Two weeks on TOL for a Calvinist.

Machaira

New member
RayOfLight said:
Some few thoughts are in order. First, a better understanding of Acts 2:23; 4:27-28 comes from Steve Gregg:

Acts 2:23 (ESV)
this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Acts 4:27-28 (ESV)
for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy
servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along
with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, [28] to do whatever your hand
and your plan had predestined to take place.

These two passages can be treated as one, since they both affirm the same thing about the same event, namely, that the crimes committed against Jesus at His crucifixion conformed to God’s predetermined purposes. What we are not told is that God put it into the hearts of Christ’s enemies to do what they did. They had their own malicious reasons to want Jesus dead, and we are specifically told that the devil had some influence in the matter (Luke 22:3, 53).

That God did not choose to protect Jesus from these sinners means that the carrying out of their evil purposes was a certainty, and was part of God’s purpose. However, this was an event of unusual significance. Even if we were told that God had directly inspired these men to sin against Christ, we could not be sure that God does this same thing in less-important situations with every sinner’s choices.

Concerning Proverbs 16:1: The plans of the mind belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD..9: A man's mind plans his way, but the LORD directs his steps...and 33 The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly from the LORD ...Steve also thinks "these verses indicate God's "ultimate control" over the events that He allows to occur. That is, even if man is the one who plans to do a certain thing, God has the final say as to whether that event will occur. Depending on how the man's own plans may fit in with God's master plan, He either permits or does not permit the plan to meet with success. God has any number of ways to foil any plan of man, if He wishes to do so. He foiled the plans of 40 men to assissinate Paul, and prevented many early attempts on Christ's life, when it was not His will for those plots to succeed. On the other hand, He permitted the final plot of Judas and the Sanhedrin to go through, since it conformed to His plans for Christ's crucifixion to occur at that time. The plots of the latter players were not spawned or ordained by God any more than were the plots of the former, failed efforts. "The plans of the mind belong to man...a man's mind plans his way." But ultimate sovereignty belongs to God, and it is ultimately He who controls the outcome.

This is contrary to the Calvinist's view of meticulous providence. Their view has God even ordaining what the man will think and choose. Thus, with meticulous providence, "The plans of the mind belong to the Lord" as well as the outcome. This is denied in these verses, and in the rest of scripture as well. Only on special occasions of divine judgment is God known to interfere with the free processes of choice in an individual (e.g., in hardening Pharaoh's heart). This was not done to Pharaoh early in his life, but well after he had chosen a course for himself of deliberate evil, and God's special intervention, preventing him from being able to repent, was an aspect of God's judgment upon him for these former free choices. Even the fact that God had to intervene, hardening his heart, in order to prevent Pharaoh from repenting, suggests that the innate power to choose to repent resided in Pharaoh previous to this intervention, and Pharaoh would have been free to repent at any point had not God stepped in with these unusual measures.

As for the lot cast into the lap, I don't think this is intended as an affirmation of meticulous providence so much as a guarantee that when the casting of lots as a means of divine guidance was appropriate (e.g., in apportioning land to the various tribes of Israel), that God would see to it that the lots would fall so as to assure the outcome He desired. The apostles counted on this principle, for example, in seeking God's mind about a replacement for Judas (Acts 1). This needn't mean that God dictates every toss of the dice in a casino (though, even if He did, it would not necessarily follow that God similarly dictated who would believe and who would not). God has the right and the power to control every event in which He chooses to intervene, but there is no affirmation here that He chooses to micro-manage every human decision."

For Eph. 1:11 see here. and more thoughts on Proverbs 16:1,9,33; 19:21 are found here

Second, If it is true, that God, from all eternity, did indeed, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, then the sovereignty and freedom of God is actually removed! Dennis Bratcher says "In this case, God is bound to His own predetermined will and does not have the freedom to act in relation to human circumstances. If God is locked in to His own predetermined will, and that will is irrevocable, then God is not free." He argues that "this is an aspect that most predestinationists have not really addressed. In this sense, God was actually only sovereign at the moment he issued the decrees and decided on a predetermined plan, because now he is bound by that decision no matter what other circumstances might exist. Of course, if the system is logically coherent, it could easily be countered that God does not need any further freedom since he already knew all of the outcomes anyway because of his decrees. But that is precisely the point. This reduces the sovereignty to a single instant rather than being a characteristic of God."

Concerning God's "decrees", Steve Gregg also says "I find no scriptural warrant to postulate the existence of any such "decrees" as those of which Calvinism speaks. A "decree" is technically a command or a mandate. There are many commands (or decrees) of God in scripture (e.g., the ten commandments can rightly be numbered among the decrees of God), but you will search the scriptures in vain for any mandate (or decree) that any man should sin.

In fact, in the matter of Christians sinning, we are clearly told that God always provides a way of escape (1 Cor.10:13), if we would choose it, so as never to make our sinning inevitable or necessary. If we sin (which we sometimes do), we are doing something that could have been avoided. Why would God go to the trouble of providing a means of escape, in a case where He had sovereignly decreed that we must succumb to the temptation?"

For Calvinism to gain consideration, these things must be addressed. At least in my book. :Nineveh Perhaps Machaira can answer and deal with this thoughts.

Hold those thoughts. I'll be back this afternoon.
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Machaira said:
I've already answered this. There is no contradiction. See my post # 35.
Free will is only free if you could have done otherwise!
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
docrob57 said:
I suspect that you would say that about the vast array of scholarly documents that you also, no doubt, fail to understand.
I'm sure you do suspect that!
 

