing and saying what he did, knowing that in response, the Jewish leaders would plot with and work with the Roman authorities to have Jesus crucified), knew precisely what would happen if certain events occurred and then allowed them to happen to take their course. Because God has the ability to foreknow what people will do before they do it, God has a unique ability to control situations without eliminating their having choices or their having responsibility (as is true with exhaustive determinism).
The betrayal of Judas is a good example. God knew via his foreknowledge that Judas would in fact betray Jesus and so prophesied about this betrayal. At the same time, Judas could have done otherwise, but God knew in fact that he would not do otherwise. So you are correct that God did not intend for Judas to betray Jesus and yet knew it would happen via his foreknowledge. You also wrote: “Judas could have chosen otherwise in which case God may have used another.” Because God does foreknow how people will act, you are correct that Judas had the ability and opportunity to do otherwise, but God knew **in fact** that he would not do otherwise. So there was no need for a “back-up” person to betray Jesus in case Judas did not betray Jesus, because again God knew that Judas would in fact betray Jesus. This is something important to remember: that God’s foreknowledge does not eliminate people’ free will, their ability and opportunity to do otherwise is still present, but at the same time God knows what we will in fact choose to do in every situation. He could do otherwise, but God knew he would not do otherwise,that in fact he would betray Jesus.
“I don't think God intended that Adam sinned, though knowing he would he knew the solution. It is possible in this world that Adam could have chosen not to sin.”
I agree with you here in that while God knew via his foreknowledge that in fact Adam would sin. This is not the same thing as God intending for Adam to sin, or causing Adam to sin, or bringing about Adam’s sins. Since God knew he would sin God developed a plan of salvation before Adam did sin in history. A major problem of determinism is that when they claim that God intends for us to sin, whether it be Adam’s fall, Judas’ betrayal or the daily sins committed by Christians, they make God the author of sin. But this is not surprising because if God pre-scripted everything as they believe, then he wrote the story from beginning to end, and He desires for every event in this story to occur, he is literally the author of everything (both good and bad) that happens in this story. So they want God to be the author of the story and yet they do not want to hold him responsible for the bad things in the story (they want to shift the blame to the characters in the story for the bad events). Their determinism eliminates free will and the possibility of us ever having choices: and yet they want to keep us responsible for doing the things we were predetermined and controlled to do.
I liken it to a puppet show where one of the puppets murders someone in the crowd. Do we talk about the puppet being bad, or do we blame the puppet? No. Who do we blame? Who do we hold responsible? The one who did make the choice, who had the choice, who intentionally had the puppet commit murder: the puppet master. You can’t (or shouldn’t) hold a puppet who **does not have free will** and does only what the puppet master wants him to do, responsible for things, the puppet master intends and brings about. Similarly, if all is predetermined and we don’t have free will and our every action is controlled and predetermined, then . . .
Robert
Thanks for your comments. At one point you wrote:
“Some Calvinits are double predestinationists. While most mainstream Calvinists seem to be single predestinationists.”
The ones that are logically consistent with their own exhaustive determinism, are double. If God predetermines all things, then whether a person is predetermined to be elect, or predetermined to be reprobate, they are equally predetermined for either eternal destiny. How can the author write the **whole play**, and yet he determined what the good characters would do, but didn’t determine what the bad characters would do? That is not logical. If the same author wrote the whole play, then every part of that play comes about because He wanted for it to come about, and chose for it to come about.
JNORM would you say that Augustine was the first double predestinarian, who set the stage (pun intended) for other double predestinarians such as Calvin?
Who do you think was the first logically consistent Calvinist determinist in your opinion?
Robert
The bible is clear that we are not puppeted by God. But it is clear that he directs man's steps.
Claims of "puppetry" at best reveals a lack of understanding of the Reformed view... and at worst is a term made up by freewillers to obfuscate and propagandize against the Reformed view.
