January 26, 2010
January 26, 2010 | 312 Comments
Dr. Brown and Dr. James White Debate Calvinism (Part 1)
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Dr. White’s Website www.aomin.org
Comments
312 Responses to “January 26, 2010”
Leave a Reply
Listen Live 2-4
E-Newsletter Signup
Ask Dr. Brown
Subscribe to the Podcast
Station List
January 26th, 2010 @ 3:46 pm
Great program!
If God’s secret will is the opposite of His revealed will then we have a God who does not mean what He says.
January 26th, 2010 @ 3:54 pm
If God doesn’t work with people, then why did He listen and change His mind when Moses prayed for His people? God works WITH His people.
January 26th, 2010 @ 4:01 pm
God works ‘with’ HIS people, amen. Thanks Dr Brown for your ‘man center’ but thoughful comments today.
January 26th, 2010 @ 4:01 pm
Does God working WITH his people mean that he is dependent on their cooperation in order to save them?
January 26th, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
Dr. Brown,
I think you should continue to press your point about the constant plea of God that we choose to do right. If in fact we’re not making any choice, and all the choices are made by Him, then language has ceased to have any intelligible meaning. Calvin’s God simply plays games with the human race if He commands everyone everywhere to repent, knowing full well that He has already decided that it is impossible for the non-elect to be saved.
January 26th, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
Great comment Steve.
In this case it would seem obvious that God is double-minded (dual-souled, split-souled). Naturally, this is far from what scripture reveals. The double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. Whereas, God is immutable and orderly. The double-minded man is like sinking sand. Whereas, Christ is the Rock of our salvation.
January 26th, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
Anthony, I’m delighted that we have found a point of strong agreement!
January 26th, 2010 @ 4:14 pm
<<<>>>>
Steven,
No the problem is that typically ‘will’ is equivocated. We don’t have a two conflicting wills, its more a command and a secret will. God’s ‘revealed will’ is better defined as God’s command, God’s ‘secret will’ is God’s decree of what is to take place.
January 26th, 2010 @ 4:14 pm
If God’s secret will is the opposite of His revealed will then we have a God who does not mean what He says
Steven,
No the problem is that typically ‘will’ is equivocated. We don’t have a two conflicting wills, its more a command and a secret will. God’s ‘revealed will’ is better defined as God’s command, God’s ‘secret will’ is God’s decree of what is to take place.
January 26th, 2010 @ 4:15 pm
Even with an Arminian God, you still have to deal with God’s omniscience. If God knows all things, what would be the point in pleading with someone as though God were trying to change someone? Would not God already know a man’s heart and his future actions? It seems very sophomoric to assume that God cannot have a decree and still work with men in a manner that meets man at his level.
January 26th, 2010 @ 4:53 pm
Both faith and repentance are gifts from God, and if man cooperates with God regarding salvation, then it is not entirely the work of God, but both God and man, thereby man can get some of the glory for his salvation. That makes the Gospel centered around man, not the glory of God. What about Ephesians 2 that says we’re dead? Dead men cannot cooperate with anything. What about Acts 13:48? The Arminian bases their election on their faith, the Calvinist basis their faith on their election. The latter is supported throughout Scripture.
January 26th, 2010 @ 4:54 pm
Kirk, better to say that you’re having a hard time with a concept that is thoroughly biblical than to call those you differ with sophomoric.
January 26th, 2010 @ 4:55 pm
Doesn’t the free will argument seem to point to a god who does not know the future actions of his creatures? Hello open theism!
January 26th, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
Dr. Brown,
With respect to the Pharisees and scribes, in Matthew 23 Christ told His disciples to do as they say, but don’t do as they do. The greatest indignation that Jesus had toward these groups was their hypocrisy. It would seem, however, that Christ would Himself have to be guilty of hypocrisy if He told men to “Love your enemies,” and “thou shalt not murder (etc, etc),” if before the foundation of the world He, according to His good pleasure, sovereignly elected some for eternal life and reward and some for eternal death and punishment.
Luke 9:56 states that Jesus did not come to destroy men, but to save them. Jesus is one with the Father (Jn.10:30). He is immutable and doesn’t change (Heb.13:8). It has always been the purpose of God to save the lives of men (2 Pet 3:9).
If you do a word study of the phrase, “without cause,” you will notice God’s displeasure of people that commit transgressions without causes. God gives men the opportunity to repent (Acts 17:30). It’s the willful rejection of Christ that “causes” men to be condemned to hell, not God’s good pleasure.
Calvinism indirectly says that God, from the beginning, ordained some to burn in Hell. However, Jesus says that, from the beginning, someone else was responsible for the destruction of men.
God help them.
January 26th, 2010 @ 5:01 pm
ok so there’s no distinction between secret will and revealed will? someone explain this to me
prov 17:15- “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.”
is this not EXACTLY what happened with jesus and barabas? and yet…
Acts 4:27-28 ” 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, 28to do whatever YOUR HAND and your plan had predestined to take place”
can someone who doesn’t believe in the command/decree distinction please explain these verses?
January 26th, 2010 @ 5:03 pm
Thats the way I see it Kirk. We both have to answer the same question (Arminian and Calvinist).. I dont think God has to BEG someone to do God’s Will. He simply does it. Paul wanted to kill Christians, God blinded him ( For the Arminian that sounds a bit to harsh). Jonah didnt want to preach, God sent a Big Fish to swallow him…. Bibilically speaking God sounds more like the Calvinist God.. Philosophical, then we both have to answer it, either you like the answer or not.. John 6, The whole chapter seems like the Calvinist God….
January 26th, 2010 @ 5:15 pm
Doug, of course not! Free will was taught by most all of the early Greek Fathers. Which one of them was an open theist?
January 26th, 2010 @ 5:28 pm
Doug says,
“Doesn’t the free will argument seem to point to a god who does not know the future actions of his creatures? Hello open theism!”
The answer is – absolutely not! Beecause God knows all doesen’t make Him the author and cause of all things that happen. Free will points to God’s cooperative dealings with mankind within the confines of His sovereign rule. It doesn not have to be an either/or conclusion with this concept at all. The LORD thus declared,
“Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let thme have dominion… over all the earth…”
January 26th, 2010 @ 5:30 pm
please excuse the spelling errors.
January 26th, 2010 @ 5:47 pm
Hey Everyone!
I have not yet heard the program, as I had trouble connecting. However, I am disturbed by some of the logic that is being used here.
First of all, I don’t think the problem of unbelief is necessarily a problem with Calvinism, but, rather, a problem with theism. We all believe that God is omniscient, and, therefore, he knows that someone is never going to believe. However, if he knows that this person is never going to believe, then why does he create them? If I know that when I make a machine that this machine will kill everyone for miles around, and I still decide to make it, am I not the cause of the death of everyone around? Again, I don’t think this is objection to Calvinism, as much as it is an objection to theism. That is why the book of Proverbs could say:
Proverbs 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil.
Also, some of the logic that is being used that says that God would never command anyone to repent knowing that it is impossible for them to repent is really dangerous. Interestingly enough, that is the same argument that Pelagius used against Augustine. Pelagius’ objection to Augustine stemmed from a prayer in which Augustine asked God to “Grant what he wills.” Pelagius asserted the very same thing that many on this board are asserting and that is that God is only playing games if he asks us to do something, and he knows that we have no ability to do it.
Hence, Pelagius, using the very premises I am seeing here on this board argued:
1. God would never command man to be holy and without sin unless it were possible for man to not have sin.
2. It is impossible for those with original sin to be without sin.
3. Therefore, original sin must be false.
I don’t have a problem with arguing from scripture on the issue of Calvinism. I do think that both sides need to use consistent arguments that don’t boomerang around, and hurt their own position.
God Bless,
Adam
January 26th, 2010 @ 6:10 pm
“Let the little children, who know intermediate Greek & Hebrew, who’ve studied the Institutes, who’ve read Owen, who’ve adored MacArthur, come to me.”
January 26th, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
I’ve been a Christian for 6 years now and I am just looking at these 2 view points. I definitely am more on the Calvinistic side. I look at my own salvation and it totally fits into what Calvinists call Total Depravity and Irresistable Grace. I did not want God (as the bible tells us about everyone) he regenerated my heart and I now follow Him because He has changed my heart and my desires. Do we not know we are totally sinners (wicked, evil)? Why would we want to follow someone who is going to tell us what to do? We are going to do the desires of our hearts? Are our hearts not deceitfully wicked? Does the whole bible show us what God keeps telling us to do but we can’t? Yes, that’s why we need a saviour! Until God changes our hearts grants us the knowledge of repentence we will not repent! We need to be grateful if He saves some! We all deserve hell…
January 26th, 2010 @ 6:16 pm
Dr. Brown,
Please accept my apologies. It was not my intention to condescending.
January 26th, 2010 @ 6:20 pm
I am a Reformed Baptist and I have a tremendous amount of respect for Dr. Brown but I am not convinced that his position on Calvinism is correct (I realize that he didn’t have much time to go over what he believes, but some of the objections he brings up I believe aren’t exactly relevant and demonstrate that he has some misconceptions). I am also a little disappointed with the misconceptions made in some of the comments for this program.
For example, one of the comments above uses the language “the God of Calvinism”. I don’t like that kind of language because it makes it seem as if monergists and synergists do not have the same God. I’m convinced it is the same God, but definitely different beliefs of who He is. Maybe Mr. Anthony Buzzard didn’t mean it in that way, but it definitely may give the wrong impression to some.
Additionally, there seems to be a misunderstanding as to what we Calvinists believe. For example, we are not saying that man does not cooperate in salvation, we are saying that the work of regeneration (the initial step of salvation) is completely a work of God and God alone (hence the term “mongergism”) Ezekiel 36:25-27; Ephesians 2:1-10. After one has been regenerated, out of that regenerate heart flows repentance and faith and one desires to come to Christ. God is not going to be dragging anyone into heaven kicking and screaming, all who go to heaven go there by their own will, the regenerated will that God has given them that enables them to obey God’s prescriptive will to repent of their sins and believe the Gospel and apart from that work of regeneration they would not be able to obey God’s command to repent (Romans 8:7-8).
One person in the comments above brought up the objection that the Calvinist cannot be sincere in calling people to repent since God knows that unregenerate people cannot repent (I believe Dr. Brown brought this issue up as well). I disagree, we can be sincere since we don’t know who the elect are and if one repents of their sins and believes the Gospel, they will be saved, no doubt about it. The questions is how does one get to the point that they repent of their sins and believe the Gospel? When I give people the Gospel I do so based on Scriptures that tell me to preach the Gospel to every living creature and call all men to repent of their sins and believe the Gospel since I do not have supernatural abilities to determine who the elect are. I tell them that they are to turn away from their sins and believe in the good news about Jesus and God’s mercy in salvation for sinners. I realize that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for the Jew first and also to the Greek (Romans 1) so as I give them the Gospel I pray that God uses that Gospel to regenerate them and give them the ability to repent and believe and when they hear the command to repent and believe, if God has elected them and regenerated them, then they will do so and find rest for their souls. If God does not regenerate them then they are still responsible for not turning away from their sins and believing the Gospel since they are responsible for being sinfully unable to respond to God’s command. It should be noted that they are responsible for not being able to respond to God’s command to repent and believe because they are responsible for the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden since he was mankind’s federal head. In other words, all people are responsible for being in the position that they cannot repent and believe. However, God, in His grace, to make known both His justice and mercy, has chosen to save some from the fall and to justly condemn others for their sins and rebellion against a thrice Holy God.
Additionally, Dr. White made a good point, the synergist has the same “problem” when it comes to Gospel invitations because if God knew they would not repent then is it a genuine Gospel invitation to command them to do so? In both cases, I think one can be sincere in inviting people to Christ and objections like these don’t seem to be relevant to the issues nor do they seem to advance meaningful dialogue on these issues.
I am convinced the synergist is wrong on the issue of Calvinism, but I love you guys and I can’t wait for the day we will all have the same mind on these issues when we meet our King in glory!
January 26th, 2010 @ 6:24 pm
Greg,
“Let the little children, who know intermediate Greek & Hebrew, who’ve studied the Institutes, who’ve read Owen, who’ve adored MacArthur, come to me.”
This argument would only be relevant if hypercalvinism were true. All Calvinists believe that Arminians are saved, and that one does not need to have perfect and complete knowledge and understanding of everything in order to “come to Christ.”
The issue here is accurately interpreting the scriptures, and using clear and consistent logic. We should all be looking to grow in our faith, and learn more about that great salvation that is ours. Anyone who does not is simply doing all that they can to remain infants in the faith, and being disobedient to Paul’s command to grow so that we do not keep eating spiritual milk, but move on to spiritual solid food. That is why I am glad that Dr. Brown had Dr. White on to discuss these issues, and I look forward to hearing the program when it gets posted. Both of them certainly desire to go on to spiritual meat, and not stay on spiritual milk.
God Bless,
Adam
January 26th, 2010 @ 6:27 pm
Calvinism puts regeneration before justification and imputed righteousness so that you are somehow born-again and yet simultaneously guilty before God without the imputed righteousness of Christ?
January 26th, 2010 @ 6:27 pm
Adam said:
Hence, Pelagius, using the very premises I am seeing here on this board argued:
Yep you are right Adam. These statements sound like arguments from Pelagius. Wouldn’t he condemned by both Catholics and Protestants?
January 26th, 2010 @ 6:38 pm
Dr. Sproul has discussed John 3:3 many times:
In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” John 3:3 NIV
Until God regenerates a person, he can’t even see his need for a Savior or repent. God justifies and regenerates, at which time the individual comes to have saving faith in Christ. This is the idea of “sola gratia”, grace alone, not by our doing, but all by God’s doing. Otherwise, can could boast of something we had to do, which was the point Paul was making in saying that we cannot boast of our works in salvation.
I might suggest that because God is all-wise and all-knowing, he could have chosen the elect based on reasons that we just will never know or understand, yet that choosing was done so perfectly and in such a manner as to not be unfair.
January 26th, 2010 @ 6:43 pm
Adam,
One man’s hyper-calvinist is another man’s normal Calvinist. I know several people that merely adhere to 5-point Calvinism that consider me a heretic because I reject TULIP – “the doctrines of grace.”
January 26th, 2010 @ 6:44 pm
Greg,
Calvinism puts regeneration before justification and imputed righteousness so that you are somehow born-again and yet simultaneously guilty before God without the imputed righteousness of Christ?
No, we put regeneration before faith in terms of logic, not in terms of time. In other words, the reason why a person has faith is on the basis of the fact that he has been born again, and not vice versa. However, as far as the time when these things happen, they all happen simultaneously.
God Bless,
Adam
January 26th, 2010 @ 6:45 pm
“Calvinism puts regeneration before justification and imputed righteousness so that you are somehow born-again and yet simultaneously guilty before God without the imputed righteousness of Christ?”
Actually it is, in our opinion, Scripture which define the new birth as a gracious work of God, not in response to what man has done. Hence Christ says that “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God”. When Christ says “see” he does not indicate “go to” as some might view this verse, but rather, visibly see/understand. As Paul states in Ephesians 2, we were all “dead in our trespasses and sins”…
4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved…
So it was while we were dead in sins that we were made alive, we didn’t make ourselves alive first.
And, as Dr. White mentioned today regarding Romans 8.
7For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
The mind set on the flesh (define as not having the Spirit indwelling in v9), is
1. Hostile toward God.
2. Does not submit to God’s Law.
3. CANNOT submit to God.
4. Unable to please God.
It is your position therefore that a person can do all of the above apart from the indwelling Spirit and regeneration, contra Paul.
Being regenerated is God’s work, it is not something we do to ourselves. It is not something God does in response to us, but rather it is a gracious act of God to save His enemies from their deserved doom.
January 26th, 2010 @ 6:45 pm
Greg,
One man’s hyper-calvinist is another man’s normal Calvinist. I know several people that merely adhere to 5-point Calvinism that consider me a heretic because I reject TULIP – “the doctrines of grace.”
No, you have presented the classic definition of hypercalvinism. Anyone who thinks you are a heretic because you are an arminian is himself a heretic.
God Bless,
Adam
January 26th, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
Zoopoieo (quicken) and paliggensia (regeneration) are not the same word. Regeneration does not precede justification.
January 26th, 2010 @ 6:57 pm
We’re so dead in our sins that we cannot respond to God?
Okay, what about:
1. Adam
2. Noah
3. Abraham
4. Isaac
5. Jacob
6. Moses
7. Samuel
8. David
9. Solomon
10. Isaiah
11. Ezekiel
12. John the Baptist
Were these people not dead in their trespasses and sins as well?
January 26th, 2010 @ 7:06 pm
“Being regenerated is God’s work, it is not something we do to ourselves.”
You’re absolutely right. It IS God’s work. We believe the Gospel message and then God regenerates us.
January 26th, 2010 @ 7:08 pm
I think the best explanation of the biblical data is that God possesses Middle Knowledge. A lack of this would require God’s very own choices to be predestined (if man has no alternatives– because of God’s decree being eternal without beginning–then God too has no alternative but to create according to a decree that God Himself cannot logically precede).
God thus creates the world in which the choices of men bring Him the most glory without violating their freedom to choose. This can be viewed from either a compatiblist or free will position. However, it makes sense of the biblical passages to which neither Reformed nor standard Arminian explanations do justice. God certainly decrees all that comes to pass (including the example of rape), but does so because the events of this history are the “best possible world.” The “best possible world” is also that which brings Him the greatest glory. Yet, that decree is preceded by knowledge of all possible worlds (which no Christian should argue is outside the scope of God’s ability to know).
I enjoyed today’s show and will look forward to tuning in tomorrow! Great job to both Dr. White and Dr. Brown. Thank you fellas.
January 26th, 2010 @ 7:35 pm
If you havent listened to the radio show, please click on:
http://www.askdrbrown.org/lineoffire/shows/line_of_fire_01_26_10_hr1.mp3
January 26th, 2010 @ 7:49 pm
Do Calvinists perceive the act of believing the Gospel as a “work” that merits Salvation?
January 26th, 2010 @ 7:53 pm
“Were these people not dead in their trespasses and sins as well?”
Of course they were (except Adam pre-fall). And they in fact all believed in God as a result of His gracious supernatural work in their lives to bring them to life that they might believe in His name.
January 26th, 2010 @ 8:03 pm
Kirk,
Apology accepted, of course, and I fully accept that you did not mean to be condescending. Thanks.
To everyone else,
In general, my time on the radio blog here is quite limited, so please understand if I don’t respond to individual points. I very much appreciate the discussion that is taking place and I’m so glad to see those from different perspectives attempt to make their cases.