RayOfLight

New member
The Calvinist position is that no one is capable of seeking God without God's direct intervention. (Romans 3:11 & Acts 13:48 for example.)

What will Acts 13:48 do for your view? Read these comments, and then tell me.

Acts 13:48 - As the Gentiles heard this they were glad (akouonta ta ethne¯ echairon). Present active participle of akouo¯ and imperfect active of chairo¯, linear action descriptive of the joy of the Gentiles.

Glorified the word of God (edoxazon ton logon tou theou). Imperfect active again. The joy of the Gentiles increased the fury of the Jews. "The synagogue became a scene of excitement which must have been something like the original speaking with tongues" (Rackham). The joy of the Gentiles was to see how they could receive the higher blessing of Judaism without circumcision and other repellent features of Jewish ceremonialism. It was the gospel of grace and liberty from legalism that Paul had proclaimed. Whether Gal_4:13 describes this incident or not (the South Galatian theory), it illustrates it when Gentiles received Paul as if he were Christ Jesus himself. It was triumph with the Gentiles, but defeat with the Jews.

As many as were ordained to eternal life (hosoi e¯san tetagmenoi eis zo¯e¯n aio¯nion). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of tasso¯, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word "ordain" is not the best translation here. "Appointed," as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God. On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God's side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God's plan extended to and included Gentiles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away.

Believed (episteusan). Summary or constative first aorist active indicative of pisteuo¯. The subject of this verb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed." It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God's grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of God. Robertson's Commentary

Act 13:48 - As many as were ordained to eternal life - St. Luke does not say fore - ordained. He is not speaking of what was done from eternity, but of what was then done, through the preaching of the Gospel. He is describing that ordination, and that only, which was at the very time of hearing it. During this sermon those believed, says the apostle, to whom God then gave power to believe. It is as if he had said, "They believed, whose hearts the Lord opened;" as he expresses it in a clearly parallel place, speaking of the same kind of ordination, Act_16:14, &c. It is observable, the original word is not once used in Scripture to express eternal predestination of any kind. The sum is, all those and those only, who were now ordained, now believed. Not that God rejected the rest: it was his will that they also should have been saved: but they thrust salvation from them. Nor were they who then believed constrained to believe. But grace was then first copiously offered them. And they did not thrust it away, so that a great multitude even of Gentiles were converted. In a word, the expression properly implies, a present operation of Divine grace working faith in the hearers. Wesley Commentary

As many as were ordained to eternal life. This passage has been used as a proof text for the extreme Calvinism that makes God arbitrarily select some for salvation and reject others. Wesley, on the other hand, says: "The original word rendered ordained is not once used in the Scriptures to express eternal predestination of any kind. The sense is that those, and those only, now ordained, now believed. Not that God rejected the rest; it was his will that they also should be saved, but they thrust salvation from them. Nor were those who then believed forced to believe. Grace was offered to them and they did not thrust it away." It is God's ordination that those of humble, teachable, honest hearts, seeking the truth and life, shall come to life when it is offered, and such accepted the gospel on this occasion. PNT Commentary

And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
"For thus the Lord has commanded us, I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES, THAT YOU SHOULD BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.'"
And when the Gentiles heard this, they {began} rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed (NASB).

Verse 46: The rejection of the Jews (or rather the Jewish nation) as God's present evangelistic agent, was based on their volitional rejection of God. Jesus taught this at Matthew 21:33-46 and Matthew 23:37-38; "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and YOU WERE UNWILLING. Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!"

They had previously been appointed (as a group) to this function and privilege (Exodus 19:5-6), but through their continued failure to represent the Messianic promise to the world, which was ultimately demonstrated by their rejection of the personal presence of the Messiah, God temporarily (for He will again return to them; Romans 11:25-29) replaced them with a new body (a spiritual nation rather than physical) which is taken out from both Jew and Gentile, and is called the church (1 Peter 2:9-11).

Part of Paul's ministry was to communicate this message to them as he went from town to town, and to announce a formal rejection of the Jewish race as God's priestly house. Many of these occasions are recorded in Acts, and clarify, as does this one, that the Jews made a volitional choice of rejecting the gospel message and clinging to their man-made traditions of works and human heritage as the basis for acceptance before God. Paul says, "you have evaluated yourselves," which communicates the individual and collective rejection of Paul's message. Paul's message is the eternal life which is offered through the person and work of Jesus the Messiah. It is this that the Jews rejected and in so doing, essentially deemed themselves unworthy of that eternal life.

Paul's words that he is now "turning to the Gentiles," is the formal statement of rejecting Israel in preparation for their physical rejection through the destruction of the temple in about 25 years.

Although the quote in verse 47 has the Messiah in view (Isaiah 49:6), Paul applies it to those who are the brethren and the ambassadors of the Messiah, as ones who carry out His purpose.

The Gentiles who are present, have heard the gospel message (Verses 38-39) as Paul has been proclaiming it to the Jews on both sabbaths, as well as during the week (verse 43). This group of Gentiles included both proselytes and non-proselytes (verses 43-44), who are interested in the good news of Paul's teaching; not only that God is offering salvation (eternal life) to all peoples, but also that the Gentiles, as an independent group from the Jews, are being offered the function and privilege of being part of God's evangelistic agent to the world. The second factor would have significance only to the proselytes who understood the Old Testament teachings on this, but the first factor (forgiveness of sins) would be a welcome message to the entire group.

Thus, out from this group there are those who express their interest and joy in the message, and in response to it, believe in Jesus.