Except for hypercalvinists (which are not Calvinists at all), nobody's understanding of God's sovereignty includes the concept of puppetry. This is not a matter of "necessary logical outcome". It is just a matter of misinformation.
by the way...
Why do you liken it to a puppet murdering somebody in the audience?
Why not liken it to a hungry lion strangely choosing to not eat someone who showed up in his den?
Do you see the difference? We do not blame God when sin is done because sin comes out of the nature of man.
Salvation is the only thing God can be "blamed" for. Because FAITH is the strange thing that a man would never do if left to himself.
Even if God did elect the reprobate, this doesn't make him responsible for the fall of man. Why? Because no matter how it is sliced, the bottom line is man walked himself over to that tree and ate. Man tossed himself off the cliff-- he was not pushed.
Think in the positive! The bible does. Why is it that freewillers always seem to argue from the negative-- in terms of sin and hell? One day we have freewillers saying that the whole point of free will is so that man "has the freedom to reject the Gospel." (Why is that such a blessing?) And on another day the freewillers complain when God allows man to do so.
If you start thinking in terms of the Gospel being the strange outcome and Amazing thing about Grace... instead of sin being the oddity... then you will begin to get inside the Calvinist head.
your words haunt me! grrrrr
Robert:Because God has the ability to foreknow what people will do before they do it, God has a unique ability to control situations without eliminating their having choices or their having responsibility (as is true with exhaustive determinism).
By this can I willingly and freely conclude you are not one to embrace exhaustive determinism?
Bible text: Pro 26:2 Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight.
Who do you think was the first logically consistent Calvinist determinist in your opinion?
Trick question, right? :-)
I would go with supra-lapsarianism (so Beza I guess, though a case could be made for Calvin). Consistent Calvinism is backwards. Take the last event and work backwards to creation. That's the order of the decrees.
God's glory > salvation of some, roasting of others > need to save some and roast others (i.e. the fall) > having someone to to save and roast (i.e. Creation).
God be with you,
Dan
Calvinists tend to look it as a decree: “XYZ will happen”. Signed God. Arminians tend to look at it as arranging things. If I put this here and that there, I get the result I want.
God be with you,
Dan
when you write: [[Take the last event and work backwards to creation. That's the order of the decrees.]]
Do you mean to say people wanting a drink of the Water of Life, will come and drink?
Bible text: Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
Rev 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Rev 22:20 He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
Rev 22:21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.
Briefly, you have partially missed the point. While I think my analogy is a reasonable one for the Arminian view if we accept it, ie. assume Arminianism for the sake of the argument, then there is still no reason to boast. One cannot dismiss Arminian because it gives reason to boast as there is no legitimate reason to boast.
But to return to your analogy versus mine, I think you take the dead metaphor too far.
My dead-in-sin colleagues get dressed, eat food, even speak nicely to me at times. We have the imago Dei and a fallen nature. Our fallen nature limits our response to God, but we can still see his work. We know from either general or specific revelation that God is.
Whether we can respond to God without his calling seems academic to me as I think he woos all men. I just think we have the ability to say yes or no to God's request that we return to him.
theojunkie: Yes, we will disagree about the ramifications of "ordain." I believe God pre-ordains all things (he is not a reactionary). However, as noted previously, no one is coerced into sinning.
And that is where the issue is. You claim that God ordains but does not cause, yet your view of ordaining seems so specific as to what we do that I find it difficult to distinguish "intend" from "cause".
I used Adam and Judas as convenient examples, I am happy to use others if you see them as special cases.
Does God intend for David to sin with Bathsheba from all eternity, does he manipulate every action in David's life that he chooses this sin? If so how can the choice truly be David's.
I claim that David really can choose not to sin. That it was possible for David to make a different choice and he may not have sinned, but he did. In fact I would go further and say that God desires David not to sin, intends him not to sin even.
I have written a blog on this, perhaps I should post it.
Does God ordain evil?
thanks for the answers, you always present your view concisely, to the point, minus demagoguery and vagueness that inevitably creeps into those debates.