January 26th, 2010 @ 8:15 pm
I reject Calvinism not so much because of its fallacious view of “once saved always saved”, but simply because of its founder. A murderer and persecutor of those who disagreed with him.
For complete article see: http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2009/09/his-ashes-cry-out-against-john-calvin.html
To anyone reading, remember the parable:
January 26th, 2010 @ 8:15 pm
I really appreciated both Dr. Brown and Dr White
In such a short time neither could do justice to their views.
(and of course the commercials
Just as there are differing views on the passages in the Bible, there are also differing views of early writers, even Calvin himself is quoted by both sides to prove their view. Dr. Brown mentioned the Early Greek fathers as mostly believing in free will. However, Dr. Michael Horton documents tons of quotes from early writers indicating they did not hold to the same as Arminian free will (autonomous type), in his book putting the amazing back in grace. Perhaps that issue will be brought up in the ensuing discussions. RCs attempt to portray the ECF as RC, they were not either Arminian nor Calvinists either.
I would like Dr Brown to clarify / demonstrate what he meant that Dr White “read into” the Gen 20 passage. Also to stay in context all the way through an exegesis of a passage such as John 6.
I would like Dr Brown to demonstrate exegetically and context where there are “hundreds” of free will passages. Not just say they are there, and move on to something else.
It was such a blessing and refreshing to hear two men who both love our Lord, speaking passionately, and intelligently yes, but also with an irenic spirit and tone speaking of such important truths. No adhom arguments – wonderful!
I am a Reformed Baptist, Dr Brown, but be assured, I am praying for you and your ministry, as you travel a lot like Dr White and minister to the people of God so faithfully.
God Bless,
Pat
January 26th, 2010 @ 8:32 pm
“Let the little children, who know intermediate Greek & Hebrew, who’ve studied the Institutes, who’ve read Owen, who’ve adored MacArthur, come to me.”
That was hilarious.
January 26th, 2010 @ 8:37 pm
Pat,
Thanks for your prayers, and hopefully, in future discussions, we’ll cover all the relevant questions. As for my reference to hundreds of passages supporting the position that people are free to respond to God (which is how He set things up), I would simply say this: Start reading the Bible, and note every time someone is given a choice to make, every time God holds someone responsible for that choice, and every time He shows pleasure or displeasure based on those choices. It’s throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. As for demonstrating these points exegetically, they are so self-evident that you have to exegete your way out of what they say, but if you’d like examples of my careful exegesis, I suggest you purchase my just-released commentary on the Book of Jeremiah (Zondervan).
January 26th, 2010 @ 8:43 pm
Dr. Brown,
I would like to ask if you believe regeneration precedes faith or follows faith. The reason why I ask this is because of John 1:12-13 which says:
“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God”.
If one is not born again by the “will of man” but “of God” then the monergist is correct. If one is born again by his own will, then how does that line up with the previously quoted passage?
January 26th, 2010 @ 8:50 pm
Faith precedes regeneration. Hopefully, Dr. White and I can address this in tomorrow’s show.
I find Spurgeon’s quote biblical and logical (despite some earlier posts to the contrary):
“If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnec essary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. Am I only to preach faith to those who have it? Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners.”
Michael, are you aware of other, exegetically sound ways to read John 1:12-13 aside from your view?
January 26th, 2010 @ 8:58 pm
Dr. Brown,
I’m not sure of any other exegetically sound ways to read John 1:12-13 but I would definitely consider them if I knew where to look, maybe you can post some.
Like Spurgeon, I also believe that we are to preach faith to unregenerate people because I believe it is through that message of repentance and faith that God regenerates people, but I’m not sure how that would be opposed to the belief that regeneration precedes faith in the ordo salutis. Maybe I am misunderstanding the relevance of the Spurgeon quote.
I really hope you get to go over that with Dr. White, I believe it would be a very fruitful issue to address.
January 26th, 2010 @ 9:02 pm
Greg said:
“Calvinism puts regeneration before justification and imputed righteousness so that you are somehow born-again and yet simultaneously guilty before God without the imputed righteousness of Christ?”
Greg,
here is a link to a very helpful chart on the “Ordo Salutis”.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23473858/Ordo-Salutis-Chart
January 26th, 2010 @ 9:08 pm
Michael, if we don’t get to it tomorrow, then certainly when I’m on his program, God willing. I agree that it will be fruitful.
As for other ways of reading the text, start with Craig Keener’s John Commentary, then check Beasley-Murray, among others. (Sorry I don’t have time write more.)
January 26th, 2010 @ 9:11 pm
Michael said: Start reading the Bible, and note every time someone is given a choice to make, every time God holds someone responsible for that choice, and every time He shows pleasure or displeasure based on those choices.
How can the Reformed Christian speak of man’s “freedom” if God has decreed his every thought and action? The solution is to be found in the meaning of the word. Reformed theology does not deny that men have wills (that is, choosing minds) or that men exercise their wills countless times a day. To the contrary, Reformed theology happily affirms both of these propositions. What Reformed theology denies is that a man’s will is ever free from God’s decree, his own intellection, limitations, parental training, habits, and (in this life) the power of sin. In sum, there is no such thing as the liberty of indifference; that is, no one’s will is an island unto itself, undetermined or unaffected by anything. (Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith).
Reformed theology believes men act on the basis of their desires, and, when they act in opposition to God’s law, they are judged as sinners. The “hundreds of verses” claim has no merit since it assumes a conflict that does not exist, and ignores the distinction between the prescriptive will of God revealed in His law, and His decree. The fact is that God *intended* Joseph to go to Egypt, and yes, in the exact way he did, and if you say there was some other way, you truly have no meaningful way of explaining God’s accurate knowledge of future events, hence, cannot provide a meaningful basis for biblical prophecy.
Just a thought.
james
January 26th, 2010 @ 9:21 pm
Here is a good question for Dr. White:
Under higher Five Point Calvinism, how can YHVH Elohim hold unregenerate man accountable for not responding to the Biblical Gospel, if it was YHVH Elohim who designed man in such a way as to cause Adam and his racial offspring to become totally depraved upon consuming the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
It seems quite odd that higher Five Point Calvinism attributes such power to the effect that the knowledge of evil had on Adam, yet makes no account for the effect that the knowledge of good had on Adam.
But, regardless, thank you for the opportunity to make this comment and thanks for reading, Dr. Brown.
January 26th, 2010 @ 9:27 pm
Xavier,
As you did on the post on the Trinity, you are misrepresenting history. Calvin was not the one who put Servetus to death. As far as I know, Calvin wasn’t even a citizen at the time of Servetus’ execution, and after the officials of Geneva had determined to put him to death, Calvin even tried to get his method of execution lightened to what was considered at the time to be a much more humane method of execution. In fact, if I am not mistaken, Calvin had earlier risked his life to help Michael Servetus, and kept his identity hidden from public authorities for a very long time. Also, even before Servetus’ execution, Calvin went to try to persuade Servetus to give up his antitrinitarian views so his life would be spared.
Also, to equate “Once Saved Always Saved” with the Perseverance of the Saints is absurd. Even Dr. Brown has carefully distinguished between them on his program, and rejects the idea that they are the same thing. The only person who I have ever heard argue that is the author of the article you cited, Dan Corner. However, almost no one agrees with him on this.
Also, I would point out that one of the main reasons you deny Calvinism is related to your denial of the Trinity. Because you deny the deity of Christ, and do you have a Christ who is God so that he can do what we as Calvinists say that he did, it is not surprising that you reject Calvinism. Calvinism is a uniquely Trinitarian teaching, because it requires Christ to be God in order for him to accomplish what we say he accomplished.
God Bless,
Adam
January 26th, 2010 @ 9:28 pm
Thank you Dr Brown for answering about the hundreds of places. I’m sure you and Dr White will talk about that… I think what you would see in all those places are that men do make choices. And Calvinists agree… However, the disagreement would come from the Calvinist side as to the mechanics of it. I’m glad to see that there are no strawman arguments stating Calvinists don’t believe men have or make choices. We sometimes refer to that as the “puppet / robot” argument. It will be a blessing to hear you both address that concept.
Also, looking fwd to each persons answer to: how can God hold men responsible for choices they are not free and “able” to make? which your statement seems to intimate
Dr Brown said in part:
<>
God Bless,
Pat
January 26th, 2010 @ 9:38 pm
James,
Ah, the debate continues.
For me, the hundreds of clear verses are far more clear than the alleged decrees that determine everything in advance. And when God expresses that something is His desire or will, I take that as truthful, as opposed to being in contrast to some alleged secret will to the contrary.
Also, you realize, of course, that God gives a reason for not allowing Abimelech to sin in Genesis 20, correct? You didn’t make mention of it on the air today, but we can take that up again tomorrow.
As for Genesis 50, I would certainly not read too much into the Hebrew usage there, as if God planned and decreed that the brothers committed their sins against Joseph. It is certainly not required by the lexeme. As for your comment about prophecy, God knew what the brothers would do and used it for His purposes; my point was simply that God had other ways He could have done this, and if He chose to, He could have interacted with events or ordered them accordingly — and then that would have been what He foresaw.
Thanks again for joining me on the air and getting folks thinking about the issues, and thanks for doing it in such a clear-headed way (I expected nothing less). I look forward to continuing the dialog/debate/discussion — although I’m afraid that with every line I post here, I’m neglecting other pressing projects.
January 26th, 2010 @ 9:41 pm
Lofton,
There is early testamental and patristic witness to a variant readinf of John 1.13:
Ehrman, in his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture [p 59], makes the following additions to this claim:
A strong argument for the singular reading is given by Douglas Edwards in his The Virgin Birth in History and Faith [p 129f.]:
January 26th, 2010 @ 9:42 pm
How are people responsible for not repenting if they cannot repent? They are responsible for not being able to respond to God’s command to repent and believe because they are responsible for the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden since he was mankind’s federal head. In other words, all people are responsible for being in the position that they cannot repent and believe. However, God, in His grace, to make known both His justice and mercy, has chosen to save some from the fall and to justly condemn others for their sins and rebellion against a thrice Holy God.
January 26th, 2010 @ 9:48 pm
Michael, your explanation really doesn’t work, since God clearly expects us to be able to respond and therefore holds us accountable when we don’t. The language of Scripture is so overwhelmingly clear on this that to deny it is to rewrite the Bible based on a presumed theological dictum.
January 26th, 2010 @ 9:49 pm
@eahaddix- God doesn’t hold people responsible for ” not responding to the gospel”, but he does hold them responsible for their sins. There are lots of people who never hear the gospel but they are still held accountable for the sins they have committed.
If a man jumps out of an airplane without a parachute, he dies primarily as a consequence of the law of gravity. Not the “lack of a parachute”. While its true that if he HAD put on a parachute, he would have been saved, it is primarily the effect of gravity that kills him. In the same way, anyone who dies apart from Christ, whether they have heard of Him or not, will be damned for their sins. Not for ” failure to respond to the gospel”. While its true that he who comes to the Savior will be saved, it is the consequence of the “law of sin and death” that condemns the sinner.
January 26th, 2010 @ 9:50 pm
Dr. Brown,
As for Genesis 50, I would certainly not read too much into the Hebrew usage there, as if God planned and decreed that the brothers committed their sins against Joseph. It is certainly not required by the lexeme.
I realize that you cannot answer everything, but I do have to disagree with you on this. The Hebrew term Chashab is actually used in parallel here with the action of Joseph’s brothers. Chashab is used both of the action of Joseph’s brothers, and the action of God. It would seem to me that, if you say that God did not plan and decree the actions of Joseph’s brothers, then you are caught believing that Joseph’s brothers did not plan and decree what happened to their brother, since the very same term is used in the previous clause of these actions in relationship to Joseph’s brothers.
Also, I think it must be stressed that this is the end of the book of Genesis. The beginning of the book, in chapter 2, likewise has this collocation of “good” and “evil,” where it is applied to the tree in the midst of the garden. Then, from the time of the fall on through the rest of the book, you have the righteous line, and you have the evil line. Then, at the end of the book you have this statement in Genesis 50:20. I would say that, because of the themes of good and evil throughout the book, and because of this inclusio, that the author of the book of Genesis is actually meaning to say that this can be applied to everything that has happened in the entire book.
God Bless,
Adam
January 26th, 2010 @ 9:56 pm
Adam, the Hebrew simply means: You had plans for this, but God had other plans. It does not mean that He orchestrated it or caused it (there would have been other, much more clear ways to say it in Hebrew). Again, you’re reading way too much into it; better to read things in light of vv. like Job 5:12-13. Genesis makes clear that the brothers made their plans and acted accordingly, but God, the great Redeemer, had other, better plans, and used their evil deeds to accomplish His good purposes. He really is sovereign!
January 26th, 2010 @ 9:57 pm
Mr. Lofton,
What Adam did and the consequences of what Adam did are two different things. The nature of the consequences of what Adam did were designed and set in place by YHVH Elohim alone.
January 26th, 2010 @ 9:59 pm
I’m so glad that my wife “Chose” me, and wasn’t forced into this marriage. I think it is clear that God receives the MOST GLORY by allowing man to accept, or reject the GROOM.
I like what Hank Hanegraff says… “this would be equivalent to cosmic rape.” God doesn’t force HIS will upon man, it’s a decison sparked by the LOVE of the Divine.
January 26th, 2010 @ 10:05 pm
On a previous blog entry, Arminian responded with the following regarding Abimelech and Genesis 20.
“I think it would be fine in principle to say that the king was not free to sin in this specific circumstance. But I don’t think that exegetically likely to be what’s going on in this case. I think you have skipped over a careful reading of the text and prematurely jumped to trying to leverage it to strike a blow to Arminianism and/or support Calvinism. Looking at the whole verse reveals that God keeping Abimelech from sinning was rooted in the innocence of Abimelech’s intent. With the statements of Abimelech’s innocence to the statement of God keeping him from sinning the verse uses what is known in Hebrew grammar as a consecutive sequence (using what is called the waw consecutive) that makes the second verb consequent on the one before it, either chronologically or logically. The upshot is that what the text is actually saying is that God kept the king from unintentionally sinning against him outwardly by having relations with Sarah because he was innocent in the matter. (Notice the “therefore” in the verse.) So the NIV tanslates the verse this way:
“Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her.”
And the NET Bible translates it this way:
“Then in the dream God replied to him, “Yes, I know that you have done this with a clear conscience. That is why I have kept you from sinning against me and why I did not allow you to touch her.”
(I have to say tha tthe ESV does not do justice to the consecutive ocnstruction here, though it is better than the inaccurate and misleading KJV in this verse.)
The idea is that God knew the king was innocent and therefore kept him from sinning against him by actually touching Abram’s wife. Not only does the grammar support this, but that is the most natural reading of the context. Check out a good scholarly commentary like Gordon Wenham’s in the Word Biblical Commentary.
So very interestingly, a close look at the text shows God acting contingently here on the king’s attitude and action here, in line with Arminian thought and in opposition to a specific Calvinist interpretation of the passage. ”
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/01/04/a-genuine-question-for-arminians/#comments
January 26th, 2010 @ 10:05 pm
Adam,
I would suggest you delve further into the “Servetus affair” if your going to challenge the historically accepted view of John Calvin, “the pope of Geneva”, and his involvement in the murder of Servetus and persecution of many others like Sebastian Castellion who wrote:
To which scripture concurs:
A good place to start is online: http://pacificuu.org/wilbur/ahu/book1/index.html
Books include: Servetus and Calvin By Robert Willis; Out of the Flames By Lawrence Goldstone, Nancy Bazelon Goldstone; Michael Servetus: intellectual giant, humanist, and martyr By Marian Hillar, Claire S. Allen; Hunted heretic: the life and death of Michael Servetus, 1511-1553 By Roland Herbert Bainton to name a few.
I don’t neccesarily disagree with everything trinitarians or catholics or any other Christian denomination have to say regarding other matters just because their trinis. We can agree to disagree on the “Deity of Christ” but that doesn’t mean I cannot agree with them on many other issues, such as Calvin’s TULIP construction.
January 26th, 2010 @ 10:07 pm
So what is the Scriptural foundation for the secret decrees of God? Dr. Brown is calling them “alleged” decrees. Are these the theological construct of Reformed theology or are they real?
January 26th, 2010 @ 10:17 pm
Dr. Brown,
I appreciate your response. I do believe that what I wrote about God holding people accountable for not repenting even though they are unable to do so does answer the synergists objection because Adam was our federal head and God holds us accountable for what he did. If you don’t agree with this then you have no basis to say that God can consider me righteous by the merit of Jesus Christ. Doesn’t God consider me, in Christ, as righteous because of the works of another? In the same way, God holds all men accountable for the sin of Adam.
Additionally, God commands us to be perfect as He is perfect (Matthew 5:48). God very clearly commands us to do things we are unable to do.
January 26th, 2010 @ 10:18 pm
I think Dr. White makes a great point in that even from Dr. Browns position if God truely knows all things from all eternity then before (anthropomorphism) God actuated the “fabric of time” He would have know *exactly* from all eternity what men’s free choices are. Those that would choose to believe and those that choose to reject!
If God knew those that would reject before creating the fabric of time, then from within the fabric of time once actuated they could only do that which God knew they would do, that is reject the gospel. Hence, God would be offering them the Gospel when He knew that they would 100% reject it. There could be no possible way for them to be able to do otherwise within the fabric of time, because if they did then God would not have know the correct outcome of the future.
Thank you Dr. White and Dr. Brown for conducting this debate in such a respectful Christian manner. If all debates over calviniam took place like this the everyone would be calvinist.
Chris
January 26th, 2010 @ 10:21 pm
There have been so much said during a show today and on this forum about “hundreds of verses” supposedly supporting Arminian position. Well let us not forget about hundreds of verses supporting Reformed Theology and its position… Just two of these:
“I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.”
Isaiah 45:7 ESV
“Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid?
Does disaster come to a city, unless the Lord has done it?”
Amos 3:6
Let me repeat here what Dr.White eloquently explained. God does not create evil yet He is sovereign over it and is redeeming it for His ultimate good, glory and according to His Holy will.
Just those two verses out of many, many more prove beyond any doubt if we employ logic that God does not purely react to evil as Dr.Brown implied today but He knew about every calamity and every disaster coming before this world was even created and since He knew and He did not stop it then he could not possibly just react to it only as it occurred. Something to think about in light of 200,000 dead in Haiti.
SDG,
Christophe
January 26th, 2010 @ 10:30 pm
“Thank you Dr. White and Dr. Brown for conducting this debate in such a respectful Christian manner. If all debates over calviniam took place like this the everyone would be calvinist.”
Now THAT really is Hilarious!
January 26th, 2010 @ 10:34 pm
Wow this board is on fire!