The progress of thought expressed here is common and necessary for embracing God's plan of salvation. There must first come an "interest" in the promise of forgiveness and eternal life, and then a response to the detailed "mechanics" of acquiring that forgiveness. This can be seen, for example, with the Philippian jailer, whose interest was stirred first by the Christian message represented in the songs and praises of the prisoners, and then by their act of trust, when they did not run away. After the impact was made, he asked, "what must I do to be saved?" Upon which, Paul gave him the simple mechanics (Acts 16:31) and then the more detailed mechanics after they had been taken to his home (Acts 16:32), after which, he trusted in Christ as the Messiah/Savior. Likewise with the Jews on the day of Pentecost, after Peter's message, they were convicted (pierced in the heart) and inquired, "what must we do?" Upon which, Peter told them that they needed to change their mind (repent), which in turn, resulted in believing the gospel (Mark 1:15). And then we see Nicodemus, who when Jesus told him that he must be born again, inquired, "how can these things come about," (John 3:9). And Jesus told him that it was by believing in the Son of Man (John 3:14-15).

At Acts 13:48, Luke's summary of the decision that was made is seen in two parts. First, the interest is expressed when they hear the gospel message, and then they believe.

The apparent difficulty and controversy in this passage, revolves around the phrase, "as many as had been appointed to eternal life."

The Calvinists, of course, want to make this a pre-determined assignment of God that then virtually "makes" these who have been pre-determined believe in Christ. However, this is neither the intent of Luke nor a grammatical or Biblical necessity. A. T. Robertson writes, "This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an 'absolutum decretum' of personal salvation" (Word Pictures, Acts). R. J. Knowling, in the Expositor's Greek Testament, writes, "There is no countenance here for the 'absolutum decretum' of the Calvinists, since verse 46 had already shown that the Jews had acted through their own choice."

The morphology of the word can go either of two directions.

On the one hand, the more popular, it is seen as a perfect passive participle of the verb, tasso, which is rendered, "as many as WERE appointed (set) unto eternal life." On the other hand, as a perfect middle participle, it would be rendered, "as many as had set themselves unto eternal life." As Knowling observes, "Some take the word as if middle, not passive . . . and in support of this Rendall refers to 1 Corinthians 16:15." There we find the aorist active indicative with the reflexive pronoun, heautos, so that it translates, "and they have set (or appointed) themselves to the ministry of the saints." But it seems that the basic meaning of the verb is altered when one tries to fit this at Acts 13. For it is certain that these unbelievers have not "appointed" themselves unto eternal life, but perhaps have "dedicated themselves" to the pursuit of and acquisition of eternal life, so that upon hearing what was required for the possession of life, they would follow through and believe. But as observed, it seems that this changes the basic meaning of the word.

The verb itself occurs only 7 other times in the New Testament; two of which are in the active voice (Acts 15:2; 1 Corinthians 16:15), three are in the passive voice (Luke 7:8; Acts 22:10; Romans 13:1), and two are in the middle voice with an active function (Matthew 28:16; Acts 28:23;) and all but one clearly indicate the idea of appointment, and even there (Acts 15:2), "they appointed" is easily conceded so that we have, "they appointed that Paul and Barnabas . . . should go up to Jerusalem."

The LXX does not differ significantly from this usage and does not lend support for the middle voice usage at Acts 13.

The better translation thus, seems to be "as many as were appointed unto eternal life." However, the idea of "appointment" to salvation by a sovereign act of God cannot be found in Scripture, while the teaching that God places someone into the state of salvation in response to His convicting, convincing, influencing, wooing, which is His chosen methods of drawing them. This then, is an acceptable understanding of this passage from the standpoint of Volitional Theology; that God foreknows the decision that each individual will make and assigns that person to a destiny of either heaven or hell based on whether he rejects or believes in Christ. What makes this an obstacle for Calvinists is that generally speaking, they fail to acknowledge the fact that faith precedes the impartation of spiritual life. For example, Steve Gregg says "Now there are many scriptures that tell us that regeneration comes after belief, not before. One of the most relevant to the above discussion is Colossians 2:13— Notice the chronology here: God "quickened" (that is, “made alive” or “regenerated”) us, having forgiven us our sins. Clearly Paul is saying that the forgiveness came before the regeneration.

Forgiveness is equivalent to justification (see Rom.4:1ff). Justification comes as a result of faith. "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness" (Gen.15:6). That is, faith precedes justification, and since justification precedes regeneration, faith must precede regeneration.

Actually, all these things occur simultaneously. It is a logical, rather than chronological, order that is under consideration. It is a question of which thing precipitated the others. Faith obviously is the first domino in the chain—then justification—then regeneration.

The same passage says that we "are risen with him [i.e., “regenerated”] through the faith of the operation of God" (Col.2:11-12). To me this seems to be saying that our faith in the operation of God is the means through which, or the condition for, our regeneration.

John 6:40 says that everyone who believes may have eternal life. Since it is at the point of regeneration that one receives eternal life, this would seem synonymous with saying that whoever believes will be regenerated—naming faith as a prerequisite for regeneration.

This is even clearer in John 20:31— "These things are written that you may believe...and that believing you may have life..."

1 Timothy 1:16, likewise, tells us that people "believe on Him for everlasting life."

If Paul and John believed that one must be regenerated (brought to life) before believing, then it would have been more proper for them to write, "these things are written that you might have life, and having life you might believe" and "those who receive everlasting life, so that they might believe."