Appreciate it.I do have serious problems with responsibility in Compatibilist view, but won’t argue it yet - I am not a match to you fellows in terms of theol. knowledge on this. I will further read your discussion.
Dan made a post on this issue http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2008/06/free-to-choose-what-we-desire-most.html
– critique of Edwards view and Robert presented a few good points in reply. So the subject is indeed very debatable.
However, I would say that letting people go unpunished for a season is a form of grace... because if God unleashed his unmitigated justice, everyone should be put to death instantly.
Unelect would be better off having been put to death instantly, for in the long term letting them live and sin more hurts them even more, no? So I disagree with that particular view of common grace.
I’d however gladly give the RT the benefit of the doubt, and try to read more on it to get a better understanding of CG before passing an judgement.
Sure, thanks. Looks like that KingNeb is quite a hilarious character based on that video with kids : )I had a staff sergeant like that - only his fits of throwing-things-around/ consequent need for replastring straight holes in walls were real. We joked that was why he got transferred from a Sub to the Naval base
Based on what I searched on Herman disagreements with Com.Grace, I see it the same way as he does, so far.
*******************
Michael,
To simplify you meant to say that a person in Bethyada example is too dead to realize his condition and the need for salvation?
thanks
“robert, I am in general agreement with your post.”
I hope so. :-)
“And that is where the issue is. You claim that God ordains but does not cause, yet your view of ordaining seems so specific as to what we do that I find it difficult to distinguish "intend" from "cause".”
So your point is that if God predetermines/ordains everything, then He also causes everything that occurs? In versions of determinism, there is some necessitating factor that necessitates our actions so we have to do what we do. Personally, since Calvinists use the analogy themselves, I like the God as author of his own play analogy: if he is the author of the play then only the events and characters he wants appear on the stage, and they do and say only what He wants them to say and do while they are on the stage. And this is true of every part of the story.
“Does God intend for David to sin with Bathsheba from all eternity, does he manipulate every action in David's life that he chooses this sin? If so how can the choice truly be David's.”
Good points here. God is holy and hates sin, he may allow his people to sin, but He does not intend for them to sin, or take pleasure in their sin, or cause them to sin, or manipulate them to sin. They sin when confronted between a choice to sin or not sin, they freely choose to sin. Since it is their own freely chosen action they are also responsible for the action. God does not manipulate every circumstance to ensure that we sin. That is Calvinism not the bible, the two are different you know. :-)
“I claim that David really can choose not to sin. That it was possible for David to make a different choice and he may not have sinned, but he did. In fact I would go further and say that God desires David not to sin, intends him not to sin even.”
This is also well stated. David was tempted to sin so he had a choice between giving into the temptation or resisting the temptation (he in fact made the choice to give in). Now though it is a fact that he did give in, did he have to do so? No. Was there some necessitating factor that necessitated that he give into temptation and sin? No. He had both the ability and opportunity to both give into the temptation or resist the temptation. Compare with Joseph’s situation. Potiphar’s wife attempted to get him to sin daily and repeatedly but each time Joseph literally ran away from the temptation. Did he have the ability and opportunity to give into that temptation? Yes. Did he do so? No. He had a choice and kept making the right choice. Finally she accused him of rape which got him into the prison which is the next place he needed to be for God’s plan of delivering his people from the famine to be worked out.
With regards to our own sins as believers the same thing is true: if we are confronted with temptation we always have a choice because God provides a way of escape and we either choose to give into temptation or choose to resist it (and either choice is within our power, either choice is something we can do, and we are not forced to do either one or necessitated to do either one). And as you say, God does not desire for us to sin, so he does not predetermine for us to sin either.
Robert
I mean the Bible says "we are dead in trespasses and sins". Unequivocal.
When you start to reason with one's choice or being better than, I can do it, I can not do it, I, I, I, you miss the point of being dead.
Dead people are simply dead.
What we need is His Life to come alive in us to "understand" what God means by us being dead or alive before Him.