Jeremy, I don’t believe, though, that’s what Calvinists or various other Christians who believe in once saved always saved are suggesting. At least not necessarily as you stated it. The reason why there is much confusion and disagreement within the body of Christ over this is because it is a VERY technical issue. And most people don’t think in such a technical way. But we need to understand certain things about God’s nature. To name a few:
(1) God is Good (The Good)
(2) God is Truth (The Truth)
(3) God is Love (The Love)
These words are all nouns, not merely adjectives describing God. They are not merely God’s character. They are His NATURE.
If God is Good and therefore just and Righteous, then He MUST judge sin and in so doing right wrongs/atone. True justice is literally “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.”
If god is Truth, then whatever He says MUST be right and true in the technically consisent way. Whatever is technically true is truly true.
If God is Love, He doesn’t have joy or delight in seeing evil, harm, destruction to all that he has made.
But all of these operate in God in PERFECT harmony.
Mercry is God’s love acting on His goodness/righteousness. However, because of His nature, His goodness still needs to be satisfied. The debt still needs to be paid. In Christ, the legal just penalty is paid for once and for all (atonement). Without Christ WE have to pay for it, and we will NEVER make it, because we ALWAYS sin. Thank God for Jesus Chris our Lord. He did for us what nobody else ever could. That’s why Jesus says to us that, “you have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But [now] I tell you love your enemies. Bless those who curse you, do good to those who mistreat you and spitefully use you. . . ” Now we can live this way that God prefers while being justified.
God Bless you all,
Josh
January 26th, 2010 @ 10:37 pm
Christophe,
Actually, in the two verses you quoted, in neither case does God take responsibility for human acts but rather for divine acts. As for God “reacting” to things — that’s your word, not mine.
January 26th, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
Michael Brown, I agree with your response to Christophe. people need to understand that there is such a thing as direct and indirect involvement. For example, when God judged Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, God decreed that He would be his rod of judgement on that nation. However, we also read of those who God used in judgement, later going to far. David knew this, and it is for that reason that He chose to have the nation of Israel left in the hand of the LORD for judgement after counting the fighting men of Israel, instead of choosing to let God send an enemy nation attack them for judgement.
January 26th, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
Dr. Brown,
What is your evaluation of the distinction between God’s decretive and prescriptive will?
January 26th, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
Dr.Brown,
Thank you for your response. Let me be more precise and yet ask the same of you. Yes, you did not say “react” and that is why I said that you “implied” it. Let me explain please why I day that. After all if God is not sovereign (that means knew it, saw it, allowed it according to His plan to redeem it) over evil (past, present and future) then the word “reacting” is rather appriopriate to describe this position and understanding even if you will not pronounce it.
Since we are so precise about words (and we have to be) I would like to also point out that nowhere in my post I was concerned about human acts but primarily about Divine acts.
Isaiah 45:7 and Amos 3:6 speak about Divinely ordained and mandated evil (reader please do not confuse ordination of evil with creation of evil as these are not the same). This Divine prerogative for the occurrence of these acts of evil and calamities just proves the Reformed Theology and Dr.White’s position – quod erat demonstrandum. God allows evil in advance because His plan is even further reaching and perfect.
Since I mentioned that there is more and way more let me present another verse that proves exactly that which is that no evil and no good happens on this planet and anywhere else without prior knowledge and permission of the Almighty. By the way isn’t that exactly what happened with Job and the extent of satanic attack on him? Wasn’t that predetermined in ADVANCE by God? we all know the answer…
Here is another verse out of many, many more:
“Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?”
Lamentations 3:38
SDG,
Christophe
January 26th, 2010 @ 11:02 pm
Dr. Brown,
Thank you for your response.
I don’t question that the term in and of itself does not require it, nor do I question that there are clearer ways to say it in Hebrew. However, language is not just made up of individual lexemes. The issue is how this word is being used here, in this context.
I am unsure as to where you are you getting the word “other” in the text, when you say that it means, “but God had other plans.” There is a pronominal suffix on the second usage of chashab, with regards to the actions of Joseph’s brothers, and pronominal suffixes require an antecedent. If it has nothing to do with the actions of the brothers, and is “other,” then what is the antecedent of the suffix? I think a strong case could be made that the antecedent is ra’ah, “evil,” that the brothers intended in the first clause since it appears to be the only feminine singular noun in the context. If that is the case, there there would be no difference between the two “plans,” as both would be the object of chashab in both clauses. Thus, both God and the brothers would have intended “evil.”
Also, keep in mind the context of the narrative itself. Joseph’s father, Jacob is now dead. Joseph’s brothers are now afraid that Joseph is going to take revenge against them. Were Joseph’s brothers afraid because of what they had plans for, or for what they did to Joseph? Obviously, this is meant to lessen the brother’s sense of guilt for what they had actually *done,* not just for what they intended to do.
Also, with regards to the book of Job, I am interested in why you would say that, considering that Job, at the beginning of the book is attacked by Satan, and yet says twice, in 1:21 and 2:10 that the evil things that happened to him came from God. However, what is interesting is that, in 1:22 and 2:11, the text itself tells us that Job did not sin in saying that. Hence, I do think the book of Job is relevant. However, it seems to be pointing out just the opposite, namely, that the evil that happened to Job came from God himself.
God Bless,
Adam
January 26th, 2010 @ 11:04 pm
Ooooops, typo.
There is a pronominal suffix on the second usage of chashab, with regards to the actions of Joseph’s brothers, and pronominal suffixes require an antecedent.
Should read:
There is a pronominal suffix on the second usage of chashab, with regards to the action of God, and pronominal suffixes require an antecedent.
God Bless,
Adam
January 26th, 2010 @ 11:06 pm
Steve,
I accept that God sets standards that people do not live up to, but when He expresses His desires and His will in that sense, we have no business calling that His revealed will and alleging that there is a secret will that can contradict this, especially as a general principle.
January 26th, 2010 @ 11:12 pm
One at a time. The Doctor, as good as he is at getting to everyone, he is still one man.
January 26th, 2010 @ 11:18 pm
Christophe, although I agree with the once saved, always saved (that is, once born of God’s Spirit having the seed of Christ, always in the kigdom family), my dissention with you is still the point of direct vs indirect involvement. For example, does God tempt (that is with evil)? Of course not! then why does Jesus say to us to pray after this manner: “Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name . . . . And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
He says this because God is not tempted by evil and does not temp any man. That is wy we are to pray “LEAD” us not into temptation. Jesus, remember was “LED into the wilderness by the Spirit of God to be tempted by Satan.”
January 26th, 2010 @ 11:20 pm
Dr. Brown,
As far as the prescriptive will of God and the decretive will of God, the Scriptures teach that God’s prescriptive will is for man not to murder (Exodus 20). However, in Acts 5:30, it says that the people “murdered” Jesus and yet Acts 2:23 says:
“this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.”
Acts 4:26-28 also says ” The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’ 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, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. ”
Clearly there is a distinction between God’s decretive will and prescriptive will which are at odds with each other as well as the fact that God holds people accountable for something He predestined them to do. Even though God’s prescriptive will is for man not to murder, did not God desire that Christ would be handed over by traitors and murdered on the cross in order to atone for the sins of those who would believe?
How do you deal with such Scriptures?
January 26th, 2010 @ 11:20 pm
Hey folks,
If you’ll check the other discussions here, I rarely get involved much, but since I’ve never written anything on Calvinism or even taught extensively about it (since my days as a Calvinist), I’m trying to respond a bit more here — but my other writing commitments don’t allow for steady interaction.
Adam — the suffixes don’t affect my point about the meaning of the word at all.
January 26th, 2010 @ 11:21 pm
The nature of God can be INFERRED from the Old Testament. However, it is explicitly REVEALED in the New Testament. The Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament, and the New Testament is concealed in the Old Testament.
January 26th, 2010 @ 11:31 pm
Michael,
First, the verses you quoted are exceptional as opposed to the norm, and I have no problem with God ordering whatever He chooses. However, when texts tell me that God is against certain things that took place (as often in biblical history), then it is preposterous to say that He ordered them.
Second, there is no evidence that God took people who were not inclined to murder and made them murderers. Rather, as written in Acts 2:23, “This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.” So, there is divine purpose in Jesus being crucified, and wicked people cooperated to make it happen — and are fully culpable for their sins.
One quick note (in the event that I do finally exit here tonight): Are you unaware that solid commentators have explained these verses without embracing Calvinistic predestination? I don’t mean that in an insulting way, since it’s obvious you like to study, but I’m just surprised to see them raised as if there aren’t valid interpretations of the text other than the Calvinistic one.
Also, as many scholars point out, in the first century Jewish mind, both free and divine prescience could operate side by side without a sense of contradiction, as expressed in a famous Mishnaic dictum.
January 26th, 2010 @ 11:41 pm
Sorry: that last line should say “free will.”
January 26th, 2010 @ 11:48 pm
Dr. Brown the reason why free will is not a contradiction to the divive knowledge is because g-d is beyond time so the past,present,and future is all happening at once in his world,therefore his knowledge is not before you commit the sin but rather afteryou commit the sin which is the same as before it in his world.
January 26th, 2010 @ 11:51 pm
Doug read Romans 3.. James read Romans 8 and 9..
read Hebrews 2 as Jesus being the Perfect Priest.. Read John 6 talking about only the ones that the Father gives me I shall receive “….
Calvinism is not that bad how people make it seem.. All it does is go a step foward exlpaining Why Some People Dont Get Saved?? Why is that a Muslim is preached for decades yet doestn repent but on the other hand, another Muslim converts in a few days of listening…
Study Calvinism and in my opinion it makes you more humble since you know you didnt deserve anything…
Amazing Grace : )
January 26th, 2010 @ 11:51 pm
Dr. Brown,
I don’t think you understood my point but that is fine, I believe Dr. White will bring up these issues in greater detail. I respect your time and I know you need to get going so I won’t hold you any longer.
Thank you for your time and God bless you brother.
January 26th, 2010 @ 11:54 pm
Zvi,
Yes, exactly. We agree again! God inhabits eternity (Isa 57:15).
John,
I was a staunch Calvinist for five years but it actually produced more pride in me than humility because of my thinking that I was theologically “correct” (sadly, I’ve run into many Calvinists who glory in being right and are quite proud of it!). But I don’t doubt that for others, it has produced humility.
As for not deserving anything, I have never in my 38 years in the Lord felt for a split second that I deserved anything from Him. It’s all by His grace and kindness. Who denies that?
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:02 am
Michael Brown and Zvi, I agree that God is both outside time and space and within time and space. But unless there is something I’m not understanding please explain to me someone how as Zvi said, “His knowledge is not before you commit the sin but rather AFTER you commit the sin WHICH IS THE SAME AS BEFORE it in his world.
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:02 am
Josh,
I am not sure if I am grasping your points correctly. Let me say here that I am Reformed in my understanding of God’s revelation of truth given to mankind but nowhere did I say that I believe in what is coined as “once saved always saved.” Based on perspicuous teaching of the Bible I believe in Perseverance of Saints. Those two are not the same.
I don’t think that the point that you are trying to make about being tempted is applicable to the fact that God ordains (not creates) evil as shown and proved from the Word. Temptation is not the same category as evil allowed to exist and to occur. Therefore I do not see how your point can invalidate in any way what I have stated and backed by the Scripture.
Since you have mentioned Matthew 6:13 I would like to make an interesting observation about pleading with God to not being lead into temptation. The word “lead” is described below:
εἰσφέρω 1aor. εἰσήνεγκα; 2aor. εἰσήνεγκον; literally bring or carry in (LU 5.18, 19); of forcefully bringing someone into court or before rulers drag in (LU 12.11); idiomatically, of conveying a message εἰσφέρειν εἰς τὰς ἀκοάς literally bring into the ears, i.e. announce, tell (AC 17.20); figuratively, of temptation lead into, bring into (MT 6.13)
Friberg, Timothy ; Friberg, Barbara ; Miller, Neva F.: Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 2000 (Baker’s Greek New Testament Library 4), S. 134
I thought it has interesting range of meaning. And evil in this verse should not be understand as a generic condition but personified evil so “evil one” would me more precise.
SDG,
Christophe
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:07 am
Josh,
Zvi is speaking and thinking here in Rabbinic terms, which are often confusing to those not familiar with the dialectic.
But I’m sure Zvi can explain himself.
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:08 am
They are right, this is a frustrating debate. It seems like there is a commercial break every 5 minutes (and there probably is). I can’t wait for this to be further explored by both White and Brown (how are their last names both colors?).
I liked the analogy given at the end by Brown. He mentioned a person drowning and crying out for help. After the analogy was given, White reminded Brown that if the person was indeed crying out for help, that is because the work of God has already begun taking effect because a dead person can’t respond. Near the end of the broadcast, Brown agreed that the men are in fact in rebellion to God.
What was interesting at this point is that Brown changed the analogy to something that made a lot more sense to me. He illustrated a person in the water who is screaming out their hatred toward the person in the boat. But what was interesting about the person in the boat is that even though the drowning person had cursed the person in the boat, in spite of that, he still reached out his hand to help.
What this reminded me of is how God commands that his people should do good to those who curse him! Many of us Christians have cursed God, no doubt. But in spite of that, he still stretches out his hand. This is the equivalent of heaping hot coals on one’s head.
This gets back to the issue of “What does it mean to be DEAD in sins”? With that being said, I hope Dr. White and Dr. Brown will have time to get into some of the proof-texts used by each side, and if they don’t get that far, I look forward to a future debate. I really think the issue of Calvinism/Non-Calvinism aren’t being given enough attention at the moment, and a lot of people are wrestling with it. It was disappointing to discover that Dr. Geisler wouldn’t even debate Dr. James White.
I don’t know if this debate will ever be settled before Christ comes, but it would be nice if someday, the church could all be in one accord on this issue. It is a highly emotional topic.
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:13 am
I’m still trying to understand how the quickening of the Holy Spirit equates regeneration?
God’s word is His seed (Luke 8:11). Jesus Christ is the Husbandman and we are His bride. Although the seed of man is both living and has the ability to create life, an embryo is not created until the seed of man penetrates the egg of a woman.
God’s word is both Spirit and life. However, spiritual rebirth does not take place until after the seed is received by faith (Eph.1:13).
Also, it was through Isaac that Abraham’s seed was called. With that in mind, how did Isaac obtain his bride? Was it through force? No, Rebekah was asked by her family, “Will you go with this man?” Rebekah was offered a choice to either go be Isaac’s bride, or to stay with her family. She chose to go with Abraham’s servant to be the bride of Isaac (Genesis 24:57).
Again, (per previous post) it has always been the purpose of God to save men (Luke 9:56). If you have ordained for billions of men to burn for eternity in the lake of fire without offering them means of escape through repentance, then it can’t be said that you genuinely want to save the lives of men.
The Calvinist would say that though, because of the fall, all men are deserving of God’s wrath, He has graciously selected a small percentage of people to reign with Him for eternity. However, Jesus said in John 15:22, “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.” Therefore, men had some degree of an excuse for their sin because they had not heard the testimony of Jesus; and as I demonstrated in an earlier post, God is displeased when someone transgresses against another without a cause. Thus, if God, before the creation of the world, selects many for the fires of hell, he would be guilty of breaking His own principles.
In summation, if you’re a Calvinist, you would do well to reconsider. There is only 1 Gospel.
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:14 am
Hi Christophe, ya I noticed that after I posted. But my main area of concern was the fact that you cited a verse that says, “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?”
Lamentations 3:38
In the Old Testament, that sounds pretty direct. But if this passage were explained in the New Testament it would reveal that it is not so direct. Like the passage in the Old Testament about God tempting Abraham. It possibly could be stated this way. But to understand technically/philosophically how it must be, we see in the New Testament how these actually are indirectly so.
I apologize, I thought that you believed in once saved always saved. I guess not.
What I would like to know now is you mentioned the word “lead” and its Greek meaning. Is it or is it not the same word used in Matthew 6:13 and James 1:13?
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:19 am
I mean tempt
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:19 am
Hi Dr. Michael Brown:
You should be very careful in your claim that Calvinism diminishes God’s glory since ONLY Calvinism teaches that everything has a purpose which ends up glorifying God completely. Second, Dr. Brown, the offer to “repent and believe” is MEANINGFUL ONLY IN CALVINISM, not in your view which gives a mere “offer” to be saved, since Calvinism guarantees our success in evangelism; the elect will respond in faith and repentance while the non-elect will respond in anger and rejection of God. This “elect/ non-elect” language is naturally hated by the sinful mind of man because man believes he deserves God’s favour and finds it appaling that God would “choose” anyone to be saved. Dr. Brown, I at least appreciate your attempt to be fair to Dr. White by allowing him to define his own terms.
In the next program, however, I would like to see more of a discussion of the freedom of the will/ the nature of man because I think that is the key issue at stake: “HOW “FREE” IS THE HUMAN WILL?” I personally believe that if anyone were to do a study of the human will in the Scriptures one would see God is ALWAYS sovereign over the choices of man; the Arminian doctrine of “free will” is not found in Scripture at all but is an unbiblical philosophical concept read back into the Scriptures to sort of “get God off the hook” by explaining human responsibility for sin in an unbiblical fashion. Don’t get me wrong, the Scriptures are filled with references to man’s choices or will to choose God, but NOWHERE in ANY of those references do we have the Arminian understanding of the freedom of the will, that is, that God sort of backs away from “violating” the will of man in his sovereignty; now, Dr. Brown, you are free to read such a doctrine back into the text, but you must recognize that all we see in Scripture is the Calvinist understanding of the freedom of the will, a will that is indeed free/ not forced to do what it wants, but is under the ultimate sovereign control of God himself–and this cannot be disputed from any fair reading of Isaiah or Jeremiah, for example, where God raises up evil men, such as Nebuchadnezzar, as instruments of wrath. God is the King of the Universe indeed, and has a right to do what He pleases; Calvnism does not diminish from God’s glory, but establishes His glory as the King that He really is.
God Bless,
Dejan
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:26 am
I should have added to the ending of my previous post, “In my humble opinion…”
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:33 am
Josh, if g-d knows at 9:00 am. that I will sin at 10:00,that would create a problem since if g-d knows that I will sin,then how is it then that I have free choice since it has already been predetermined that I will sin at 9:00. The solution to this problem is as follows: g-d doesn’t know that you will sin at 9:00,but rather he knows it at 10:00 after you sin. Since to g-d every hour of the day is available to him in no time in one “period” of time. meaning-to him,past present and future are all occurring at once.