The strangest thing about the Calvinist assertions on this point is that the biblical writers did not say this kind of thing at all. They always made faith and repentance conditions for eternal life: "…that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) "

In summary, the alternative for Acts 13:38, that these are ones "who have set themselves (or appointed themselves) to (the pursuit of) eternal life, while being grammatically feasible, seems not to be the best choice.
 

RayOfLight

New member
Concerning John 3:3, and on the matter of Nicodemus not "seeing" the kingdom without being regenerated, Steve Gregg also says "it is necessary not to misunderstand the idiom of "seeing" as John uses it. Calvinists have interpreted the word "see" to mean "understand, comprehend, BELIEVE." This is not the likely sense in which the term is used in this context.

At the end of the same chapter, John says, "He that does not believe shall not SEE life" (John 3:36).

Jesus, later said, "if anyone keeps my word, he will never SEE death" (John 8:51). His adversaries understood the idiom and rephrased it "shall never TASTE death"(v.52).

It is clear that "SEE" is being used in these cases as synonymous with the idea of "experience." Thus the statement that, without rebirth, Nicodemus cannot "see" the kingdom, means exactly the same thing as the statement two verses later which uses the phrase "enter the kingdom." The expressions are interchangeable.

Calvinists and non-Calvinsts alike believe that one must be born again in order to experience the kingdom, but the non-Calvinist asks, "What must one do in order to be born again?" Nicodemus asked the same question, when he said, "How can these things be?"

The answer of Jesus was that which is everywhere affirmed in scripture: "Whosoever believes...shall have everlasting life [that is, “shall be regenerated,” apparently as a consequence of believing]."

Jesus did not say, "Whosoever has everlasting life shall believe." This idea is never found in scripture, and would be a helpful thing for one of the writers to have informed us about, since the concept is otherwise so counterintuitive. It is, perhaps, the absence of any such statement in scripture that kept the church from ever believing such things until Augustine, by mixing Greek philosophy, introduced the strange concept.

You are right in observing that Jesus expressed surprise that Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel did not grasp such things. This astonishment resembles Jesus’ marveling at the lack of faith of the people of Nazareth (Mark 6:6). If people are naturally incapable of perception and faith, what is there to marvel at?

Jesus' astonishment indicates that He would have expected this man (though as yet unregenerated) to be capable of grasping this truth when it was told to him. In this, as in many other points, Jesus did not act as one who holds Calvinistic convictions about the universal dullness of the unregenerate. That a religious leader should be so obtuse is surprising (even to Jesus), but not unprecedented nor without modern parallels.
 

Berean Todd

New member
Delmar said:
Free will is only free if you could have done otherwise!

You do have the choice to do whatever you want, but God knows what you will choose, and He has ordered things to ultimately bring about His will. Simple as. Libertine free-will is once again the problem here. You hold Scripture captive to your a priori insistence on libertine free will, you need to let go of that and hold yourself captive to the teachings of Scripture.
 

RayOfLight

New member
Ephesians 2:8-9

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

R.C. Sproul says on page 119 in his book “chosen by God”, that the faith by which we are saved is a gift from God.



Exegesis

So what was Paul referring to when He said “it is the gift of God?” what was the “it” he was talking about? What is the gift of God?

To the woman of Samaria our Master said," If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, Give me a drink; you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water" (John 4:10). Some say "The gift is the living water." Others think it is the gift of the Holy Spirit. In John 7:37 Jesus stood and cried out to all on at the last day of the feast saying “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.” In John 4:14 He said “but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”

Now it’s obvious that all who haven’t drank of the water that Jesus gives are thirsty. So Jesus offers this living water to all who are lost, and thirsty. How true is that old hymn that goes “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red and yellow black and white, they are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world” and He loves them enough to save every one of them as well.

Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Here we see that the gift of God is eternal life. So, we can conclude that the living water, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life all comes and is part of what comes with for those that come to Christ on this side of the Resurrection. Finally, we can conclude that the gift of God Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:8 is salvation. The gift of salvation, by grace is the gift.

Even John Calvin said in Calvin’s commentaries volume 11 pg 145 of this text that “he (Paul) does not mean that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God. A.T. Robertson noted: “grace is God’s part, faith is ours” In addition, it is very clear from the Greek that Paul was not referring to faith as a gift from. For the “that” is neuter in form and cannot refer to “faith” (pistis), which is feminine. Salvation by grace is the ends and faith is the means to apprehend the ends. As a result of what we have discovered other Scriptures saying concerning this specific passage, it is safe to say that Paul was say that “it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this [salvation is] not from/of yourselves, [this salvation] is the gift if God. Jonah 2:9 says “salvation is of the Lord.
 

RayOfLight

New member
John 10:26 “But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep.”

When examining this verse, it must be noted that their unbelief did not derive from some eternal, irrevocable decree of God. This is evident (if one takes of their reformed glasses) from the fact that to the same men Jesus appealed, “believe the (My) works, that you mayk know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him."

To take this further concerning this verse, David Kirkwood "says, that many make the error of trying to derive an order in the process of salvation from a verse that is metaphorical and merely meant to be descriptive. I mean, if a shepherd says about certain sheep that are grazing among his own flock, “These ones are not white, because they are not of my sheep,” does that prove that the wool of his sheep was black before he obtained them, and then became white after they became his sheep? Is the shepherd declaring that the sole reason that his sheep have white wool is because they are his sheep? No, the only real conclusion one can draw from such a statement is that the shepherd only has sheep with white wool in his flock. Likewise, Jesus was simply describing His true sheep among the bigger “flock.” His sheep believe. Those who are not of His flock don’t believe. He was not establishing an order in the process of salvation.