After Adam, all of us are dead to something? Obviously not to procreate. That we do quite well, now to the sum of over 6 billion souls on the planet on any given day!
It is then, of God and His Sovereign Grace, that anyone else, after Adam, us, "receives" His Life. This debate on proving ones free will or not is meaningless to me even though, by choice, I come in here and read and contribute to things being pointed to and pointed out.
I would go into this study of death and life and share some things on life/life/life/Life with you.
My illustration off the back of bethyada's was to make the point about one being "dead" by God's definition not man's.
Our being is made up of four parts; spirit, soul, body and flesh.
By the Holy Ghost 'making' alive my spirit, I then can now know the thoughts of God on all matters pertaining to me in this life/life/life/ Life.
It is a wonderful and fascinating study to take all the Hebrew and Greek and Aramiac words translators translate into that one English word: "life".
When you see things from God's point of view, taking into account His meaning, even the Scriptures don't make any sense "naturally".
I fear that when I read a lot of things, even in this place, Arminian Chronicles, dan's comments, Robert's comments, maybe yours too? :), I know that some of what is being said as Gospel Truth isn't simply because there is a wrong emphasis being made because research to the exact meaning of the "translated word" and it's intent, has not been done, thus a meaning is being applied that is not there.
Let me quote verse texts to give you a sample of what I mean:
Mar 12:42 And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which make a penny.
Mar 12:43 And he called his disciples to him and said to them, "Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box.
Mar 12:44 For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on."
1Jn 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death.
1Jn 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
1Jn 3:16 By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.
1Jn 3:17 But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?
1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,
1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.
2Ti 2:3 Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.
2Ti 2:4 No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him.
1Pe 4:3 For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry.
Can you distinquish the common thread in all these verses and "life"?
I encourage you (and any others who may be interested) to listen to RC Sproul's radio series on God's providence... currently on the air, archives and podcast are available through www.ligonier.org.
This hopefully will clear up better than I can say, what I'm trying to say about God's sovereign operations in the world, vis a vis man's will.
Regarding David and Bathsheba, or any particular sin... or any particular action of any sort, even whether or not I pick my nose five minutes from now or whether I eat 2 pieces of cheese cake or only one, or whether Phelps takes home more gold medals than Spitz...
... all of these things-- everything-- was ordained by God before time began, even for all of eternity. God ordains these things not as a reaction to our wills.. but at the same time, he does not force us against our wills to do what he has ordained for us to do.
I think a perfect illustration of this kind of thing (especially God forcing us to do what we otherwise would not have done-- YET in conjunction with our wills and our free decisions)... is Jonah and his watery trip to Nineveh.
You say David could have made a different choice than he did. What proof is there of that notion? The only evidence we have is that David made the choice he ACTUALLY made. Could he have made a different choice? Well... the better question is why he did not do so.
I submit that David could not have chosen contrary to his own nature... and as such, he could not have chosen other than how he chose. He is a slave to his nature (as are we all).
Jonah could have chosen to be digested by the whale instead of obey God. But he didn't. Rather, he chose to live, and to that end he chose to obey.
... I believe that when God ordains sin, it is not because he approves of sin, but because that sin is the only means to the Ultimate Good that God does desire.
Case in point is Adam, case in point is Judas. But this applies to all sins. David would not have been the man of God that he was, had he not sinned (and been chastized, and learned, and grown from the incident). How do I know? Because if David would have been a better man in the end by not sinning, God would have prevented him from sinning.
Romans 8:28 applies.
Unelect would be better off having been put to death instantly, for in the long term letting them live and sin more hurts them even more, no? So I disagree with that particular view of common grace.
Consider this: God does not exist to make man feel good. God's prime objective is His Glory. Further, shall we blame God for letting people sin? Is it God's moral responsibility to prevent people from getting themselves into trouble? All the people have to do is choose to not sin... right? So who's fault is it, what they do with the life they are given? ;o) :o)
I’d however gladly give the RT the benefit of the doubt, and try to read more on it to get a better understanding of CG before passing an judgement.