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:48 am
Zvi,
Foreknowledge does not equal necessity. Here’s an excellent article on it by Dr. Robert Picirilli:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/43/43-2/43-2-pp259-271_JETS.pdf
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:51 am
Josh,
No problem I hope it helps and I hope you will know that “once saved always saved” myth is absolutely foreign to Reformed Theology.
You have mentioned philosophical understanding of God’s sovereignty over evil in NT. I would say here that philosophy can lead to a wide range or imprecise understandings of the Word and would I rather stay with proper hermeneutics were Scripture is able to and should employed to Scripture.
In NT we have the same principle: GOD knows coming up evil and calamity. God does not stop it. In fact He allows it to happen for His good reasons. Look here:
““Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem?
“I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
Lk 13:4-5 New American Standard Bible
As far as the Greek word for lead
Matthew 6:13
4280 πειρασμός (peirasmos), οῦ (ou), ὁ (ho): n.masc.; ≡ Str 3986; TDNT 6.23—1. LN 27.46 examination, submit another to a test, to learn the true nature or character of (Jas 1:2; 1Pe 4:12); 2. LN 88.308 temptation, trial, given for the purpose to make one stumble (Lk 4:13; Ac 15:26 v.r. NA26)
Swanson, James: Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament). electronic ed. Oak Harbor : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. DBLG 4280, #2
James 1:13
4279 πειράζω (peirazō): vb.; ≡ DBLHebr 5814; Str 3985; TDNT 6.23—1. LN 27.46 examine, submit another to a test, to learn the true nature or character of (2Co 13:5); 2. LN 27.31 try to trap, attempt to catch in a mistake (Mt 16:1; Jn 8:6 v.r.; Heb 11:37 v.r.); 3. LN 88.308 tempt, test for purposes of making one sin (Mk 1:13; Ac 5:3 v.r.); 4. LN 68.58 attempt, try to do something, implying not succeeding at the endeavor (Ac 9:26); 5. LN 12.36 ὁ πειράζων (ho peirazōn), the Tempter (Mt 4:3; 1Th 3:5+)
Swanson, James: Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament). electronic ed. Oak Harbor : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. DBLG 4279, #5
January 27th, 2010 @ 1:19 am
“Therefore, men had some degree of an excuse for their sin because they had not heard the testimony of Jesus; and as I demonstrated in an earlier post, God is displeased when someone transgresses against another without a cause. Thus, if God, before the creation of the world, selects many for the fires of hell, he would be guilty of breaking His own principles.”
Greg,
I have to present to you that you are making two incorrect statements in your above quoted text.
First.
I believe you are misreading Matthew 15:22:
“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.”
Matthew 15:22 NASB
To say based on that that men had some degree of excuse is to deny other parts of the Scripture that say that none is righteous in any way shape or form like Romans 3:10-12 and many others. And if they are unrighteous then they do not have any degree of excuse otherwise they would be somewhat righteous.
Claiming any degree of excuse for a fallen men is basically semi pelagianism and I do not believe you want to go there.
I believe that a proper hermeneutics of Jesus words:
“”If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.”
will show that the Lord speaks in comparative terms and not in absolute terms here. He is saying since now they heard testimony of the Son of God all of their previous sins pale in comparison with the SIN of rejecting Jesus Christ.
The same understanding is supported in this commentary:
“If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin” —comparatively none; all other sins being light compared with the rejection of the Son of God.”
Jamieson, Robert ; Fausset, A. R. ; Fausset, A. R. ; Brown, David ; Brown, David: A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. Jn 15:22
Therefore your inductive argument fails as man truly and absolutely has no excuse before God.
Second.
God does not select for the fires of hell. This is a wrong and caricatured misunderstanding of Reformed Theology. God ACTIVELY selects for salvation and INDIRECTLY bypasses those whom He does not select for salvation. This is not pure semantics. These are completely different things. One is an action another a non action. Please think it over.
Yes there is one Gospel and there is a way to give full glory to God for it and there is a way to not do it completely and fully. Please consider this.
SDG,
Christophe
January 27th, 2010 @ 1:38 am
dj elder,
I was being droll, though I happen to be a calvinist.
Zvi,
you wrote:
“g-d doesn’t know that you will sin at 9:00,but rather he knows it at 10:00 after you sin.”
I would argue that God knows it no matter what time it is.
Time does not limit God’s knowledge.
Chris
January 27th, 2010 @ 2:11 am
I want to comment on James White’s comments as they are a very good illustration of the problems with Calvinism and specifically the reasoning of Calvinists.
White began by citing Dr. Brown:
“Michael said: Start reading the Bible, and note every time someone is given a choice to make, every time God holds someone responsible for that choice, and every time He shows pleasure or displeasure based on those choices.”
What White misses is expressed in the words “every time someone is given a choice to make.”
A helpful distinction which clearly differentiates the view of exhaustive predetermination from the non-Calvinist view is to distinguish between HAVING A CHOICE and MAKING A CHOICE. You have a choice when you can actualize either possibility before you (I can choose either the apple pie or the cherry pie for dessert at the restaurant in response to the server’s question about what I would like to have for dessert). You make a choice when you select or pick one option to actualize. Now the non-calvinist such as myself believes that at least sometimes we really do HAVE CHOICES. The Calvinist like White however, who believes that God has predecided as part of an exhaustive and comprehensive total plan, every event that makes up history.: can claim that we make choices but we NEVER EVER HAVE CHOICES.
We may mistakenly (if White’s calvinism were true) believe that we could choose either the cherry or apple pie at the restaurant (but in reality you can only select the pie which God already predecided that you would select: if he predetermined that you would have cherry then you will have cherry and it is impossible for you to do otherwise). Both our daily experience (including our use of ordinary language) as well as numerous biblical passages suggests that in fact we sometimes do have a choice. I believe that Dr. Brown when referring to the numerous bible passages is speaking of situations where if the language is not misleading and meant to be taken as ordinarily understood, then in these situations the persons involved have choices (they are not merely making choices that God predecided they would make).
I believe if more people actually saw what the Calvinism of White amounts to (i.e., that we ***never ever have a choice***) they would reject it quickly. But most people hear a Calvinist like White talk about “freedom” thinking that White is granting that we do in fact sometimes have choices. But that is not what White means by “free will” (he means that we MAKE CHOICES, that we choose in line with our desires, while carefully hiding the fact that we never ever HAVE CHOICES under his version of calvinism and hiding the fact that **our desires** as well as everything else is predetermined if calvinism is true).
White (or White quoting Redmond then writes):
“How can the Reformed Christian speak of man’s “freedom” if God has decreed his every thought and action?”
Allow me to paraphrase this question with the having a choice versus making a choice distinction in mind (“How can the Reformed Christian speak of a man ever MAKING A CHOICE if God has decreed his every thought and action”). If we eliminate the possibility of a man ever having a choice (which must be true if all things are exhaustively predecided by God as part of an exhaustive total plan made in eternity) then what are we left with? We are left with men not having choices but merely making choices. And this is clear when you see White’s solution:
“The solution is to be found in the meaning of the word. Reformed theology does not deny that men have wills (that is, choosing minds) or that men exercise their wills countless times a day.”
Note the two realities that “Reformed theology does not deny”. (1) “men have wills (that is choosing minds)” and (2) “men exercise their wills countless times a day”. In a world where everything was predetermined, predecided by God, part of a total plan that God devised in eternity before anything existed, could a human person have a will? Yes. Could a human person exercise that will “countless times a day” when MAKING CHOICES? Yes.
But what would be completely missing from such a world?
People would be making choices all the time THEY JUST WOULD NEVER EVER HAVE A CHOICE.
And this is one of my biggest problems with Calvinism as espoused by someone like White (they are not forthright, they do not openly present what they really believe and what their view necessarily entails: that we never ever have a choice). And I submit that most people when they are talking about having “free will” they do not mean merely that they MAKE CHOICES but that they sometimes HAVE CHOICES. And this ordinary understanding, expressed in many ways in ordinary language conventions, is precisely how the bible and God himself presents things in scripture. In scripture when God describes or presents people with decisions to make or choices to make, the understanding present is not merely that they are making a choice but that they have a choice. And this having a choice which we encounter and experience daily and which the bible is full of numerous examples is completely denied by exhaustive predetermination of all events/the kind of Calvinism espoused by James White.
“To the contrary, Reformed theology happily affirms both of these propositions.”
So what. Affirming that we have a will and that we make choices is not sufficient to properly represent reality, that does not correspond with reality. Reality is not just that we have a will and that we **make choices**, reality is that we sometimes **have a choice**.
Now significantly we then see an unwarranted jump from the claim that we have wills and make choices (leaving out the reality that we sometimes **have choices**) to the claim that completely uninfluenced decisions and choices are made:
“What Reformed theology denies is that a man’s will is ever free from God’s decree, his own intellection, limitations, parental training, habits, and (in this life) the power of sin. In sum, there is no such thing as the liberty of indifference; that is, no one’s will is an island unto itself, undetermined or unaffected by anything. (Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith).”
Non-Calvinists do not claim when we make choices that we are completely uninfluenced that “one’s will is an island unto itself, undetermined or unaffected by anything.” That is a caricature of the non-Calvinist position. Our position is not that we experience no influences, NO, our position is that we sometimes really do have choices. I can have a choice and my decision may be influenced by various factors. What we deny is the claim that these influences are always so strong that we never ever have choice. When you think you are freely choosing the cherry pie rather than the apple pie, the Calvinist or better yet “determinist” wants us to believe that there is some necessitating factor that necessitates every choice that we make so that we have to make that choice and any other choice was impossible. The bible does not teach this total necessitation of all events. Instead the bible like our daily experience suggests that sometimes we do have a choice where the choice we make is not necessitated but freely chosen.
“Reformed theology believes men act on the basis of their desires, and, when they act in opposition to God’s law, they are judged as sinners.”
Do we act upon our desires? Sure. When we act in opposition to God’s law and so are judged sinners, is this true? Sure. But that does not show that we never ever have a choice and that all of our actions are necessitated? No, not even close.
“The “hundreds of verses” claim has no merit since it assumes a conflict that does not exist, and ignores the distinction between the prescriptive will of God revealed in His law, and His decree.”
White must not understand the “hundreds of verses” claim. Let me put in the language of having a choice versus only making a choice. Dr. Brown is claiming that numerous bible verses taken as God intended them, (without eisegetical gymnastics being applied in order to redefine the words and remove the intended and plain meaning of the texts) present that we sometimes HAVE A CHOICE. And this completely contradicts the calvinist claim that all events have been predecided/predetermined by God as part of a total plan that he came up with in eternity and is now actualizing as history (i.e. the claim that God decrees whatsover comes to pass with no exceptions): what is called the will of decree. Any Calvinist who holds to the two wills (the prescriptive and the decreetal wills of God, the prescriptive being the commands and statements made by God in scripture and the total plan in which every event is decreed) necessarily believes that we never ever have a choice. Put in logical terms there is a contradiction between the claim that we sometimes have a choice (Dr. Brown’s claim, a claim which he believes, correctly, and is supported by tons of biblical evidence) and the claim that God has decreed all events and so we never ever have a choice. There are only three logical possibilities: (1) we never ever have a choice (White’s position); (2) we always have a choice (an intentional caricature of the non-calvinist’s view: in fact at times our choices are taken away, God himself can prevent a choice from being made, just ask Abimelech in Genesis or Nebuchadnezzar when he was eating grass like an animal); or (3) we sometimes have a choice (Dr. Brown’s position, the position that allows for limited free will). Let’s throw out (2) right away, the bible refutes that one clearly. That means we are left with either (1) or (3). The two wills theory of Calvinists presupposes (1) since if everything is decreed then we never ever have a choice and the secret or decreetal will if it existed eliminates our every having a choice. It seems to me that the “hundreds of bible verses” to which Dr. Brown refers are all of those bible verses presenting situations where people really had a choice. And if they really had a choice as the scripture plainly and explicitly and repeatedly affirms then (1), the claim that we never ever have a choice because everything is predetermined by God as part of his total plan is necessarily false. And make no mistake there most definitely is a conflict between the claim that we never ever have a choice/White’s calvinism and the claim that the bible presents numerous occasions where we really have a choice/Dr. Brown’s “hundreds of verses” claim.
James White’s claim then that ““The “hundreds of verses” claim has no merit since it assumes a conflict that does not exist,” is completely false. A conflict does in fact exist between the numerous bible passages presenting situations where people had a choice versus the Calvinistic system which entails that every event is predecided and so we never ever have a choice. The Calvinist system contains this universal negative, and those familiar with logic know that a universal negative is refuted by only one positive counter (and yet in the bible and in our own experience we have hundreds of positive counter’s to this universal negative, so this proposition is false as is the system that leads to it.
Robert
January 27th, 2010 @ 2:40 am
Christophe,
I’m willing to concede that I would like to hear Dr. Brown’s take on John 15:22. However, the commentary that you cited, “all other sins being light compared with the rejection of the Son of God,” doesn’t really work for me because Christ said, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin…”
Christ was referring to the world in this passage according to preceding verses. How could the world be guilty of the sin of “rejecting Jesus” if, according to the words of Christ, He “had not come and spoken unto them..?” You can’t reject what you haven’t heard!
Additionally, if this passage is supposed to be understood “comparatively,” then would you also shine that same “comparative” light on Romans 9:13? Did God really hate Esau, or was He simply making a comparison in the same way that He said we were supposed to “hate” our mother and father in Luke 14? The same Greek word “miseo” is used in both passages.
Also, the argument that the eternal, omnipotent, omniscient God, who has the keys to hell and death, isn’t responsible for throwing men into hell for eternity, is silly. Logically, if God unconditionally selects some for life and reward, He is obviously selecting the remainder for death and punishment. God is Sovereign remember? None of your intellectual pursuits can get around this unfortunate consequence of unconditional election. If a Calvinist is going to use Romans 9:13 to prove the unconditional election of Jacob (whom He loved) to eternal life, he or she must also use, by necessity of logic, the same passage to show the unconditional election of Esau (whom He hated) to damnation.
Please think it over…
January 27th, 2010 @ 3:50 am
Robert,
Your comments are so long, you are about to write a book
January 27th, 2010 @ 5:22 am
We clearly have a limited freewill of moral free agency AND GOD HOLDS US ACCOUNTABLE for willful sins and defiance.
But GOD also determines ultimate destiny by His perfect understanding of the heart AND MOTIVES of every spirit and soul. – therefore: the final choice AND ELECTION is His. … and He chose us BEFORE we choose Him. – yet that does not cancel-out the importance of seeking and choosing GOD and His ways.
It’s a seeming ‘paradox’ of the lesser will always yielding to and subject to THE GREATER WILL.
January 27th, 2010 @ 5:24 am
GOD BLESS Dr.Brown and Dr.White: both are clearly dedicated brethren in the LORD Yeshua, – our Messiah, Saviour, and ONLY Hope !
January 27th, 2010 @ 5:59 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Dipper, PraetorDrew, Dr. Michael L. Brown, Dr. Michael L. Brown, Erica Higgins and others. Erica Higgins said: RT @DrMichaelLBrown New LOF Show: Dr. Brown and Dr. James White Debate Calvinism (Part 1) http://is.gd/77gzZ [...]
January 27th, 2010 @ 8:21 am
James White said in a post above – “How can the Reformed Christian speak of man’s “freedom” if God has decreed his every thought and action? The solution is to be found in the meaning of the word. Reformed theology does not deny that men have wills (that is, choosing minds) or that men exercise their wills countless times a day. To the contrary, Reformed theology happily affirms both of these propositions. What Reformed theology denies is that a man’s will is ever free from God’s decree, his own intellection, limitations, parental training, habits, and (in this life) the power of sin. In sum, there is no such thing as the liberty of indifference; that is, no one’s will is an island unto itself, undetermined or unaffected by anything. (Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith).”
But this view is not unique to Reformed theology. I know of no Christian theologian who believes that God is not actively engaged in creation to work his will. Such a view would make us deists, not theists. The cross itself is God’s ultimate involvement in human affairs, with God participating in death itself. So there simply is no argument as to whether God gets involved in human affairs. The question is how he gets involved and whether he allows humans to violate his will. He very apparently does and any theology needs to accommodate this. So Reformers cannot claim God’s involvement as unique to their theology.
What is at stake here is whether individuals can choose life or death, God or self. We all believe that we choose on the basis of external influences, but there are three issues to raise here.
First, in the Reformed system what precisely is a decree and what does it do? Is it nothing more than a declaration? If so, how is it fundamentally different than the classical Arminian view of foreknowledge? If it dictates what God will do through the person, thus making it fatalistic, then we must embrace full determinism.
Second, if God has decreed sin, but could have decreed otherwise, how can we state that he has not authored it intentionally? Could God have created the world without sin and simply did not do so?
Third, I think the issue of man’s choices ultimately get down to human responsibility. If God could have created human beings without sin, why did he not do so? Perhaps that is because there is a characteristic of what it means to be human that demands the capacity for moral choice. Is the person himself (or herself) also a causal factor?
These are areas that need to be addressed. But in my thinking, the issue is never man’s freedom (since both sides accommodate it), but God’s righteousness. That is what is really at stake. It does no good to state that God is righteous by definition. We need to show that God is righteous by his own definition of the term in Scripture. The discussion would be far more valuable if it moved in this direction.
One other question, if “Reformed theology believes men act on the basis of their desires, and, when they act in opposition to God’s law, they are judged as sinners,” how can Romans 7:15-24 state the very opposite – that we do the opposite of what we desire, which makes us sinners?
January 27th, 2010 @ 8:51 am
Dr. Brown,
Adam — the suffixes don’t affect my point about the meaning of the word at all.
Why not? Would you as an Arminian be happy with the idea that God planned evil in the same way that Joseph’s brothers planned evil? You told me that the text means “but God had *other* plans,” and that “other” seems like the only way you can make this work. If the direct object is exactly the same in both clauses, then how can you say that the plans of God are “other?”
God Bless,
Adam
January 27th, 2010 @ 8:58 am
Robert,
You said, “Now the non-calvinist such as myself believes that at least sometimes we really do HAVE CHOICES. The Calvinist like White however, who believes that God has predecided as part of an exhaustive and comprehensive total plan, every event that makes up history.: can claim that we make choices but we NEVER EVER HAVE CHOICES.”
If you believe that God is omniscient (if you don’t, we have other problems), then before we were ever created God knew what choices we would make. This means that even Arminians believe that we do not HAVE choices, we only make the choices that God KNEW we would make before the foundation of the world.
However, this is not the main problem with your argument. The real issue is how we define freedom. You are viewing freedom in a libertarian sense. In this system, choice is defined as: “being able to choose anything even against your greatest desire.” Calvinists believe in compatiblist freedom which is defined as, “being able to choose what is constrained by our greatest desire.”