I wonder why people don’t quote the two verses that follow John 10:26 in order to be certain his interpretation fits the context. There we continue reading, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand” (John 10:27-28).
Here Jesus continues to describe His relationship with His sheep. He mentions things that they do and things that He does for them. Not only do they believe in Him, but they also hear his voice (because they are near and attentive), and they follow Him (because they have obediently submitted to Him). True Christians believe in, listen to, and obey Jesus. Jesus, like any good shepherd, knows which sheep are His. He gives them eternal life, promises that they won’t perish, and also guarantees that they won’t be stolen. Clearly we see this is a two-sided relationship, both sides having responsibility.

How would we fare if we used this same means of interpreting John 10:26 to interpret Jesus' words regarding a just-converted prostitute, recorded in Luke 7:47?:
“For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for [because] she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."

Was Jesus teaching that the reason this prositute's many sins were forgiven was because she first, prior to being forgiven, "loved much"? Or was Jesus simply describing people who have been forgiven much, identifying them as being people who love God much? The answer is obvious. Thus we should be extremely careful in deriving an order of the process of salvation from John 10:26, grasping for a cause and effect relationship in a statement that was only meant to describe true believers. With this being said, the interpretation that reformed teachers give has nothing to due with the context, or Jesus’ intent to His hearers. The only way to come up with such a view is to isolate this text from the context and quote it by itself."
 

WandererInFog

New member
Knight said:


Well, I think at this point Machaira has done a pretty decent job of explaining Calvinism, so I'll respond with my personal opinion.

Which is: I don't know.

I've been studying this on and off for a while, and at this point I don't really have a strong dogmatic opinion. I say that not to imply that the question is unimportant, but rather because at this point I remain unconvinced by what I've read whether about Calvinism, Arminianism, or the various of versions of Open Theism.

I think one of the biggest problems I have is that when I read someone from one point of view arguing against the other, they tend to always argue against a weird, caricatured version that no one (or almost no one) actually believes in, and when engaged in discussion they seem to talk past each other almost as if each were speaking a different language.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
WandererInFog said:
Well, I think at this point Machaira has done a pretty decent job of explaining Calvinism, so I'll respond with my personal opinion.

Which is: I don't know.

I've been studying this on and off for a while, and at this point I don't really have a strong dogmatic opinion. I say that not to imply that the question is unimportant, but rather because at this point I remain unconvinced by what I've read whether about Calvinism, Arminianism, or the various of versions of Open Theism.

I think one of the biggest problems I have is that when I read someone from one point of view arguing against the other, they tend to always argue against a weird, caricatured version that no one (or almost no one) actually believes in, and when engaged in discussion they seem to talk past each other almost as if each were speaking a different language.
If you want to read a brilliant defense of the Open View take some time and read Battle Royale X. :up:
 

Adam_Kratt

New member
Machaira said:
As it has already been said, this is a blatant strawman argument. As for your points 1 & 2, the Scriptures make it abundantly clear that the regenerate bear the fruit of faith unto salvation and the unregenerate bear the fruit of sin unto death. Your examples are backward and bear no resemblance to Bbilical teaching or Calvinism for that matter.

If God Ordained and Predestined our actions as Calvinist heritically claim then we would not be responsible for our actions. The only way we can be held accountable for our actions is if we chose to commit them which sir means free will. I must make the choice of faith in Jesus. I can just the same Choose not to believe in Jesus that sir is free will. I can choose to follow the Bible... or I can choose to follow the Koran.. that is free will... according to Calvinism.. it is just stupid. Preordaining or predestining.. would hold us all blameless.. you can pontificate all you want and try to rationalize your beliefs but and true study of holy scripture will show, that yes God does intervene on occasion but generally speaking mankind follows it own free will.. that is the fleshyness of man....
 

Machaira

New member
RayOfLight said:
Some few thoughts are in order. First, a better understanding of Acts 2:23; 4:27-28 comes from Steve Gregg:

Acts 2:23 (ESV)
this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Acts 4:27-28 (ESV)
for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy
servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along
with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, [28] to do whatever your hand
and your plan had predestined to take place.

These two passages can be treated as one, since they both affirm the same thing about the same event, namely, that the crimes committed against Jesus at His crucifixion conformed to God’s predetermined purposes. What we are not told is that God put it into the hearts of Christ’s enemies to do what they did. They had their own malicious reasons to want Jesus dead, and we are specifically told that the devil had some influence in the matter (Luke 22:3, 53).

That God did not choose to protect Jesus from these sinners means that the carrying out of their evil purposes was a certainty, and was part of God’s purpose. However, this was an event of unusual significance. Even if we were told that God had directly inspired these men to sin against Christ, we could not be sure that God does this same thing in less-important situations with every sinner’s choices.

If Mr. Gregg is saying that Calvinists teach that God always “directly inspires” people to fulfill His will and purpose, then he is in error. Joseph and the King of Assyria, among others, are examples to the contrary.


RayOfLight said:
Concerning Proverbs 16:1: The plans of the mind belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD..9: A man's mind plans his way, but the LORD directs his steps...and 33 The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly from the LORD ...Steve also thinks "these verses indicate God's "ultimate control" over the events that He allows to occur. That is, even if man is the one who plans to do a certain thing, God has the final say as to whether that event will occur. Depending on how the man's own plans may fit in with God's master plan, He either permits or does not permit the plan to meet with success. God has any number of ways to foil any plan of man, if He wishes to do so. He foiled the plans of 40 men to assissinate Paul, and prevented many early attempts on Christ's life, when it was not His will for those plots to succeed. On the other hand, He permitted the final plot of Judas and the Sanhedrin to go through, since it conformed to His plans for Christ's crucifixion to occur at that time. The plots of the latter players were not spawned or ordained by God any more than were the plots of the former, failed efforts. "The plans of the mind belong to man...a man's mind plans his way." But ultimate sovereignty belongs to God, and it is ultimately He who controls the outcome.