I have always appreciated that about you.
first off, I hope you noticed I followed your link and commented on your blog?
Second, your wrote: [[ Whether we can respond to God without his calling seems academic to me as I think he woos all men. I just think we have the ability to say yes or no to God's request that we return to him. ]]
To which I inhale and exhale: HMMMMMM?
I can see you are a piece of work and God is not finished with you. Are you in any hurries? :)
Let me make myself clear so there is no confusion or equivocation here?
I totally and categorically reject that.
I guess you would have already come to that conclusion about me already already?
You see, what you consider academic to you is very fundamental to me. And I do not believe God woos those who believe who are in choice rebellion to Him, as in the beast's followers, the false prophets followers, Satan's followers, Death's followers, Hades' followers, those the Scripture says are the ones whose names are not written in the Book of Life.
Let's be clear. "God does not woo all men".
Was that clear enough for you?
Want to develop that with me?
"The ones that are logically consistent with their own exhaustive determinism, are double. If God predetermines all things, then whether a person is predetermined to be elect, or predetermined to be reprobate, they are equally predetermined for either eternal destiny. How can the author write the **whole play**, and yet he determined what the good characters would do, but didn’t determine what the bad characters would do? That is not logical. If the same author wrote the whole play, then every part of that play comes about because He wanted for it to come about, and chose for it to come about."
I 100%ly agree
Rob said:
"JNORM would you say that Augustine was the first double predestinarian, who set the stage (pun intended) for other double predestinarians such as Calvin?"
I don't really know at this point. I know that Calvinism is based on the later teachings of Saint Augustine, but as far as the details go, I really don't know yet. Once I'm done dealing with Morey's book. I plan on finishing up what I started with Augustine.
Rob said:
"Who do you think was the first logically consistent Calvinist determinist in your opinion?"
I would have to agree with Dan on this one. I think it was Theodore Biza too. I could be wrong, but I think "Supralapsarianism" was started by him.
Take care and God bless
JNORM888
I know that the local council of Orange condemned "double predestination".
But as far as finding exactly where Saint Augustin tought it, is unknown to me at this point in time. The finger is pointed at him, but I still need to trace it in his writtings.
JNORM888
... all of these things-- everything-- was ordained by God before time began, even for all of eternity. God ordains these things not as a reaction to our wills.. but at the same time, he does not force us against our wills to do what he has ordained for us to do.
The way I see what you are saying is that God sets up the entire world where God has an intention for everything that ever happens.
God intends for David to sin with Bathsheba for example, and he intends this because of who David will become in response to his repentance. God does this by orchestrating all the events that surround David such that David's decisions can not be anything other that what he chooses. But you say that David's mind is created so that David can make choices, it is just those choices will coincide with God's intention because the weights of the various possibilities in David's mind mean that his desire at one moment will be to sin and that desire will override his other desires.
This is in line with your comment
David could not have chosen contrary to his own nature... and as such, he could not have chosen other than how he chose. He is a slave to his nature (as are we all).
So God gets what God planned from eternity including David's sin. God does not sin because he created David to have a will, and you claim David's will chooses the sin.
My problem with this is that I think this is playing with words. If my explanation is reasonable then David does not actually have a will, he just has an illusion of a will. And God is setting up the situation so that David will sin so how can you say that God is not causing David's sin.
While I think that "intend" (or ordain) can be different from "cause", I think your understanding of "intend" makes it synonymous with "cause".
Please listen to the RC Sproul series. Thanks!
========
All,
I am unsubscribing. It's been fun. Congrats, Dan, on an inspiring post.
Till next...
“The way I see what you are saying is that God sets up the entire world where God has an intention for everything that ever happens.”
Again, God is the playwright who conceives of his play in his mind and then carries it out on the stage via the actors, sets, choreography, music, etc. Whatever happens on that stage, whatever is said, is exactly what the playwright wants and it is impossible that anything be any different than what the playwright wants to happen. Of course in this **play** no other persons have free will they simply act out what was prescripted for them to say and do.