So the discussion about what it means to HAVE choices and to MAKE choices is really irrelevant because we are comparing to different systems of freedom. The Calvinist would say HAVING choices is not a necessary condition for freedom, since we always choose according to our greatest desire. The Libertarian would say the opposite. It is necessary that we HAVE choices in order to have freedom, but in the light of God’s omniscience we do not actually have freedom in a libertarian sense.
One last comment, I am using the terms “HAVE” and “MAKE” as you defined them. I would probably have used different terms myself, but I’m trying to address your argument according to your terms.
January 27th, 2010 @ 8:59 am
Robert,
NO, our position is that we sometimes really do have choices. I can have a choice and my decision may be influenced by various factors. What we deny is the claim that these influences are always so strong that we never ever have choice. When you think you are freely choosing the cherry pie rather than the apple pie, the Calvinist or better yet “determinist” wants us to believe that there is some necessitating factor that necessitates every choice that we make so that we have to make that choice and any other choice was impossible.
Robert, do you ever do something that you are not inclined to do? If you don’t, then your choices are always determined by your inclinations.
Here is the question. We as Calvinists believe that God decrees an action. Why do assume that you cannot, because of your own inclinations, choose the same action that God has decreed?
Put another way, we just need to add this simple truth, and I believe it resolves this problem:
God can make human actions certain without the use of coercion.
How does he do that? I don’t know. However, there is nothing self-contradictory about it.
God Bless,
Adam
January 27th, 2010 @ 9:33 am
You all can say what you want, you are ALL Calvinists anytime you pray for someone to come to Christ. Why “pray that God might grant them repentance to the truth” when it’s all about their “free” will to chose. You can beg man and his deceitful, God hating heart all day to believe. I am going to continue to pray to the Lord of the Harvest to arrest men in their rebellion against Him and make men trophies of His grace and mercy.
January 27th, 2010 @ 9:49 am
Chris,I did not mean to say that g-d doesnt know something at a given time but rather g-d’s knowledge is independent of our time therefore to g-d 9:00 and 10:00 is all the same,therefore it is not that g-d sees that you will sin but g-d sees that you have already sinned. So the answer to the question is: g-d sees not that you will sin in the future,nor that you’ll do good, he only sees what you actually ended up doing which is ultimately your choice. And he knew what you would end up doing way before you decided what to do.
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:25 am
Robert,
In your long treatise you have presented a lot of philosophical and humanistic thinking regarding choices but not one Scriptural proof to discuss which would do you and us much better than repeating over and over the same deliberations…
You misunderstand Reformed position and you misunderstand Dr.White presentation. Reformed do not deny that we have choices and will but we have those according to our nature that is either regenerated nature or reprobate nature. To ignore that is to ignore Genesis 3:6 and all its consequences that are absolutely fundamental in understanding the revelation of God.
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:43 am
Adam,
One last reply and I’ll probably be checking out for a bit: I’m not sure how fluent you are in Hebrew, but the text does not speak of anyone planning anything. Rather, it speaks of intentions, the brothers vs. God’s. They had one thing in mind (evil) and God had another thing in mind (good). If you want to claim that the text states that God ordered these events in detail and moved on the brothers to act in hate and malice, be my guest, but what it actually states is that God had different purposes to accomplish through these events.
Once again, it appears that I hold to a higher view of sovereignty that do my Calvinist friends. He does not have to decree events in order to accomplish His purposes.
In any case, if the text stated that God moved on the brothers to do evil, so be it. I would bow down to God and His Word without hesitation. It simply doesn’t state that.
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:47 am
Does a God who is perfect in all His ways (Mat.5:48), who is light with no darkness (1 Jn.1:5), who is the epitome of love (1 Jn.4:8), harmonize with the deterministic God of Calvinism?
What glory or pleasure does God receive if a young orphan is sold into sex slavery and subsequently beat or murdered – especially when it happens in private, in silence. Does God determine this act in order to receive some future glory – the biblical God that is only light with no darkness at all in Him?
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:53 am
Whatever Jesus you sow your praise and worship to this is the Jesus that you will reap. Be certain you have the right Jesus.
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:54 am
Amen, Dr. Brown!
It amazes me that Calvinists don’t see that their view of the Sovereignty of God (He has to pre-determine or force events) makes God much much less than the infinte God portrayed in the Bible. When the sovereignty of God is seen the context of that He has voluntarily limited the expression of it by making covenants and giving His “God-breathed” writings and yet it spite of this works through/in/with man freedom to respond to truth to accomplish His ultimate plan. WOW! What an infinite and truely ALMIGHTY GOD we serve!
January 27th, 2010 @ 11:00 am
“doesn’t really work for me because Christ said, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin…”
Christ was referring to the world in this passage according to preceding verses. How could the world be guilty of the sin of “rejecting Jesus” if, according to the words of Christ, He “had not come and spoken unto them..?” You can’t reject what you haven’t heard! ”
Greg,
You really should look at and quote the entire John 15:22 if you want to understand it. The part that you omit is crucial:
“…but now they have no excuse for their sin. ”
The whole verse:
“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.”
New American Standard Bible : Jn 15:22
Again Jesus is not talking about all of the sin in the world but the sin of rejecting Him the embodiment of the Eternal Truth. The words “but now” connect prior “they would not have sin” with its qualification “no excuse for their sin” The world is guilty of rejecting Jesus so I do not understand your remaining assertion.
I think discussing Romans 9:13 or Luke 14:26 just because of similar word used is outside of the scope of our discussion. It does not matter if some word is used there as those texts present different matters in a different contexts. We cannot chase after the word ignoring changing contexts in which the word occurs…
“Also, the argument that the eternal, omnipotent, omniscient God, who has the keys to hell and death, isn’t responsible for throwing men into hell for eternity, is silly.”
Greg this is not silly. It is only biblical. You insist on judging God while ignoring the biblical facts that point to the well known truth that it is a man who condemned himself to the eternal death and not God. Let me refresh your memory:
“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Genesis 3:16-17 ESV
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. ”
Romans 6:23 ESV
“Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.”
James 1:15 ESV
All of these verses point to the reason of of death and spiritual death as well. You should marvel in amazing grace of God evident in that he saves some wretched sinners according to His will instead of being unreasonably frustrated by God’s consistency in respecting His own word which was broken by man who who justly suffer consequences of this rebellion.
SDG,
Christophe
January 27th, 2010 @ 11:14 am
I think two of the comments the Dr. White said, which actually made me gasp, and which show the profound errors in Calvinism was: (a) when Dr. Brown asked him if God loves everyone the same in a salvific way and Dr. White responded with “no.” This statement denies the very testimony of Scripture that says “God so loved the WORLD…” and “God is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL would come to repentance.” Calvinists have to put a “spin” on those two verses to make them align with their theology…instead of a clear reading of the text.
And (b) when Dr. White mentioned that “the way Joseph got into Egypt is the exact way that God had decreed for Joseph to get into Egypt.” Which means God decrees sin rather than redeeming the sinful choices of mankind for his purposes.
BTW: I happen to more of the Molinist camp with Dr. Bill Craig.
January 27th, 2010 @ 11:20 am
“Does a God who is perfect in all His ways (Mat.5:48), who is light with no darkness (1 Jn.1:5), who is the epitome of love (1 Jn.4:8), harmonize with the deterministic God of Calvinism?”
Greg,
I think you are starting to go into direction of an emotional drumbeat… Yes GOD is love but He is also justice and holiness amongst infinite number of all beautiful attributes. To ignore those to focus on love is to seriously misrepresent God to one self and well as to others… This is quite serious.
You accuse God of being “deterministic” that is inappropriate word perhaps you should try “sovereign” instead?
How about this for the Sovereign God who is Head over All – L’khol L’rosh?
“The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.”
Proverbs 16:4 NKJV
Your comment about orphan is sold into sex slavery primarily brings emotional response at the cost of biblical response. Are you going to believe that this evil happened without God knowing about it? Are you going to believe that God was powerless to stop this evil?
Would that be God of the Bible? Of course not. So please think through the issue before you come up with the example as there is another side to what you want to believe in…
January 27th, 2010 @ 11:21 am
zvi,
You said:
“g-d sees not that you will sin in the future,nor that you’ll do good, he only sees what you actually ended up doing which is ultimately your choice. And he knew what you would end up doing way before you decided what to do.”
I would agree that God knows the fabric of time eternally. But I don’t think it’s simply just knowing. His divine plan is interwoven with that which He knows that happens within time. When time was actuated (I’m speaking in human terms) there is not one thing that takes place that God didn’t allow to take place.
All things that take place are taking place according to His purpose and after the counsel of His will:
“also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will” Eph 1:11
God has a purpose for all things even if we do not understand what it is. He even has a purpose for the wicked:
“The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil.” Prov 16:4
I think the question will be what type of choice *CAN* a person who is a slave to sin make, and does God pass some of them over while choosing others unto life.
January 27th, 2010 @ 11:24 am
Christophe,
Do you support double predestination?
January 27th, 2010 @ 11:32 am
Chris, in deu. 30:15 G-d says I gave you life and goodness,and DEATH and EVIL,in other words there are 2 options that g-d lays out. In verse 19 g-d suggests to “choose life,so that you will live. This suggests that if you dont do so but rather you choose death,you won’t live and it is considered EVIL as the verse before tells us. So you are the one that has the choice of your own destiny,g-d handed this to you in order for you to MERIT etrnity based on your own merit,not because he has ultimate plans for your actions,because if that was the case g-d could have put you into heaven before bringing you down to this earth!
January 27th, 2010 @ 11:38 am
his statement denies the very testimony of Scripture that says “God so loved the WORLD…” and “God is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL would come to repentance.”
Jackie P.
I would like to kindly present to you that you are not even quoting in entirety verses on which you want to build your ENTIRE theology…Isn’t that telling?
For example, your partial quote of John 3:16 works for your view only as long as it stays partial…
” For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.”
John 3:16 NET Bible
This verse does not say that the whole world will be saved but word “world” is qualified by “everyone who believes” Do you see the difference? I as a Calvinist have absolutely affirm this great truth.
As far as 2 Peter 3:9 I think you are missing the point here by not recognizing to whom the letter is addressed and to whom those words are spoken. Just one small hint if you look at directly preceding verse 2 Peter 3:8 you will see the word “beloved”…
SDG
Christophe
January 27th, 2010 @ 11:55 am
Ben KC,
Thank you for asking. I think I posted quite a bit on this forum already and much of that pertaining God’s sovereignty over each and every salvation as well as over each and every reprobation.
Term “double predestination” is a urban legend and a popular misrepresentation of God’s sovereignty just as term “once saved always saved” is a serious misrepresentation of Biblical and Reformed teaching of the perseverance of saints.
There is a world of a difference between ACTIVE and DIRECT action of God of pulling up a wretched sinner from the cliff of eternity and INACTIVE, INDIRECT, NON ACTION of God of bypassing others who find themselves at the edge of the cliff thanks to themselves. This is not semantics. We are not talking about words but about action, non action and a cause.
It is entirely wrong to ask God why He does not pull all from the edge while not marveling and glorifying Him for pulling some of that precipice.
Ultimately it is a question of: everyone, some or none. Which one do you think glorifies God and His truth the most?
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
Christophe,
I don’t believe that having an excuse for a crime is the equivalent of not being guilty of a crime. For instance, if a man kills someone out of jealous rage because of an infidelity he has an excuse for his crime. He is still guilty of murder however.
I see your point regarding this particular passage strictly addressing the sin of rejecting Jesus. I am not fully convinced however that this is what is being addressed. Again, I believe that Christ was speaking of the world in the context of this passage not just the Jews. If He was referring to the world, I can understand how Jesus would say that “but now they have no cloak (excuse) for their sin.”
If I’m a man from China and I have no knowledge of the God of the Hebrews and His commandments, then I, at my death, would have a legitimate excuse for my sin at His judgment seat (“I didn’t know”). Would he be innocent of his crimes? No. However, as I’ve demonstrated earlier, God is displeased when transgressions against people occur without causes. If I’m unaware of the precepts of God, then I have an excuse for my behavior though I be guilty. It is uncharacteristic of God in my opinion to allow people to suffer hell for eternity without making Himself and His ways known.
Also, there is no way of escaping an equal, double-predestination if you are going to use Romans 9:13 to make your case for unconditional election. Respectfully, I disagree with your earlier argument that God selects some for salvation and merely bypasses others.
Blessings,
Greg
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
A contradiction within Calvinism:
1. God can do no evil.
2. Before his fall Lucifer had to choose to rebel against God.
3. But there is no free choice so God willed for Lucifer to do evil.
4. Resulting contradiction: God can do no evil, yet God must do evil in willing Lucifer to choose evil.
This evil choice either had to be either:
a. Uncaused (which contradicts the logic that effects have causes)
b. Caused by another (but there was no tempter as Lucifer had not yet fallen and all creation was good at this point which leaves only God)
c. Self Caused (Lucifer choose freely)
Only choice c. eliminates the contradiction. When Calvinist’s are faced with the dilemma the response is often—“It’s a mystery”. But a mystery is something that goes beyond rational thought, not against it. Contradictions are not mysteries they simply point to an error in thinking.
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:34 pm
“I don’t believe that having an excuse for a crime is the equivalent of not being guilty of a crime. For instance, if a man kills someone out of jealous rage because of an infidelity he has an excuse for his crime. He is still guilty of murder however.”
Greg,
I never said man is not guilty. I said the opposite: man is guilty and guilty all the way.
Man from your example might have excuse before another man but not before God. This is difference in perception of the same thing between you and me and it goes back to what Dr.White mentioned and that is the difference between man centered Gospel and God centered Gospel. It is unavoidable and it always surfaces up just like it did in this example.
“Again, I believe that Christ was speaking of the world in the context of this passage not just the Jews.”
Greg, I never said otherwise. That’s boldly given in the text. What is not so obvious is the scale of the sin of rejecting Jesus comparing to other sins and that’s what I was trying to explain to you.
“If I’m a man from China and I have no knowledge of the God of the Hebrews and His commandments, then I, at my death, would have a legitimate excuse for my sin at His judgment seat (”I didn’t know”).”
Greg, no man from China and no man from Burkina Faso will have any excuse before God whatsoever. The Scripture testify to that all over the place. Read Romans 1 & 2 for example.
“Also, there is no way of escaping an equal, double-predestination if you are going to use Romans 9:13 to make your case for unconditional election. Respectfully, I disagree with your earlier argument that God selects some for salvation and merely bypasses others.”
Greg, yes there is a way and it is a biblical way. I have never mentioned Romans 9:13 as a proof for God’s sovereignty over every salvation and reprobation. Since you insist I can only confirm and affirm that this verse confirms that as the rest of Romans 9.
Your issue is with God and not with me. I struggled over this a long time as well but in the end if we want to truly bow down before God and His word there is no way we can do it fully and completely by ignoring His Kingship in every matter including salvation and reprobation and we cannot run from His truth so expressively presented all over the Bible just like it is here:
“So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. ”
Romans 9:18 ESV
SDG,
Christophe
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
Christophe,
I really wasn’t that emotional when I wrote my previous post about the light, love, and perfection of God.
If you want to include God’s righteousness, holiness, and judgment to address my analogy I more than welcome it.
Would a thrice holy, just God of light, love, and perfection predetermine years of sex slavery for a child that is ultimately beaten to death, in an isolated setting, in a nation of few Christians, when considering passages such as Jeremiah 32:35? Naturally, I am assuming that this scenario has happened, but I think we can agree in the possibility of such as occurrence.
I would say that this scenario does not harmonize with the totality of God’s character and purposes.
January 27th, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
“c. Self Caused (Lucifer choose freely)
Only choice c. eliminates the contradiction. When Calvinist’s are faced with the dilemma the response is often—“It’s a mystery”. But a mystery is something that goes beyond rational thought, not against it. Contradictions are not mysteries they simply point to an error in thinking.”
S.Johnson,
There is no contradictions in the Bible as well as there is no contradiction as implied in your argument which is flawed because it is build on flawed thesis.
You seem to ignore the fact that there was a free choice before the fall. Henceforth your argument does not stand and error is on your side.
Q.E.D.
January 27th, 2010 @ 1:12 pm
“Would a thrice holy, just God of light, love, and perfection predetermine years of sex slavery for a child that is ultimately beaten to death”
Greg,
I would not say that He predetermined that but His plan certainly would encompass that. You are trying deliberately to marry God to evil and blame Calvinism for that. I am telling you that this marriage is impossible and your witch hunt is purposeless…
Instead hypothetical scenarios please consider the Word of God as it is sufficient and has enough examples:
“Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:
“A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they care no more.”
Matthew 2:16-18
Are you telling me that this MASS MURDER of innocent babies was just an occurrence that was not known to God way prior to that and not included in His plan? If so why God gave prophecy including that to Jeremiah over 550 years prior? A prophecy recognized as valid by inspired author Matthew?
Why?
SDG,
Christophe
January 27th, 2010 @ 1:19 pm
(With respect, and not belittling those who may have suffered as described in the scenario below…)
Greg said…”Would a thrice holy, just God of light, love, and perfection predetermine years of sex slavery for a child that is ultimately beaten to death, in an isolated setting, in a nation of few Christians, when considering passages such as Jeremiah 32:35?
I would say that this scenario does not harmonize with the totality of God’s character and purposes.”
Would a thrce holy, just God of light, love, and perfection predetermine to send his Son to endure years of pain and rejection, in a world of no Christians, having left the perfect and eternal immediate presence of God the Fatherand the Holy Spirit, finally to be scorned, beaten, spat upon and killed a cross, while bearing the full wrath of, and separation from, his Father for my sin?
I would say that this scenario harmonizes perfectly with the totality of God’s character and purposes, and I praise him for it. (Acts 2:22ff)
January 27th, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
Dr. White,
Below are just some quick observations I made in your recent debate with Dr. Brown. Your comments would be appreciated and, if you would be able to send a copy to my personal Email account, nbanuchi@gmail.com, it would be much appreciated.
1. On the debate you said, God “takes responsibility for all that takes place.” If that is the case, then God is responsible for sin and evil, which effectively admits to God being the author of sin. If you disagree, it seems you may need to revise your statement. It seems to me that to say God “takes responsibility for all that takes place” while discounting evil and suffering as events included in the “all”, renders this assertion as misleading, does it not?
2. You admitted that God has no intention of saving all; that there are those to whom God calls to repent but decrees not to save. This assertion appears to make God duplicitous. Please explain how it is not.
3. As a follow-up to point number 2, When Brown asked if the call to salvation is genuine for the non-elect, you stated about two or three times, “in a sense” and then mentioned God’s “prescriptive” and decretive will as, it seems to me, being at odds. What do you mean by “in a sense” God desires the salvation of all.