This is contrary to the Calvinist's view of meticulous providence. Their view has God even ordaining what the man will think and choose. Thus, with meticulous providence, "The plans of the mind belong to the Lord" as well as the outcome. This is denied in these verses, and in the rest of scripture as well. Only on special occasions of divine judgment is God known to interfere with the free processes of choice in an individual (e.g., in hardening Pharaoh's heart). This was not done to Pharaoh early in his life, but well after he had chosen a course for himself of deliberate evil, and God's special intervention, preventing him from being able to repent, was an aspect of God's judgment upon him for these former free choices. Even the fact that God had to intervene, hardening his heart, in order to prevent Pharaoh from repenting, suggests that the innate power to choose to repent resided in Pharaoh previous to this intervention, and Pharaoh would have been free to repent at any point had not God stepped in with these unusual measures.

The conclusion drawn in the first part of the second paragraph is also a misrepresentation of Calvinism. I’ve posted on this particular point many times already. I will however refer you to my previous comment in this post.


RayOfLight said:
As for the lot cast into the lap, I don't think this is intended as an affirmation of meticulous providence so much as a guarantee that when the casting of lots as a means of divine guidance was appropriate (e.g., in apportioning land to the various tribes of Israel), that God would see to it that the lots would fall so as to assure the outcome He desired. The apostles counted on this principle, for example, in seeking God's mind about a replacement for Judas (Acts 1). This needn't mean that God dictates every toss of the dice in a casino (though, even if He did, it would not necessarily follow that God similarly dictated who would believe and who would not). God has the right and the power to control every event in which He chooses to intervene, but there is no affirmation here that He chooses to micro-manage every human decision."

Respectfully, I would have to say that the conclusion drawn here is baseless as the Proverbs 16 texts in question are left in a very broad and general sense without anything to limit or qualify their scope. It’s going way beyond what is explicitly stated to surmise that those texts only apply to special cases.


RayOfLight said:
Second, If it is true, that God, from all eternity, did indeed, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, then the sovereignty and freedom of God is actually removed! Dennis Bratcher says "In this case, God is bound to His own predetermined will and does not have the freedom to act in relation to human circumstances. If God is locked in to His own predetermined will, and that will is irrevocable, then God is not free." He argues that "this is an aspect that most predestinationists have not really addressed. In this sense, God was actually only sovereign at the moment he issued the decrees and decided on a predetermined plan, because now he is bound by that decision no matter what other circumstances might exist. Of course, if the system is logically coherent, it could easily be countered that God does not need any further freedom since he already knew all of the outcomes anyway because of his decrees. But that is precisely the point. This reduces the sovereignty to a single instant rather than being a characteristic of God."

This is pure philosophical speculation and amounts to nothing more than a mind game.


RayOfLight said:
Concerning God's "decrees", Steve Gregg also says "I find no scriptural warrant to postulate the existence of any such "decrees" as those of which Calvinism speaks. A "decree" is technically a command or a mandate. There are many commands (or decrees) of God in scripture (e.g., the ten commandments can rightly be numbered among the decrees of God), but you will search the scriptures in vain for any mandate (or decree) that any man should sin.

First of all, Mr. Gregg’s “technical” definition of the word ‘decree’ lends no proof to his denial. What Mr. Gregg needs to do is find out what the word ‘decree’ entails within Reformed systematics. Secondly, the idea that God decrees sin is a hyper-calvinist doctrine that finds no agreement in any of the major Reformed/Calvinistic confessions of faith.


RayOfLight said:
In fact, in the matter of Christians sinning, we are clearly told that God always provides a way of escape (1 Cor.10:13), if we would choose it, so as never to make our sinning inevitable or necessary. If we sin (which we sometimes do), we are doing something that could have been avoided. Why would God go to the trouble of providing a means of escape, in a case where He had sovereignly decreed that we must succumb to the temptation?"

That’s right. Sin is not inevitable for the regenerate, (see Romans 6, 7 & 8).
 

RayOfLight

New member
Originally Posted by RayOfLight

Second, If it is true, that God, from all eternity, did indeed, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, then the sovereignty and freedom of God is actually removed! Dennis Bratcher says "In this case, God is bound to His own predetermined will and does not have the freedom to act in relation to human circumstances. If God is locked in to His own predetermined will, and that will is irrevocable, then God is not free." He argues that "this is an aspect that most predestinationists have not really addressed. In this sense, God was actually only sovereign at the moment he issued the decrees and decided on a predetermined plan, because now he is bound by that decision no matter what other circumstances might exist. Of course, if the system is logically coherent, it could easily be countered that God does not need any further freedom since he already knew all of the outcomes anyway because of his decrees. But that is precisely the point. This reduces the sovereignty to a single instant rather than being a characteristic of God."



This is pure philosophical speculation and amounts to nothing more than a mind game.

I'd say that God's eternal decrees are pure speculation if not philosophical ones at that.
 

Machaira

New member
RayOfLight said:
I'd say that God's eternal decrees are pure speculation if not philosophical ones at that.