“God intends for David to sin with Bathsheba for example, and he intends this because of who David will become in response to his repentance. God does this by orchestrating all the events that surround David such that David's decisions can not be anything other that what he chooses.”
If the exhaustive determinism of the Calvinist/determinist is true, then whatever happens is exactly what God intends. This may make some feel good about being elect or some blessing they receive, but for those not lucky enough to be chosen for salvation, they live miserable sin filled lives where they have no possibility that they could be saved, they live out the role God predetermined for them, then they get to suffer eternal punishment for doing and saying what God intended for and predetermined for them to do.
“But you say that David's mind is created so that David can make choices, it is just those choices will coincide with God's intention because the weights of the various possibilities in David's mind mean that his desire at one moment will be to sin and that desire will override his other desires.”
Keep in mind that if exhaustive determinism is true we may **make** choices, commit to a certain course of action, but we **never** HAVE CHOICES (where we could actualize either possibility). In such a world free will as ordinarily understood does not exist and cannot exist and the belief that you have a choice is always false and always and illusion (you may think you HAVE A CHOICE but in fact you never do).
Also keep in mind that if God controls everything and predetermines everything as the determinist wants to believe, then God controls our minds and thoughts and so causes us to do whatever we do. And we are not coerced into doing anything by God because he controls our wills. Like the puppet whose every string is controlled by the puppet master the puppet is never coerced into doing anything, he just does what the puppet master wants him to do.
You quoted the determinist as saying:
“David could not have chosen contrary to his own nature... and as such, he could not have chosen other than how he chose. He is a slave to his nature (as are we all).”
This is a common error made by determinists: the claim that our **nature** causes our actions. Our nature is just a description of the characteristics the properties that are true of human persons. But human **natures** do not perform any actions, only human souls, persons, do their own actions.
“So God gets what God planned from eternity including David's sin. God does not sin because he created David to have a will, and you claim David's will chooses the sin.”
David’s will does only what God who controls and directs the will desires or intends for David to do. If we choose sin, it is because God first chose for us to sin, and intended for us to sin, and then brought about the sin by controlling all of the circumstances and bringing it about.
“My problem with this is that I think this is playing with words. If my explanation is reasonable then David does not actually have a will, he just has an illusion of a will.”
Determinists have to play with words because if they were forthright about things, most people would immediately reject what they are saying. It is significant that most non-determinists when presented determinism immediately reply that this makes us robots or puppets. But then the determinist says that is a misrepresentation of his position. It is not a misrepresentation, rather, the determinism must engage in “playing with words” to hide the actual implications and consequences of his determinism.
I would slightly correct your last line. If determinism is true then we have the illusion that we have and make choices. And our will is completely controlled by God. If we actually have and make choices then determinism is false and it is not an illusion that we have and make choices. Determinism does not mean that we do not hve a will, it does mean however that an external agent controls and directs our will, rather than us.
“And God is setting up the situation so that David will sin so how can you say that God is not causing David's sin.”
They want us to believe that God intends and predetermines everything, we do not have free will, and yet we not God are responsible for our actions. This is again like when the puppet in a puppet show murders someone in the crowd. Do we blame the puppet? No. Does the puppet have free will? No. Who alone has free will and is to blame for the actions of the puppet? The puppet master. It is playing with words to say the puppet ought to be responsible when he has no free will and his every action is controlled and directed by the puppet master.
“While I think that "intend" (or ordain) can be different from "cause", I think your understanding of "intend" makes it synonymous with "cause".”
That’s the game playing again. You are correct than in their view what God intends is what God causes. But then they will claim, Oh no, God intends it but did not cause it, we caused it and so are responsible for it. Well the puppet not the puppet master, did the actual murder of the person in the crowd, so the puppet should be held responsible rather than the puppet master, right?