3. You suggested that the Arminian position is in the same conundrum regarding the final end of the unsaved since they, like the Calvinist, hold to God’s possession of exhaustive foreknowledge. (a) I do not see how that is the case because it seems you are making foreknown events necessary by virtue of divine foreknowledge, which seems to be a faulty understanding of divine omniscience. (b) Also, it does not place the Arminian position in the same difficulties because in Calvinism, God foreknows not because he knows but because He has already decreed what is to occur. I think this is the Arminian position. (c) In any case, Calvinism seems to have effectively made divine foreknowledge unnecessary because if God decreed “all that takes place” and all that he decrees will certainly come to pass, he has no need of foreknowing what will occur. Please explain this more fully as divine foreknowledge seems to be a very knotty subject.
4. You also stated that God created certain beings for damnation; that is, God “created them as the non-elect.” Is this then an affirmation that God creates some humans for the express purpose of damning them for eternity? It seems it is to me. Please explain.
Of course, there is the possibility that I may have quoted you wrong or misunderstood what you have said. I hope to review the whole debate at another time when it is posted online. However, I think my quotations of what you’ve stated are essentially, if not verbatim, accurate. If not, please point to me where I have misquoted.
In any case, I hope you will have the time to respond to each response. Thanking you in advance,
Respectfully, Nelson Banuchi
January 27th, 2010 @ 1:40 pm
Dr White,
I made an error in counting my points made. Starting with three, it should read:
3. “As a follow-up to point number 2,” etc.
4. “You suggested that the Arminian position,” etc.
5. “You also stated that God created,” etc.
I probably don’t need to correct my blog comment but I just want to make sure eveything is as clear as clear can be. My apolgies.
Respectfully, Nelson Banuchi
January 27th, 2010 @ 1:59 pm
Christophe,
Actually, Matthew’s reference to Jer. 31:15 in Mt. 2:16-18 does not point to a clear-cut prediction from Jeremiah. It is actually an instance of typological usage of the Old Testament. In context, the quotation from Jeremiah occurs in the flow of God’s promise to bring Israel back from Babylonian exile (Jer. 30-31). Rachel–the grandmother of the Ephraim and Manasseh–is (metaphorically) weeping because her “children” (Israel) have been taken into exile. This fits because Ephraim and Manesseh were major tribes in Israel’s northern kingdom, and the north had already been taken into exile. Matthew’s usage of this passage does not mean that Jeremiah was predicting Herod’s infanticide. Instead, Matthew is merely saying that Herod’s murder of the infants is (1) tantamount to what the Gentiles did in bringing Israel into exile, thus equating Herod and his regime with the pagans (a deeply Matthean depiction of Jewish rulers who rejected Jesus) and (2) tantamount to the metaphorical anguish and horror of Rachel weeping over the “death” of her children in being carried off into exile.
Without question, many OT prophecies were straight-up predictive when it comes to NT events. About this there is no doubt. However, there are other NT uses of the OT in which writers are merely saying “NT event X is just like OT event Y”. Rather than pointing to prediction, the NT writers are pointing to types and anti-types.
So here we do not have an instance of God having pre-determined that Herod would commit genocide. This is not what Matthew is teaching. Also, I’m with you in saying that God foreknew what Herod would do. No problem. However, foreknowledge doesn’t entail pre-determination. And the Calvinist view that God pre-ordains evil sacrifices God’s character on an altar to His sovereignty. As an Arminian, I hold to Scripture’s sufficiency. And Scripture is riddled with passages that point to the notion that God is holy and therefore incapable of evil. Here is one that hammers home the point:
“‘You must obey my charge to not practice any of the abominable statutes that have been done before you, so that you do not defile yourselves by them. I am the Lord your God.’” The Lord spoke to Moses: “Speak to the whole congregation of the Israelites and tell them, ‘You must be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy.’” (Lev. 18:30-19:3)
How could God say this all the while knowing that He pre-ordained that Israelites would worship the golden calf, commit sex immorality in order to worship the Baals and Ashtoreth, and sacrifice their children as burnt offerings to Molech and Chemosh? The Holy One of Israel decrees that His people (not to mention those who are not His people) will commit sins, and then He redeems them as His chosen possession and subsequently prescribes that they don’t commit the sin He pre-ordained? I find this deeply unbiblical (and nonsensical).
January 27th, 2010 @ 2:56 pm
I think it will be helpful to squash a common Calvinist misconception about divine foreknowledge and the human will.
Nathaniel said, “If you believe that God is omniscient (if you don’t, we have other problems), then before we were ever created God knew what choices we would make. This means that even Arminians believe that we do not HAVE choices, we only make the choices that God KNEW we would make before the foundation of the world.”
This, however, is simply a misconception. God does know what will happen at all times with certainty. HOWEVER, this does not mean that the things that happen are necessary. God may know I would choose to write this comment here, but God knowing that does not mean He determined (see made necessary) that I would do this. It simply means He knew what I would freely choose to do in this given situation. However, if I had chosen not to write this comment, God would have know that beforehand as well.
In other words, foreknowledge does not equal making necessary. Foreknowledge does not equal pre-determination.
-Brennon
January 27th, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
Myron,
I will give you that there is more to this passage from Jeremiah than just straightforward and a single prophecy as it frequently is with prophecies which are multifaceted. That’s why I used word “included” in describing what was given to Jeremiah.
Nevertheless, this describes also the massacre in Bethlehem. You may disagree but there are serious scholars who confirm this view as here:
“It was another fulfillment of the prophecy in Jer. 31:15. The quotation (2:18) seems to be from the Septuagint. It was originally written of the Babylonian captivity but it has a striking illustration in this case also. Macrobius (Sat. II. iv. II) notes that Augustus said that it was better to be Herod’s sow (ὑς [hus]) than his son (υἱος [huios]), for the sow had a better chance of life.”
Robertson, A.T.: Word Pictures in the New Testament. Oak Harbor : Logos Research Systems, 1997, S. Mt 2:16
“And the Calvinist view that God pre-ordains evil sacrifices God’s character on an altar to His sovereignty.”
This is not Calvinist view but only a caricature and misrepresentation of it for the purposes of making a target bigger for Arminaian attack. How is that different I already said many times on this web site so please read my responses.
SDG,
Christophe
January 27th, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
Myron,
Another one:
“This event too was said to be the fulfillment of a prophecy by Jeremiah. This statement (Jer. 31:15) referred initially to the weeping of the nation as a result of the death of children at the time of the Babylonian Captivity (586 b.c.). But the parallel to the situation at this time was obvious, for again children were being slaughtered at the hands of non-Jews. Also, Rachel’s tomb was near Bethlehem and Rachel was considered by many to be the mother of the nation. That is why she was seen weeping over these children’s deaths.”
Walvoord, John F. ; Zuck, Roy B. ; Dallas Theological Seminary: The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL : Victor Books, 1983-c1985, S. 2:23
January 27th, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
Brennan, that very point you made is where I think White is mistaken (although I find it hard to believe it since he is so knowledgeable); he seems to equate foreknowledge with necessity.
January 27th, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
Hey sorry Zvi, that I’m only now getting back to your post. But you said:
zvi says:
January 27, 2010 at 12:33 am
Josh, if g-d knows at 9:00 am. that I will sin at 10:00,that would create a problem since if g-d knows that I will sin,then how is it then that I have free choice since it has already been predetermined that I will sin at 9:00. The solution to this problem is as follows: g-d doesn’t know that you will sin at 9:00,but rather he knows it at 10:00 after you sin. Since to g-d every hour of the day is available to him in no time in one “period” of time. meaning-to him,past present and future are all occurring at once.
Luke 22 (King James Version)
31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you {the Greek here, is plural for “you”} as wheat:
32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren {no doubt then, the brethren mentioned here after Peter is converted are the ones saved on account of Peter’s witness to the Lord}.
33And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.
34And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.
. . .
60 But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are saying!”
Immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. 61 And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. Then Peter REMEMBERED the word of the Lord, how He had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” 62 So Peter went out and wept bitterly.
The word of God was fulfilled JUST as Jesus stated. This is because God knew ahead of time that Peter in his fear would deny him and forget the Lord’s promise.
==================================
Interestingly enough true philosophy is consistent with reality and the way things are and discovering God’s nature. I agree with you that God (outside time and space), filling every place as Spirit (at His most empirical), time does not exist, as He sees already the whole picture. But that only PROVES that he knows AHEAD of time from our perspective what will occur. So yes, from God’s perspective I agree with You. But it is our perspective where the debate lies, as we exist within time and space.
By the way, after reading your posts to Christophe, I don’t believe that what you believe is all that different from what I believe.
January 27th, 2010 @ 4:14 pm
Christophe,
I would encourage you to read my vols. on Messianic Prophecy and NT Objections to Jesus (vols. 3-4 in my series Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus). It is absolutely wrong to cite Matthew’s use of Jeremiah 31 as the foreordination of genocide in Herod’s day. Myron is totally on track with his comments — otherwise Matthew completely misused the Jeremiah text, as Jewish critics claim.
January 27th, 2010 @ 4:17 pm
It’s like the word science. Many people after giving much thought have realized that science (meaning knowledge) has limitations, hence, why there is a word called conscience (meaning with knowledge). However, this is only the case from the standpoint of everything that is created and under God. Therefore, with God, His science has no limitations and there is no conscience for God.
January 27th, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
Dr.Brown,
Thank you I have your trilogy and I read most of it years ago.
Great work! It was an eye opener for me in a lot of places and I would like to say thank you here for your contribution and your apologetics.
As you can see from provided references I also read other works and there are different opinions out there as to that. Please notice that nowhere did I say that this was “foreordination” but only a valid facet included in multifaceted prophecy given to Jeremiah. I hope you can notice the difference of where I am coming from on this.
Thank you and great job today as well as yesterday but of course I am and I must remain biased and vouch for Dr.White.
Kindest regards,
Christophe
January 27th, 2010 @ 4:27 pm
Really, the Jeremiah 31 quote is not a hard one to understand: Either Matthew used it typologically or in a midrashic, Jewish-hermeneutic sense, or he misused it.
Anyway, thanks for the kind words — although the trilogy is now five volumes — and thanks for admitting your bias too.
I was very pleased with the discussion and quite confident that Dr. White would be a worthy opponent.
January 27th, 2010 @ 4:28 pm
Dr. Brown, thank you for showing such grace toward Dr. Brown despite your differences with him. So often the Arminian/Calvinist debate turns ugly but you and Dr. White showed such grace toward each other and I appreciated that greatly. Thank you for all that you do for the Kingdom of God and for to spread His fame through all the earth.
January 27th, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
“although the trilogy is now five volumes”
I did not know about it. What is in the new two volumes?
Regards,
Christopher
January 27th, 2010 @ 4:44 pm
Bossmanham, I couldn’t agree with you more, bro.
I like how you shed light on the the all-to-subtle difference between predestination and predetermination. Sublte as the difference may be, it is these technicalities that make for a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE so to speak.
January 27th, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
Christophe,
Vol. 4 deals with NT Objections (click on the main website here, then go to Real Messiah for a synopsis).
Vol. 5 deals with Traditional Jewish Objections (Oral Law, etc.).
You might also want to check out my just-released commentary on Jeremiah while you’re at it.
January 27th, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
Seeking Disciple,
Thanks for the kind words, and my appreciation to Dr. White for his graciousness and candor as well.
January 27th, 2010 @ 5:10 pm
Christophe,
Matthew’s use of Jeremiah 31:15 – As Dr. Brown has demonstrated, there are serious scholars who also agree that Matthew’s use of Jer. 31:15 is simply typological and not prophetic. I respect those scholars who think differently, but I don’t see any other way to handle it, and I would like to see more proof that there are more valid ways to handle it.
Calvinism and God as author/originator of evil:
I said: “And the Calvinist view that God pre-ordains evil sacrifices God’s character on an altar to His sovereignty.”
You said: This is not Calvinist view but only a caricature and misrepresentation of it for the purposes of making a target bigger for Arminaian attack. How is that different I already said many times on this web site so please read my responses.
I’ll give you two quotes from prominent Calvinists that inform my thinking here:
The first is from John Frame:
“The question, though, is whether God merely permits evil, or whether in addition he actually brings evil about in some sense. I think the latter is true. Scripture often says that God brings about sinful decisions of human being…This is a hard teaching, and on one level it makes the problem of evil more difficult. But in another sense, this teaching is reassuring. If evil comes from some source other than God, that would be pretty scary. It would imply that there are forces of evil that are capable of resisting, even overcoming God’s desires. But if evil comes from God, we know that he has a good purpose in bringing it about (Rom. 8:28).”
(found at http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2008/08/20/interview-with-john-frame-on-problem-of/)
The second is from John Feinberg’s “No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God” with reference to the portion of God’s eternal decrees referred to as His “undesired will” (pp. 695-96):
“The second part of God’s decree is his decree of all morally evil deeds. Those acts are contrary to God’s moral law, and God doesn’t want us to do these things, but he has decreed that we will do them, anyway. In addition, this part of the decree contains all our choices and acts which, though not covererd by moral precept, are still contrary to God’s best for us…This portion of the decree is typically called God’s permissive will. Theologians use use this locution to safeguard against the idea that God is somehow morally reponsible for evil, since he has decreed it. Though I understand why this label is used, I am hesitant to use it, because it gives the impression that God somehow surrenders control of things when we sin, for example, by letting us do what we want without foreordaining our actions.”
Perhaps you have some nuances to these above quotes that I may not be aware of. That’s cool. But I just want you to know that I arrive at my views on how Calvinism (mis)handles God, the decrees, and evil quite honestly. Frame and Feinberg are representative of mainstream Calvinism and both enjoy a broad audience within Calvinist circles. I don’t see how either of these statements (and you can check the context of both for yourself, especially with Frame) escapes my conclusion.
Myron
January 27th, 2010 @ 5:46 pm
These discusions are very fruitful I believe. I’m printing these pages to refer to them some other time.
January 27th, 2010 @ 6:04 pm
words like foreordain add confusion in our minds. If it can mean placed in a position ahead of our time but not necessarily God’s delight, then I would agree. God does do this indirectly, as seen in Ezekiel with the Cherubim.
The issue with what Frame has said is the classical issue of direct vs indirect. It’s like the fact that in Exodus, we read that Pharoah hardedned his heart (literally lifted up his heart). Then a couple chapters later in the same book we read that God hardened Pharoah’s heart (once again literally, lifted up Pharoah’s heart). So who hardened Pharoah’s heart?
The scriptures teach that if you correct a proud and angry man, they will only hate you. They only harden their heart further. However, when they keep on reject warning, it would be WRONG NOT to bring the judgement that is due. Correct a wise and humble man, and he will love you and become wiser.
January 27th, 2010 @ 6:07 pm
The rod of correction (whether literally or a verbal rod of words) that is used to humble someone, is also the same thing that inevitably destroys the proud man.
January 27th, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
Dr Brown and Dr White,
Thank you both for the gracious way in which you disagreed with one another.
If someone has already mentioned what follows please forgive the repitition. I have read most of the posts but not all.
Why is it that grace must be irresistable to be grace? A man is unable to move towards God at all because his will is in bondage to sin, in short he is dead in his sin. God by his grace in the gospel call or possibly even in natural revelation free’s the man’s will to be truly free. His eyes are opened. He can now respond in faith, or he can persist in unbelief. If he believes it is not a work that saves him (Romans 4:4-5) but God’s grace… to God be all the glory. And if he persists in unbelief then it is not God’s fault that he does so it is his own, to man be all the shame and blame.
It may be said that in the above hypothesis the freeing of man’s will via the gospel call or even natural revelation would be irresistable grace in that his will is freed apart from anything that the man does. His will is set free by God’s grace alone, but it is resistable in that if the man prefers his bondage in sin he is free to refuse any further grace and to reject what grace has already been given him (Romans 1:18-32)
I am a sinner saved by grace.
January 27th, 2010 @ 6:16 pm
My 2c:
I think it is fully right and Biblical to affirm that evil comes from God, but not in the sense that God himself is doing evil. In other words, God sinlessly uses sin and sinful creatures. So these are secondary causes that are directly morally responsible for evil, even though God Himself decrees that it happens.
This conclusion is inescapable when confronted with the Biblical testimony. In Acts 4:26-28 we are told that wicked men did ” whatever [God's]hand and…plan had predestined to take place.”
Right there, as plain as day, is God not only decreeing that an evil event take place, but that it’s the most evil thing that has ever or will ever be done in history, and that God predestined it to happen (by implication, from eternity past)
So two things are true: 1) God decrees 2) yet men are responsible for their actions.
The truth of one does not eliminate the truth of the other. Both are true simultaneously, though our limited, fallen human minds cannot reconcile it.
This hardly sacrifices God’s character in favor of His sovereignty.
Let us not forget that creating a theodicy is really pointless, for God himself declares that He creates both well being and calamity.
Isa 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.
Amo 3:6 Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?
Lam 3:38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?
If you press this issue near its conclusion you will realize that this viewpoint is the only one that can possibly be of an comfort to those who are actually experiencing evil and suffering. As James said on the debate, if evil has no purpose (that is, if it does not ultimately come from God), then that means evil happens in the universe with no purpose. Purpose-less evil. It happens, and God either allows it or is helpless to stop it, but either way, there was no reason whatsoever for it to begin with. God simply “reacts”, because a He’s a really sharp guy, and is able to manipulate and contort the situation into a good one.
However, if evil has a purpose (which, I think is irrefutable given the few Bible texts I posted), I am greatly comforted because I know my suffering is part of the plan my Heavenly Father, who “works all things together for my good”.
January 27th, 2010 @ 6:31 pm
Josh,
Where does it say in the Hebrew that Pharaoh (or God) lifted up his heart? I don’t want to get into a discussion of your larger point here, but I was curious about which verbs you were referring to. As I recall, the three main verbs used are: 1) strengthen; 2) make heavy; 3) harden.
January 27th, 2010 @ 6:32 pm
Myron,
Frankly I do not know nor do I follow Frame and Feinberg or their works. I am not even concerned if they are “mainstream” or not.
I do know that in both camps they are people who present issues better or worst making them clearer to understand or not.
The issue is not Frame and Feinberg but what the Word of God say. I have provided quite a few Scriptural references that clearly state that God is sovereign over evil. He does not create it but he surely “manages” it.
Again one of many proofs:
“Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?”
Lamentations 3:37 – 38 ESV
Do I need Frame and Feinberg or even Dr.White to understand it? No, it is clear. Do you need Dr.Brown to understand it? No it is clear as well.