I'd say that you would have to ignore a lot Scripture to come to that conclusion. I'll give you one of the best and most explicit examples. No doubt you'll attempt to twist this into a pretzel. This should be interesting to say the least.

Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will . . .
 

RayOfLight

New member
I'd say that you would have to ignore a lot Scripture to come to that conclusion. I'll give you one of the best and most explicit examples. No doubt you'll attempt to twist this into a pretzel. This should be interesting to say the least.

Oh yeah? Which Scriptures? I'd say ift is true that whatsoever comes to pass is God's Sovereign Will, as stated in the WCF, then there are many Scriptures that are counterintuitive. For example, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man" declared God in the days of Noah (Gen 6:3). Concerning this passage, Robert Shank says "If the men of Noah's generation were foreordained to damnation, as Calvinism teaches, in what sense did the Spirit strive with them, since they were fulfilling their foreordained role in refusing the testimony of Noah? If no man, either elect or reprobate, can resist the will of God, against whom or what is the Spirit striving when He "strives with man"? If there is in man no faculty of decision which God takes into account, any striving of the Spirit that fails to bring man to submission proves God incapable of performance. Any "striving" not intended to bring man to submission would be a farce and prove God hopelessly insincere. If decision rests with God alone, any striving at all is totally phony and superfuous." I could gather more instances and examples if necessary.

And now for Eph. 1:11.

Several things are worth noting: First, the main thrust of this verse (and the following) is to affirm that "we who first hoped in Christ" have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory." This says nothing (directly) about how we came to hope in Christ; it affirms only that it is we who hope in Christ who have been destined to live for his glory. Second, this verse not only affirms that God accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will, this verse gives us an instance of God accomplishing things in accordance with his will, namely, his predestination that those who hope in Christ shall live for his glory. Third, I have been using the RSV which says God accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will." The Greek word translated, "accomplished," is energeo, which probably should be translated "works" or "operates." God's accomplishing all things in accordance with his will does sound deterministic, but God's working all things (or working in all things) in accordance with his will does not.

Whether God's operating all things in accordance with his will entails divine determinism of all event depends upon whether it is God's will that his creatures have indeterministic freedom. If he wills that they do, then when he operates all things in accordance with his will, he will do so in such a way as to respect the freedom of his creatures. The following objection can be raised. How does God's predestination of those who hope in Christ to live for his glory respect their freedom? The answer is that on the Open Theism view those who hope in Christ have freely responded to God's prevenient grace and have formed the resolution to live for Christ's glory. In determining that they shall do so, God confirms their free choice; he helps them do what they (by aid of his grace) have freely chosen to do.

Larry Lacy
Rhodes College


I concur with what Larry Lacy has said on this passage and would recommend that those interested in this text see The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election, by William Klein (Zondervan, 1990). Klein studies every biblical text on election, concluding that it is "in Christ" that God has taken a people unto himself. According to corporate election what God elects is a course of action and certain conditions by which people will be counted as "in Christ." It is the group--the body of Christ--which is foreordained from the foundation of the world rather than God selecting specific individuals for salvation . Corporate election is more in line with the Hebraic understanding of corporate solidarity: we are one in Christ. The reader may also wish to check out Grant Osborne's "Exegetical Notes on Calvinist Texts, " in Grace Unlimited, edited by Clark Pinnock.

I would like to make some comments on election and God's freedom. God created in freedom. God elected to work with Abraham in freedom. In freedom God elected Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau and the Israelites over the other nations. In these cases divine election comes first but election must be understood as resulting from the divine love for the sake of relationship. Consequently, a conditional element enters the scene: will the people accept the divine election and be faithful to it? Election is for the sake of service in order to accomplish the divine plan for all creation. God has elected a people in Jesus who are to be the bearers of a new era: Jews and Gentiles in one body, a redeemed people who will love God, one another and work to accomplish the divine enterprise for all creation.

Some may criticize open theism for seeing a conditional element in election. But actually, this is nothing new since the early church fathers, the Eastern Orthodox church, Wesleyans, and Arminians have all affirmed conditional election. For these believers, God knew through foreknowledge which individuals would exercise saving faith and thus God elected them based upon his knowledge of their free choice.

John Sanders
Huntington College


Eph. 1:11. God does "work out" everything according to his purpose, but this doesn't mean that everything happens according to his purpose. Whatever happens -- and much of it in this warzone is contrary to his will -- God will "work it out" according to his plan.

Greg Boyd
Bethel College


I don't think these are attempts to twist this verse into a pretzel, or anything from that matter. In fact, lets look at this Scripture again. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will . . . (Eph 1:11).

Me myself, I think that a few questions need to be considered to grasp Paul's intent.
are in order.

1) What is the purpose of Him?
2) What is the Counsel of Him?
3) What is His will mentioned mentioned here?

As for question number 1, Lets look at Ephesians 3 for an answer.
Eph. 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles-- 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace, which was given me by the working of his power. 8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, 10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. 11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.

The purpose of Him, is His eternal purpose, and this has been realized in Christ. So His eternal purpose is not realized in Adam, nor for anyone in Adam. Only In Christ is this realized. This sets the course for the next two questions. (which I have yet to discover an answer that bears witness to and with my spirit) But I do sense that this is a different direction than the Calvinist chooses to take.
 

Machaira

New member
Machaira said:
No doubt you'll attempt to twist this into a pretzel. This should be interesting to say the least.

Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will . . .