Robert
I went back and looked at some of your comments and a few caught my attention, so I will comment on them here.
“My dead-in-sin colleagues get dressed, eat food, even speak nicely to me at times. We have the imago Dei and a fallen nature. Our fallen nature limits our response to God, but we can still see his work. We know from either general or specific revelation that God is.”
I find it odd that the Calvinist/determinist will claim that the unbeliever is spiritually dead and then use hokey examples to illustrate their concept. And yet as you say, the nonbeliever is quite active and does all sorts of things that a **dead** person does not do. The mistake made by the determinist is to conceive of spiritual death as being dead like a corpse. That is not what spiritual death means. Let’s talk human anthropology for a moment. According to the bible we are beings with both a physical aspect (our body, our brain, the thing that dies when we die physically) and an immaterial aspect (our soul, our spirit, our mind, a reality that is not physical and does not die when we die physically). Furthermore, the bible never talks about the human spirit ever being dead. And we can easily understand this because if our spirit were dead we would cease to function at all. So you look at you non-Christian neighbor with this in mind. Does his body and brain appear to be operating? Yes, so he is not dead physically. Looking at him and conversing with him does his spirit or immaterial aspect appear to be nonfunctional? No, he is aware of himself/herself, has plans, has beliefs, thinks about things and expresses himself/herself by talking to you. So if his body is not dead and his mind/soul/spirit are not dead, then what does the bible mean when it speaks of the nonbeliever being “dead”?
If we look at scripture we find that death often refers to some event in which there is a separation of some kind (the spirit separates from the body at physical death, the nonbeliever is eternally separated from God at the “second death”). We also know from scripture that sin separates us from a holy God. Jesus spoke about two resurrections one physical and still to come and another which occurs when people hear his voice and are converted to the Christian faith. I suggest that this biblical evidence as well as other evidence suggests that “spiritual death” refers to when the human person is separated from God due to sin. As God is the source of all life, all goodness, all blessing, to be out of relationship with God is to be **spiritually dead**. If this is true, then we can understand how our non-believing neighbor is dead spiritually and yet his body continues to function as does his soul. He is spiritually dead because he is not saved, his sin separates him from God.
“Whether we can respond to God without his calling seems academic to me as I think he woos all men. I just think we have the ability to say yes or no to God's request that we return to him.”
Concerning your belief that God woos all men, and so God draws all men to himself in order that they might be saved. Have you considered this passage:
“and He made from one every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation, THAT [purpose clause in the Greek] THEY SHOULD SEEK GOD, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His offspring.’” (Acts 17:26-28).
This passage appears to say that God sets things up, with respect to all nations, and so all nations, in such a way, that all of them will seek God (presumably to seek Him in order to be saved).
What do you make of this passage Bethyada?
Robert
"Once I'm done dealing with Morey's book. I plan on finishing up what I started with Augustine."
I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with when you get into Augustine. What Morey book is delaying you? :-)
Robert
seeing, or rather reading that you have ensenuated yourself into my comments back to bethyada and made your own comments now regarding them, I just have to say, I am here and you can write directly to me!
Here are some absolutes I want you to equate into your "reasonings" seeing I do not see these considerations in your comments, yet. If you have, please note those comments for me?
First, from Genesis one:one to the words "The End" at Revelation 22 you will find no reference to Satan ever being offered repentance from his sins. He is excluded from Heaven already.
In fact, here is what is sadly finally announced for all Believers to understand if they care too?:::>
Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
Rev 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
And you know that preceding those words God reveals the beast, the false prophet and Satan are already thrown into the lake of fire where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth for all who so sadly find themselves there as their permanent eternal home! That is the unequivocal judgment of God.
As for those deceived living in the world in these days, God opens the door for these "believers" who are deceived or being deceived, to find repentance too.
Now, as for the Truth and applying lies by the Truth so as to have, as you say, the playwright's outcome, reason these verses for me then; please, exegete them:
1Ki 22:19 And Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left;
1Ki 22:20 and the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said one thing, and another said another.