That bad needs to be defined. Evil is absence of good, just like darkness is absence of light. God does not have to do anything active to allow evil to occur. All He has to do is withdraw His grace, This is what happened with pharaoh’s heart as his hardness and evil brought about even greater good for Israel and glory for God as evidenced in Romans 9:17.
I think Frame and Feinberg where attempting to point to that but their words came short with fully describing this but I am not sure as I do not follow them.
Best regrads,
SDG
Christophe
January 27th, 2010 @ 6:36 pm
Hi Josh,
I don’t think that the nuances of words like “fore-ordain” matter here. Even if there is an agent performing the evil act, God is still on the hook because He ordained it. This violates His holiness (among other things).
As for Pharoah, I acknowledge that there is obvious ambiguity because at different times the Scriptures ascribe the hardening of his heart to Pharaoh and to God. But I think that there are a few cogent answers to this that don’t in any way leave God as the author of Pharaoh’s idolatry:
(1) God’s activity in Pharaoh’s hardening is not referred to until we’re already well into the Exodus narrative. In other words, there is no textual warrant for believing that God was hardening him prior to the point when when the author of Exodus says this. This brings me to my next point…
(2) The first option for understanding God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is as follows. Perhaps God did harden Pharaoh’s heart in space, time, and history (in other words, NOT according to some “eternal decree”). But one need not read into this act unconditional reprobation. God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart could have been occasioned by Pharaoh’s idolatry. Perhaps there’s some point in which sinners have given themselves so completely to evil that God merely turns to using them as instruments because they are so in league with Satan that this is all they are good for. This explanation would fit Pharaoh well being that he continued to vacillate concerning the realease of the Hebrews despite the fact that God was doing undeniable wonders in Egypt through Moses.
(2) Another explanation of the ambiguity between Pharaoh’s/God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (I believe offered by C.S. Lewis, and more in line with what you’ve written above) is as follows: Pharaoh is responsible for the hardening of his own heart because he simply continually rejected God’s lordship, even in the face of undeniable miracles. God, however, is also responsible for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in that He continued to call for Pharaoh’s repentance, even in the face of Pharaoh’s unwillingness. In the latter instance, God’s unrelenting demand for Pharoah’s submission created the condition for Pharaoh’s hardening–a condition which depends on God’s activity.
Again, I’m pretty sure that option 2 is close to what you are getting at above. However, I can’t say that this is even close to what Frame is getting at. Frame is NOT merely speaking to the notion that God creates conditions in space, time, and history that–in cooperation with adverse rebellious human rejetion of God’s will–result in hard hearts. Instead, Frame, like Feinberg, is claiming that it is God who decrees the evil within humankind in His eternal decrees before the foundation of the world. The fact that said evil is actualized through human agents in no way rescues this line of thinking from imputing evil to God. If God decrees human (and demonic) evil, and if said evil will absolutely occur no matter what because of God’s decree, then God’s on the hook for evil. This conclusion is as undeniable as it is unbiblical.
Myron
January 27th, 2010 @ 6:45 pm
Xavier said: “I reject Calvinism not so much because of its fallacious view of “once saved always saved”, but simply because of its founder. A murderer and persecutor of those who disagreed with him.”
Xavier rejects Calvinism, not because it teaches once saved always saved, but because it was founded by a murderer who killed those who disagreed with him, yet Xavier holds to and teaches Roman Catholicism, even though the whole Catholic Church was full of murderers and killed those who opposed it.
If Xavier would search out where his doctrines originated he would find that losing ones salvation is not taught in scripture, for Jesus said that he would lose none of his, but would raise them up at the last day. But Xavier would also find that the doctrine of losing ones salvation has roots in Arminianism, which stems from Cassianism , which stems off of Pelagianism.
Both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism {Cassianism & Arminianism & Roman Catholicism] was condemned at the Council of Orange in 529 A. D. Roman Catholicism could be called Pelagianism seeing that their Catechism affirms that man can choose good or evil in his natural state.
January 27th, 2010 @ 6:48 pm
I love to hear Calvinists and Arminians try to explain their position without defining their terms. It’s like apples vs oranges, ney apples vs. couches. There is so much we agree on but without defining terms then we speak two different languages.
We agree so much with each other.
Total Depravity -> Men are born dead. Yup both agree.
Unconditional Election -> God has an elect.
Limited Atonement -> Not all will be saved.
Irresistible Grace -> We’ll never make it without His grace.
Perseverance of the Saints -> Those that persevere until the end will be saved.
Double Predestination (point 6) – Some will be lost and some saved and that’s how God set it up.
Best of all possible worlds (point 7) – okay maybe that’s a stretch.
John Piper helped me understand TULIP and the Calvinist position the best – it’s all about being God-centered and God-glorified.
This is the equation:
-Everything God does is glorious.
-The more God does the more glory He gets.
-God is most glorified if He does everything.
(So if God gives people faith to believe, softens hearts so people will live His love, hardens people’s hearts or leaves them to their hardened state, heals whenever He wants and doesn’t heal whenever He wants, sends people He wants to heaven and the people He chooses to hell and just judgment – He is most glorified for His Sovereign purposes.)
It all logically fits. It really does. If you buy in completely to T then logically it’s not a stretch to acknowledge ULIP and maybe even point 6 & 7 with John Piper and Jonathan Edwards, I believe.
Wait, only one problem… it’s not what the Bible means. (My opinion) Have a new believer that doesn’t know anything about Calvinism a Bible and see if they come up with Calvinism. The bottom line is: You have to start with Calvinist definitions to get to a Calvinist system.
So I look forward to Dr. Brown and Dr. White looking at what the definition of faith is. This is where I believe the battle is fought and won. Often whoever gets to define the terms wins the argument.
I have inspired by men like John Fletcher and pray that we may may continue to encourage such a cry for unity. I mean we Christians, especially on these issues, are an embarrassment to the unbelievers. It is a well known fact that some of the most vicious discussions on the internet are Christians arguing out what they believe about Calvinism and Arminianism and what they believe about those that oppose their view.
I urge you brothers to continue, as you have been demonstrating, love, forbearance and a continual desire to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
Brad
January 27th, 2010 @ 6:59 pm
“Perhaps God did harden Pharaoh’s heart in space, time, and history (in other words, NOT according to some “eternal decree”).”
Myron,
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…
It has been said so much on the show today and yesterday about simplicity of Arminian doctrine. The extent of hypothetical assertions that you are willing to go to just to avoid God’s obvious sovereignty even over evil is truly staggering and proves the contrary; not simplicity but complexity and ambiguity of Arminian doctrine and theology, at least in above example.
Why not simply let the text speak for it self and let God be God and King be King? That is true simplicity…
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
January 27th, 2010 @ 7:01 pm
Hey Everyone!
I think this is a good question to ask. To the Arminians, can you
January 27th, 2010 @ 7:02 pm
Hey Everyone!
I think this is a good question to ask. To the Arminians, can you prove that these two statements are self-contradictory:
1. God ordains all evil that takes place.
2. God is all holy.
It would seem that the only way these two statements would be inconsistent is if God ordaining evil is somehow sinful. However, I guess what I would ask is for proof that God ordaining evil is something sinful.
God Bless,
Adam
January 27th, 2010 @ 7:04 pm
Articles that remind us of our agreement:
Charles Simeon (Calvinist) and John Wesley (Arminian)
http://callitgrace.blogspot.com/2009/08/charles-simeon-meets-john-wesley.html
John Fletcher – Equal Check to Phariseeism and Antinomianism
How both the emphasis of Calvinism and Arminianism are needed
http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_fletcher/An%20Equal%20Check.htm
Charles Finney on how God uses Calvinism and Arminian emphasis to accomplish his purposes in revival
http://www.gospeltruth.net/1868Lect_on_Rev_of_Rel/68revlec12.htm
January 27th, 2010 @ 7:05 pm
Hershel,
You are incorrect here. Those of us who believe that it is possible for Christians to lose their salvation (conditional perseverance) have solid exegetical ground to stand on concerning the Scriptures.
Also, I question your account of the history of the doctrine of conditional perseverance. Actually, prior to Augustine this view was held by all of the church fathers. Even Calvinist John Jefferson Davis reached this conclusion in an article called “The Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine” (which you can find here: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a133.htm). As a doctrine, perseverance of the saints doesn’t reach its final form until Calvin, or 1500 years into church history. So the notion that one can lose one’s salvation is not rooted in Arminianism at all.
If you’d like a sampling of the statements from the pre-Augustinian church fathers conveying their belief in the possibility that one could fall away from the faith, you may want to check out these two links (same website):
For the first and second century church fathers: http://www.achurchinfortcollins.org/eseh2.php#firstandsecond
For the third and fourth century church fathers:
http://www.achurchinfortcollins.org/eseh.php#thirdandfourth
Furthermore, if you going to claim that Arminianism has its roots in Pelagianism and Catholocism, some historical info backing up these claims would be helpful. I’ve never seen such connections.
Myron
January 27th, 2010 @ 7:07 pm
“Xavier rejects Calvinism, not because it teaches once saved always saved, but because it was founded by a murderer who killed those who disagreed with him, yet Xavier holds to and teaches Roman Catholicism, even though the whole Catholic Church was full of murderers and killed those who opposed it”
Dear Hershel,
You are bringing up an excellent points. I am not going to discuss how historically incorrect and ignorant are charges against John Calvin regarding Servetus and how slanderous the are against this man of God. What many seem to forget is that this is also slanderous against Holy Spirit that used this man mightily.
Another excellent point that all Arminians should seriously consider is that they find themselves in many, many places on the same side and arm to arm with Roman Catholic Church who is teaching in many places exactly the same things as Arminians do… If that does not concerns the Arminian then I do not know what possibly can concern him or her.
Regards,
SDG,
Christophe
January 27th, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
Hershel,
Also, Arminius himself did not believe that a believer could lose his/her salvation. He saw ample biblical evidence for both the perseverance of the saints camp and the conditional perseverance camp. He remained undecided. This further undercuts the notion that Arminius came up with the doctrine of conditional perseverance. While it is true that Arminians and other non-Calvinists are the only folks who can hold to conditional perseverance, it is not true that all Arminians and non-Calvinists do hold to this. Arminius himself did not. If you have evidence to the contrary, let me know.
Myron
January 27th, 2010 @ 7:15 pm
Folks,
If you haven’t listened to the show I did on Divine Hardening, I suggest you take a listen. It aired as a repeat show on Monday (two days ago), so you’ll find it listed there.
January 27th, 2010 @ 7:16 pm
Christophe,
You said: “Another excellent point that all Arminians should seriously consider is that they find themselves in many, many places on the same side and arm to arm with Roman Catholic Church who is teaching in many places exactly the same things as Arminians do… If that does not concerns the Arminian then I do not know what possibly can concern him or her.”
What exactly are these links between Arminianism and Catholocism? Also, both Calvinists and Arminians share much in common with Catholics. We all believe in the Trinity, Jesus’ atonement for the sins of the world, Jesus’ resurrection, Jesus’ eventual return to judge the world, eternal life for God’s saints, and eternal damnation for the reprobate. And this is just the short list! So Calvinists also share much in common with Catholics!
As I said to Hershel, please try to support these claims of Arminian dependence upon Catholic theology with evidence.
Myron
January 27th, 2010 @ 7:18 pm
Another wonderful Line of Fire, Dr Brown.. thank you so much.
Looking forward to your visit on Dr Whites Dividing Line program.
I pray any Calvinists tomorrow who might call in to your program would not have a haughty or proud attitude or speech in their conversations with you.
I have experienced such from both sides. Shame on any professing Christians, as of all folks, we have been forgiven much, grace abounding, more than we could ask or think – surely that should make us humble and not puffed up just for knowledge sake.
A wonderful book that is available by a very respected historian, is written by Dr. Tom Nettles. If you or your listeners have not read it, it has doctrine of course, but it accurately demonstrates how many folks we all know of – famous Missionaries were solid Calvinists – how these doctrines produced Godly fruit in their lives. As Dr White frequently says, Theology Matters. It did not make them proud, it did not stifle their evangelism. The book is called By His Grace and For His Glory. Dr Nettles now teaches at Southern Seminary.
Grace to you and Peace,
Pat
January 27th, 2010 @ 7:24 pm
Christophe,
With reference to the two options I offered to account for Pharaoh’s hardening of his heart AND God’s hardening of his heart you said:
“Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…
It has been said so much on the show today and yesterday about simplicity of Arminian doctrine. The extent of hypothetical assertions that you are willing to go to just to avoid God’s obvious sovereignty even over evil is truly staggering and proves the contrary; not simplicity but complexity and ambiguity of Arminian doctrine and theology, at least in above example.
Why not simply let the text speak for it self and let God be God and King be King? That is true simplicity…”
Christophe, when Scripture claims explicitly that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and in another instance that Pharoah hardened Pharaoh’s heart, that is an instance of ambiguity that Scripture creates (not me). So if I were to simply “let the text speak for itself,” then I would have to back an ambiguous view! You are speaking as if there is no ambiguity implicity in these texts. It is very obvious that there is, hence my offer of two possibilities. Your response would be better suited to a group of Scriptures that aren’t ambiguous (example: If the Scritpures had ONLY ascribed hardening of Pharaoh’s your response would be adequate). As the Scriptures stand, there is ambiguity to account for.
Myron
January 27th, 2010 @ 7:30 pm
Wow, I’m sorry Dr. Brown! Funny thing is, before I posted, I thought to myself, “I should probably check this out first.” But nope, I went ahead and posted anyway. :# Somewhere in the back of my mind I thought that I had come across this or something like this when looking into things some time ago. Man was I wrong.
And Myron, I hear you. And agree with your two points fro the most part. Although, I do think that it is Biblical that God does raise up the evil man in a position of authority for the day of wrath.
And Dr. Brown, I think it would do me good to listen to your message on Divine Hardening as you prescribed.
January 27th, 2010 @ 7:51 pm
Myron,
I am glad that you ask about convergence between some of the doctrines of Roman Catholic Church and Arminian. Let me assure that convergence is real and is there…
Just a few points from foundational for Rome Council of Trent:
“If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema. ”
Canon V, Chapter XVI, Session VI – Council of Trent of
Roman Catholic Church
“If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.”
Canon XV, Chapter XVI, Session VI – Council of Trent of
Roman Catholic Church
“If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.”
Canon XVII, Chapter XVI, Session VI – Council of Trent of
Roman Catholic Church
Myron I hope you will not dismiss those canons as well as anathemas that is condemnations to hell. There is more, way more in all of the teachings of Rome which basically are Armininan to the core…
Please think through many implications…
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
January 27th, 2010 @ 8:25 pm
Josh,
All clear!
Myron and Cristophe,
Actually, based on the Hebrew usage in the Exodus accounts, and based on the principle that God gives us over to our sin, I actually don’t see any ambiguity in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. What we also don’t know is how God works, as it was pointed out long ago, the same sunlight that hardens the clay melts the wax. Sometimes, a display of love or kindness can produce hardness.
In any case, that part is not fully explained to us, but what is explained makes perfect sense: Pharaoh repeatedly hardened his heart by refusing to yield, then the Lord confirmed him in his sin.
January 27th, 2010 @ 8:30 pm
“Christophe, when Scripture claims explicitly that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and in another instance that Pharoah hardened Pharaoh’s heart, that is an instance of ambiguity that Scripture creates (not me). So if I were to simply “let the text speak for itself,” then I would have to back an ambiguous view! You are speaking as if there is no ambiguity implicitly in these texts.”
Myron,
Please forgive me if I am being presumptuous or a simpleton but from my perspective there really is no ambiguity in these texts. I already said why…
If the Lord withdraws His grace from paragraph He has nowhere to go but toward evil and hardness. That’s why both descriptions are correct as they explain the same process.
Grace withdrawn by God resulting in hardening of heart:
“Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may perform these signs of Mine among them,”
New American Standard Bible : S. Ex 10:1
“Then the Lord said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh;…”
New American Standard Bible : Ex 6:1
As a result of grace withdrawn pharaoh hardens his heart:
“But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and adid not listen to them, as the Lord had said”
SDG
Christophe
New American Standard Bible : Ex 8:15
January 27th, 2010 @ 8:31 pm
Christophe,
So let me get this straight: The Council of Trent denounces 5-point Calvinism, and Arminians denounce 5-point Calvinism, therefore Arminians are somehow in league with the Catholic Church? Christophe, this is laughable.
As I pointed out above, Calvinists (and Arminians) share with Catholics a belief in the Trinity, Jesus’ atoning death for sins, Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, and eventual return, and eternal life for saints and eternal damnation for sinners. Are Calvinists, then, in league with Rome? Just because Arminians share with Catholics a rejection of Calvinism doesn’t mean that we are into veneration of saints, transubstantian, purgatory, and whole host of other unbiblical things. This is actually want you are trying to convey, and it is poor logic. By the same logic, Calvinists would sign off on all these things by virtue of the orthodox beliefs they share with Calvinists.
Also, when Arminius repudiated Calvinism, he hearkened back to the Scriptures and the pre-Augustinian church fathers. By the by, here are a few early church fathers who Arminius was in line with:
100-165 AD, Justin Martyr: “God, wishing men and angels to follow his will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall certainly be punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably (wicked), but not because God created them so. So if they repent all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God.” (Dialogue CXLi)
100-165 AD, Justin Martyr: “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestinated that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions—whatever they may be.” (First Apology ch.43)
130-200 AD, Irenaeus: “This expression, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God…And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice…If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things and to abstain from others?” (Against Heresies XXXVII, Book 4, Ch. 37)
This is only a sampling of the ways that the early church fathers are in absolute disagreement with what would become 5-point Calvinism. I can provide you with more quotes from the early church fathers on this topic. But here are two quotes from Calvinists concerning the early church fathers and their relationship to what’s now called 5-point Calvinism:
Calvinist Alister McGrath:
“The pre-Augustinian theological tradition is practically of one voice in asserting the freedom of the human will” (McGrath, Justitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 1998, p. 20)
Calvinist Lorraine Boettner:
“It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel…They taught a kind of synergism in which there was co-operation between grace and free will…This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine….he went far beyond the earlier theologians, an unconditional election.” (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pg. 365)
So actually, Arminians are indebted to the Scriptures and the pre-Augustinian church fathers for their beliefs. You attempt to link us to the more unbiblical bits of Catholic theology is absurd. Rejection of 5-point Calvinism is not tantamount to links to Rome. Also, when you look the history of Arminian movements, you don’t find any attempts to “go back to Rome”! Your assertions have no weight to them.