RayOfLight said:
Oh yeah? Which Scriptures? I'd say ift is true that whatsoever comes to pass is God's Sovereign Will, as stated in the WCF, then there are many Scriptures that are counterintuitive. For example, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man" declared God in the days of Noah (Gen 6:3). Concerning this passage, Robert Shank says "If the men of Noah's generation were foreordained to damnation, as Calvinism teaches, in what sense did the Spirit strive with them, since they were fulfilling their foreordained role in refusing the testimony of Noah? If no man, either elect or reprobate, can resist the will of God, against whom or what is the Spirit striving when He "strives with man"? If there is in man no faculty of decision which God takes into account, any striving of the Spirit that fails to bring man to submission proves God incapable of performance. Any "striving" not intended to bring man to submission would be a farce and prove God hopelessly insincere. If decision rests with God alone, any striving at all is totally phony and superfuous." I could gather more instances and examples if necessary.

And now for Eph. 1:11.

Several things are worth noting: First, the main thrust of this verse (and the following) is to affirm that "we who first hoped in Christ" have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory." This says nothing (directly) about how we came to hope in Christ; it affirms only that it is we who hope in Christ who have been destined to live for his glory. Second, this verse not only affirms that God accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will, this verse gives us an instance of God accomplishing things in accordance with his will, namely, his predestination that those who hope in Christ shall live for his glory. Third, I have been using the RSV which says God accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will." The Greek word translated, "accomplished," is energeo, which probably should be translated "works" or "operates." God's accomplishing all things in accordance with his will does sound deterministic, but God's working all things (or working in all things) in accordance with his will does not.

Whether God's operating all things in accordance with his will entails divine determinism of all event depends upon whether it is God's will that his creatures have indeterministic freedom. If he wills that they do, then when he operates all things in accordance with his will, he will do so in such a way as to respect the freedom of his creatures. The following objection can be raised. How does God's predestination of those who hope in Christ to live for his glory respect their freedom? The answer is that on the Open Theism view those who hope in Christ have freely responded to God's prevenient grace and have formed the resolution to live for Christ's glory. In determining that they shall do so, God confirms their free choice; he helps them do what they (by aid of his grace) have freely chosen to do.

Larry Lacy
Rhodes College


I concur with what Larry Lacy has said on this passage and would recommend that those interested in this text see The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election, by William Klein (Zondervan, 1990). Klein studies every biblical text on election, concluding that it is "in Christ" that God has taken a people unto himself. According to corporate election what God elects is a course of action and certain conditions by which people will be counted as "in Christ." It is the group--the body of Christ--which is foreordained from the foundation of the world rather than God selecting specific individuals for salvation . Corporate election is more in line with the Hebraic understanding of corporate solidarity: we are one in Christ. The reader may also wish to check out Grant Osborne's "Exegetical Notes on Calvinist Texts, " in Grace Unlimited, edited by Clark Pinnock.

I would like to make some comments on election and God's freedom. God created in freedom. God elected to work with Abraham in freedom. In freedom God elected Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau and the Israelites over the other nations. In these cases divine election comes first but election must be understood as resulting from the divine love for the sake of relationship. Consequently, a conditional element enters the scene: will the people accept the divine election and be faithful to it? Election is for the sake of service in order to accomplish the divine plan for all creation. God has elected a people in Jesus who are to be the bearers of a new era: Jews and Gentiles in one body, a redeemed people who will love God, one another and work to accomplish the divine enterprise for all creation.

Some may criticize open theism for seeing a conditional element in election. But actually, this is nothing new since the early church fathers, the Eastern Orthodox church, Wesleyans, and Arminians have all affirmed conditional election. For these believers, God knew through foreknowledge which individuals would exercise saving faith and thus God elected them based upon his knowledge of their free choice.

John Sanders
Huntington College


Eph. 1:11. God does "work out" everything according to his purpose, but this doesn't mean that everything happens according to his purpose. Whatever happens -- and much of it in this warzone is contrary to his will -- God will "work it out" according to his plan.

Greg Boyd
Bethel College


I don't think these are attempts to twist this verse into a pretzel, or anything from that matter. In fact, lets look at this Scripture again. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will . . . (Eph 1:11).

Me myself, I think that a few questions need to be considered to grasp Paul's intent.
are in order.

1) What is the purpose of Him?
2) What is the Counsel of Him?
3) What is His will mentioned mentioned here?

As for question number 1, Lets look at Ephesians 3 for an answer.
Eph. 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles-- 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace, which was given me by the working of his power. 8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, 10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. 11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.

The purpose of Him, is His eternal purpose, and this has been realized in Christ. So His eternal purpose is not realized in Adam, nor for anyone in Adam. Only In Christ is this realized. This sets the course for the next two questions. (which I have yet to discover an answer that bears witness to and with my spirit) But I do sense that this is a different direction than the Calvinist chooses to take.

Well . . . you certainly didn't disappoint me. Unfortunately, your elaborate excuse does nothing to change the fact that God, "works all things according to the counsel of his will . . ." Eph. 1:11.
 

RayOfLight

New member
Well . . . you certainly didn't disappoint me. Unfortunately, your elaborate excuse does nothing to change the fact that God, "works all things according to the counsel of his will . . ." Eph. 1:11.

Well...you disappointed me, in your sorry excuse for a response that consists of a mere two sentences. Very Telling, as if it's true because you insist it is, type reasoning. Please do try to juggle my "Today 06:45 PM" post which appears to show a different view of God's providence, and poses problems with the all things ordained view, and suggests a possibly that Eph. 1:11 need not be taken that way.

Juggle away :juggle:
 
Top