1Ki 22:21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, 'I will entice him.'
1Ki 22:22 And the LORD said to him, 'By what means?' And he said, 'I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And he said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.'
1Ki 22:23 Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you."
Here, what do we find out now about Our Just and Merciful God?
We find Our Merciful God, Truth, sending to Ahab "a spirit" who will "lie" to him by way of his prophets so that God's Truthful prophesy to him will come to pass, a "just" judgment against poor Ahab.
And finally, for the last absolute:
Mat 13:37 He answered, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.
Mat 13:38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one,
Mat 13:39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels.
Mat 13:40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age.
Mat 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers,
Mat 13:42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Tell me Robert, what does God do when He is approaching a person filled with "illusions" of life based on Satan and doctrines of demons? Does He send the Holy Ghost to them so that they might receive repentance and pass from certain death because of the illusions the doctrines of demons are filling them with so that they might turn, repent and receive Eternal Life, escaping the death those illusions will undoubtedly lead them too?
You see, here is an absolute, God works both sides of the street. He works the world the devil controls and He saves His Elect out of it. To one, He sends a lying spirit to fill one's prophets with lies and illusions so that His Word comes to pass as judgment upon them and to the other, as in Acts 2, He sends to those filled with the doctrines of demons and illusions His Spirit so that they will be of one mind and one accord, i.e., full of continual repentance and turning from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God everyday from now on in fellowship with God Our Father, God, the Lord Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Ghost and the Holy Christian Church filled with the Spirit of Grace, Mercy and Peace:::>
Act 2:5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven.
Act 2:6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language.
Act 2:7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans?
Act 2:8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?
Act 2:9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
Act 2:10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome,
Act 2:11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians--we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God."
Act 2:12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?"
Act 2:13 But others mocking said, "They are filled with new wine."
To the Elect on that day years ago, they were asking:
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
But as you know already Robert, there were still even in that crowd the Holy Ghost was working that day, those who were mocking God's Spirit of Grace, as also in these days now that the Sanctification work of the Holy Ghost works in, they will mock Him!
Even better still, consider these words from Acts 14:
Act 14:1 Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed.
Act 14:2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.
Act 14:3 So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.
Act 14:4 But the people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews and some with the apostles.
So you see, some sided with the Jews and some with the Apostles. Some sided with doctrines of demons and some with God's Gracious Spirit.
Do you think it is going to be any different today, Robert?
What I guess I am saying to you is your arguments fall way short in my opinion.
I would ask you to consider this, whether we are born a Jew or Gentile, we first start out as "separated" from God's Life because of the transgression of that one man Adam, our first father, when we are born into this life/bios by our father and mother. There is no escaping death. That is not my first choice. That absolute, dying a human death, is just that, an unequivocal absolute. You and I will die! Who took that choice away from you Robert? Or were you born with a choice whether to die or not? How about the choice of a father and mother? Did you choose them, Robert? Or did the Playwright?
It is an Act of the Playwright to grant the Spirit of Grace to one and not another!
It might be though Robert that you too are arguing with predetermined choices? Robert, are you arguing against Paul about Pharaoh?
Rom 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--
Rom 9:24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
You mentioned you left a comment on my blog. Does natamllc = michael?
natamllc does equal michael.
I am not Michael the Archangel because I do not have any white wings!
Do you?
Your interpretation of Acts 17 seems reasonable. I think it possible for all men at all times to reach out to God. General revelation is enough to show us God but due to sin most do not reach out to him. The gospel is such good news for those who are aware of their sin.
See initial response in Dan's recent post: "The Equivocation of Regeneration"
For your examples I would say that they are men who God initially woos but who reject God and God subsequently hands them over to their own desires.
Those who are not in the Book of Life are those who have not chosen Christ. This does not mean God had never wooed them, you are presupposing that whoever God woos chooses righteousness, I don't subscribe to that proposal.