Myron
January 27th, 2010 @ 8:32 pm
“If the Lord withdraws His grace from paragraph”
hahaha the marvels of spell checker…
It should say:
“If the Lord withdraws His grace from pharaoh”
C.
January 27th, 2010 @ 8:34 pm
“Myron and Cristophe,
Actually, based on the Hebrew usage in the Exodus accounts, and based on the principle that God gives us over to our sin, I actually don’t see any ambiguity in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. ”
Dr. Brown,
I do not see either so your issue is with Myron who does see ambiguity.
SDG,
Christophe
January 27th, 2010 @ 8:36 pm
Quoting Greg:
“Let the little children, who know intermediate Greek & Hebrew, who’ve studied the Institutes, who’ve read Owen, who’ve adored MacArthur, come to me.”
Gosh…what a well thought out biblical defense…how in the world will anyone counter this argument?
January 27th, 2010 @ 8:39 pm
I must say…the level of biblical argumentation from the Arminian side reminds me of “Oh yeah? Well what about John 3:16! har har har!”
No much of substance….it’s like nobody ever read anything that ‘s ever been written on this subject…
January 27th, 2010 @ 8:44 pm
“So let me get this straight: The Council of Trent denounces 5-point Calvinism, and Arminians denounce 5-point Calvinism, therefore Arminians are somehow in league with the Catholic Church? Christophe, this is laughable.”
Myron,
This is not laughable at all, at least not for the reasons you think… Let me ask you: how much do you know about Roman Catholicism? How much did you study it?
I am asking because I am getting a strong impression that you do not know much about it. So if I am right about the level of tour knowledge about RCC(and I think I am) then it is truly shocking for your to look at this in a matter of minutes and pronounce it as laughable.
I would like to assure you that the commonality and convergence between Rome’s teaching and Arminian teaching as to the nature of God, nature of man, and salvation are way more profound to assert than a casual 30 minute glance with google’s help. We could spend another week on this forum and we would not get to half of it.
So is it laughable? Given your attitude to it perhaps it is…
Regards,
SDG,
Christophe
January 27th, 2010 @ 8:46 pm
Based on certain English translations, Myron is right, there does appear to be ambiguity. But there is none when one looks at the Hebrew usage.
Thanks Dr. Brown, I’m listening to it now. Awesome! I feel like this is a message every Christian ought to hear. It makes sense of SO MUCH! Great teacher. God Bless you!
January 27th, 2010 @ 8:53 pm
Christophe,
All you’ve done with reference to this topic is make unsubstantiated comments about the connection between Arminian thought and Catholicism. When asked to proffer any proof, all you could come up with was a supposed connection based on a common repudiation of 5-point Calvinism. Buddhism also rejects 5-point Calvinism, so are Arminians also in line with Buddhism?
I know a lot about Catholicism, and I know how Arminian thought developed. Aside from adherence to orthodoxy, Arminius was not indebted to any unbiblical things that Catholics advanced. Arminius and those who were in line with him referred to Scripture and the pre-Augustinian church fathers when rejecting Calvinism. By the by, I noticed that you have not interacted with my quotes from the patristics and from the McGrath and Boettner quotes which support the notion that the pre-Augustinian patristics held to the exact opposite of what would become 5-point Calvinism. Tell me, were Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Justin Martyr Catholics as well?
Why don’t you do this: PROVE that Arminius relied on Catholicism to make his points. You’ve offered nothing valid in the way of such proof. You’re just playing the game of negative association. THAT is laughable.
Myron
January 27th, 2010 @ 8:56 pm
Hershel,
That’s an over-statement and a half friend. I do not hold to Catholic or Protestant dogma if that’s what your implying. Then again, not everyone who currently holds to these traditions is a “murderer” or “killer”.
So how do you interpret the following?
What about Jesus’ parable of the Talents in Mat 25.14-30? A parable directed at believers where faithful stewardship in this life will result in being given greater responsibility and stewardship in the age to come. Yet, to those who are not faithful “even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’” [vv. 29-30]
Or his warning that even the elect can be led astray by “false christs” and prophets [Mat 24.24]?
What about Paul’s metaphor regarding the grafting in of Gentiles into the olive tree [the new Israel of God, Gal 6.16]? Where it appears that God will not spare anyone who does not continue to believe, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.
Christophe,
I have quoted Calvin himself extensively and one of the first man to condemn his involvement in the “Servetus affair”, Sebastian Castellion. I fear for anyone who believes the Holy Spirit was working “mightily” through this man or anyone else who may have been involved in the persecution and execution of other “Christians” across the ages. Calvin was not the only Protestant or Catholic involved.
I implore you to please read the following article and compare the claims the writer makes regarding this sad episode:
http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2009/09/his-ashes-cry-out-against-john-calvin.html
January 27th, 2010 @ 8:58 pm
All,
Concerning what I’ve said about the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart:
I have not questioned WHETHER God did it, just HOW God did it. That’s where the ambiguity is for me. Contra Calvinism, I don’t think that God hardened Pharaoh (a) unconditionally and (b) before the foundation of the world. As I’ve maintained, I believe it happened in space, time, and history, and I’m only dealing with HOW it happened. And I plan to listen to Dr. Brown’s message to get more insight!
Myron
January 27th, 2010 @ 9:07 pm
“I know a lot about Catholicism”
Myron,
Apparently not enough. I was on the inside for a long and time so I guess is your knowledge versus my knowledge and my experience…
“When asked to proffer any proof, all you could come up with was a supposed connection based on a common repudiation of 5-point Calvinism”
If you think that Calvinism is exhaustively defined by 5 points you are in for further discovery Myron.
“Tell me, were Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Justin Martyr Catholics as well? ”
According to Rome they were…and by the way they can provide a plenty of their quotes that taken out of context can be plausible.
I of course do not believe they were Roman Catholics as Rome really developed later. That is one of the reason I will not follow your suit and start quoting fathers as I could easily do to prove my side because I know that there are quotes for your side, even better than you have provided so this is a waste of time unless one is willing to read fathers at depth…
“Why don’t you do this: PROVE that Arminius relied on Catholicism to make his points. You’ve offered nothing valid in the way of such proof.”
The interaction was both ways and I do not have to prove to you anything, especially given your cavalier attitude to this matter and tons of material than needs to be discussed and reviewed. Do your own homework as I did.
Respectfully,
Christophe
January 27th, 2010 @ 9:11 pm
Myron and Christophe, am I detecting a little bit of pride–some false humility? Christophe you seem to be treading on almost personal attacks.
January 27th, 2010 @ 9:15 pm
Myron,
All clear!
Josh,
Yes, for some odd reason, almost no English translations distinguish between the words used, even though the differences between them are so clear.
January 27th, 2010 @ 9:18 pm
Ya, I agree. I wonder why? Maybe you should work to produce a better translation Dr. Brown. You think God might have that in mind for you?
January 27th, 2010 @ 9:23 pm
Christophe (and Josh, tangentially),
You have made claims that you have not backed up. It’s that simple. If I quote Calvinists authors and early church fathers, they are either out of context (which you haven’t proven) or in league with Rome. If I demonstrate faulty logic, you claim that you don’t have to prove anything. Either demonstrate that there is a connection between Arminian thought and Roman Catholcism, or leave it alone. That’s all I’ve asked for, and you’ve failed to provide the evidence. It seems like you’re claiming guilt by association, but you haven’t even come close to presenting ANY association.
Josh – Thanks for the admonition.
Myron
January 27th, 2010 @ 9:43 pm
Hey Everyone!
I think that John Piper’s argument is relevant here. Piper actually argues that the first time that Moses goes to Pharoah, God hardens him in his sin. He quotes an important text in Exodus 4:21:
Then the Lord said to Moses, “When you go to return to Egypt, see that you do all the wonders that I placed in your hand before Pharoah. However, I will harden his heart and he will not send the people away.
Now, when we turn the page, and go to chapter 5, on the very next page we find:
Now, after this, Moses and Aaron went and said to Pharoah, “Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel: Send my people away, so that they may have a festival to me in the desert.” Then Pharaoh said, “Who is the Lord that I would obey him and thus send Israel away. I do not know the Lord, and also, I will not send Israel away.
Now, one has got to ask the question. Since God says that he would do this back in 4:21, before Moses and Pharaoh ever meet, and this is the first scene with Moses and Pharaoh after 4:21, how can someone say that 5:1-2 is not the fulfillment of 4:21? If that is the case, then God is hardening Pharaoh’s heart from the beginning.
Also, what about the instances where Pharaoh is said to harden his own heart? There is an interesting phrase that occurs in those passages. For example, Exodus 8:15:
But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
There is a problem here, and it is simply that God never said that Pharaoh would harden his own heart! This is also true of texts which talk about Pharaoh’s heart “being hardened,” such as Exodus 7:22. The only thing that God had ever said was back in 4:21, and that is that he would harden Pharaoh’s heart. What Piper suggests, and I think he is right, is that God was behind even Pharaoh hardening his own heart.
Also, I think something that has to be brought up here is what follows Paul’s discussion of hardening in Romans 9 is an objection. After saying that God has mercy on whom he wills, and hardens whom he wills [v.18], Paul then goes on to raise a possible objection in verse 19:
Therefore, you will say to me, “Why does he still find fault? For who resists his will?”
The problem is that the hardening of Pharaoh is simply God giving him over to his own stubbornness, then Paul has a ready made answer to this objection. He can just say, “No, you misunderstand. Pharaoh was acting sinfully, and God was simply handing him over to his own stubbornness.” In fact, Paul *doesn’t* go on to say that, but instead goes on to say, “who are you, O man, to answer back to God,” making the problem all the worse for him.
Thus, because I would agree with John Piper, I would disagree that Pharaoh was simply being handed over to his own stubbornness, as it would not seem to fit either text.
God Bless,
Adam
January 27th, 2010 @ 9:43 pm
No problem. I don’t pretend to have arrived and figured everything out. I love to learn. So, I’m always looking forward to hearing people out . . . if its from God. If what they say is true, I believe that God has made us in such a way that if our hearts are humbled before Him and teachable, the truth will resonate with us. We will be satisfied in the end.
January 27th, 2010 @ 9:45 pm
Hershel,
Two points in response to your last post.
1) Those who condemn Reformed theology on the basis of the Servetus situation are silly and shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Hopefully you can see here that the vast majority arguing against Calvinism haven’t resorted to such tactics.
2) You claim that Arminianism is Semi-Pelagian. I would encourage you to read up on Arminianism as this is not true. Two professor’s from Covenant Theological Seminary (Robert Peterson & Michael Williams) have written a book called “Why I Am Not An Arminian”. In it they fairly state that Arminianism is not Semi-Pelagianism. They think a better designation for it is Semi-Augustinianism. If you read the best from the Arminian side you will never conclude it’s Semi-Pelagian.
Steve
January 27th, 2010 @ 9:47 pm
Brennon,
“This, however, is simply a misconception. God does know what will happen at all times with certainty. HOWEVER, this does not mean that the things that happen are necessary. God may know I would choose to write this comment here, but God knowing that does not mean He determined (see made necessary) that I would do this. It simply means He knew what I would freely choose to do in this given situation. However, if I had chosen not to write this comment, God would have know that beforehand as well.”
My point is your decision is made before you make it. If God knows your decision, then you will always make that decision. By virtue of God’s omniscience of events, your decision is determined…just not by God. This is why many people who want to hold to libertarian freedom have to hold to Middle Knowledge.
January 27th, 2010 @ 9:48 pm
“That’s all I’ve asked for, and you’ve failed to provide the evidence.”
Myron,
That is not true. I did provide an evidence but not all of the evidence there is. I have provided three quotes from Council of Trent that clearly line up with Arminian position.
You may not like it, you may dismiss it but please do not reduce Calvinism to just five points and do not ask of me to provide further evidence from the plethora of RCC teachings contained in encyclicals, papal bulls and councils. This is simply beyond the scope of this casual discussion. You refuse to see how complex RCC teaching is as you also oversimplify Reformed Theology.
I have no need to have a last voice nor do I need to convince you. I have simply signaled many issues with Arminianism. You can dismiss them all as you do or you can spend more required time to check them that’s your choice but please do not proclaim a victory just because I simply have no time and no intentions to spend another 20 hours here typing quotes that you will dismiss any way a priori.
Regards,
Christophe
January 27th, 2010 @ 9:55 pm
Adam, it seems to me that the clearest explanation of Exodus 8:15 is the last 10 words of that verse. God may not have said to Moses that Pharoah would “harden” his heart yet, but He DID say that Pharoah would “not send the people away.”
God does not harden an already soft heart, He only may confirm/strengthen and already hard heart indirectly, because it is JUST that He would correct the proud/stubborn man. The same mercy is extended to him as to everyone else. But if He choses to reject prior warning and advice, then it is RIGHT for God to judge and inevitably further stiffen and already stiff-necked man.
See Dr. Brown, I’m learnin’.
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:03 pm
Dr. brown, I thought this might help the discussion about pharoh:One of the great jewish Rabbis explained the reason for g-d hardening the heart of pharoh. He said something fascinating, the problem was that g-d to give pharoh free to choose to obey g-d and send the jews out,the problem was however that pharoh was forced into listening to g-d because of the ten plauges that he received, so without g-d hardening his heart pharoh would have no free will,since he would be forced to send them out due to his sufferiing. So g-d hardened his heart to counteract the fact that he was suffering from the ten plauges so at this point it was a fair ballgame! In other words now he had perfect free will.
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:04 pm
With regard to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart no less an authority than R.C. Sproul teaches that God’s hardening of his heart was passive not active. Here’s what Dr. Sproul says about passive hardening:
“Passive hardening involves a divine judgment upon sin that is already present. All that God needs to do to harden the heart of a person whose heart is already desperately wicked is to ‘give him over to his sin.’ We find this concept of divine judgment repeatedly in Scripture…. All that God has to do to harden people’s hearts is to remove the restraints. He gives them a longer leash. Rather than restricting their human freedom, he increases it. In a sense he gives them enough rope to hang themselves. It is not that God puts His hand on them to create fresh evil in their hearts; he merely removes His holy hand of restraint from them and lets them do their own will.”
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:04 pm
Josh,
Adam, it seems to me that the clearest explanation of Exodus 8:15 is the last 10 words of that verse. God may not have said to Moses that Pharoah would “harden” his heart yet, but He DID say that Pharoah would “not send the people away.”
However, the ka’asher is a comparative particle. It is comparing what has come before, namely, the hardening of his heart. There is no comparison of not sending the people away with what God said, but rather, his stubborn hardness.
God does not harden an already soft heart, He only may confirm/strengthen and already hard heart indirectly, because it is JUST that He would correct the proud/stubborn man. The same mercy is extended to him as to everyone else. But if He choses to reject prior warning and advice, then it is RIGHT for God to judge and inevitably further stiffen and already stiff-necked man.
Again, I think one has to ask where the fulfillment of 4:21 is, if not in 5:1-2. I mean, you turn the page, and right away you have the very first meeting, and Pharaoh’s heart is hard. It doesn’t seem to make any sense, given the flow of the narrative to split 4:21 from 5:1-2.
God Bless,
Adam
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:05 pm
Correction, it should say in the fourth row that g-d wanted to give pharoh free will.
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:10 pm
Zvi,
Dr. brown, I thought this might help the discussion about pharoh:One of the great jewish Rabbis explained the reason for g-d hardening the heart of pharoh. He said something fascinating, the problem was that g-d to give pharoh free to choose to obey g-d and send the jews out,the problem was however that pharoh was forced into listening to g-d because of the ten plauges that he received, so without g-d hardening his heart pharoh would have no free will,since he would be forced to send them out due to his sufferiing. So g-d hardened his heart to counteract the fact that he was suffering from the ten plauges so at this point it was a fair ballgame! In other words now he had perfect free will.
The problem is that this is contradicted by what the text itself says in 9:16:
However, for this reason I have raised you up, so that I might show you my strength, and so that my name would be proclaimed in all the earth.
It wasn’t to make things a “fair ballgame.” Quite the opposite. God raised him up specifically for the purpose of showing him his strength, and proclaiming his name throughout all the earth.
God Bless,
Adam
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:15 pm
Adam,there is no cantradiction at all,because g-d knew that pharoh would sin EVEN in the event that pharoh had free will, Just like we all sin yet we have free will and g-d knew it beforehand.
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:15 pm
Nathaniel,
Brennon is right, you’re equating certainty w/ necessity. It’s a very common misconception about the simple foreknowledge viewpoint. Here’s an interesting point about this objection from 19th century Arminian theologian Thomas Ralston:
“We remark, in the first place, that this objection labors under the serious difficulty that, while it aims to destroy the free agency of man, it really would destroy the free agency of God. For, if whatever is foreknown as certain must also be necessary, and cannot possibly be otherwise, then, as God foreknew from eternity every act that he would perform throughout all duration, he has, all the while, instead of being a free agent, acting after the ‘council of his own will,’ been nothing more than a passive machine, acting as acted upon by stern necessity. This conclusion is most horribly revolting; but according to the arguments of necessitarians, it cannot possibly be avoided. And if we are forced to the conclusion that God only acts as impelled by necessity, and can in no case act differently from what he does, then it must follow that necessity or fate made and preserves all things; but is it not obvious that this doctrine of necessity, as applied to the Deity, is most glaringly absurd? To suppose that the great Jehovah, in all his acts, has been impelled by necessity, or, which is the same thing, that he has only moved as he was acted upon, is to suppose the eternal existence of some moving power separate and distinct from the Deity, and superior to him; which would be at once to deny his independence and supremacy. We cannot, then, without the most consummate arrogance and absurdity, admit the position that all the acts of the Deity are brought about by necessity. Yet they are foreknown; and if, as we have seen, God’s foreknowledge of his own acts does not render them necessary, and destroy his free agency, how can it be consistently argued that God’s foreknowledge of the acts of men renders them necessary, and destroys their free agency?” (Elements of Divinity, p. 182)
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:16 pm
Zvi,
It is not a matter of just knowing, but, rather, having a purpose in raising Pharaoh up. That is the point. If it was just God reacting to Pharaoh’s sin, then how could God have had a purpose in raising him up in the first place?
God Bless,
Adam
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:23 pm
Nathaniel,
Here’s another early Arminian theologian Richard Watson on the same issue. Long but worth the read:
“The great fallacy in the argument, that the certain prescience of a moral action destroys its contingent nature, lies in supposing that contingency and certainty are the opposites of each other. It is, perhaps, unfortunate, that a word which is of figurative etymology, and which consequently can only have an ideal application to such subjects, should have grown into common use in this discussion, because it is more liable on that account to present itself to different minds under different shades of meaning. If, however, the term contingent in this controversy has any definite meaning at all, as applied to the moral actions of men, it must mean their freedom, and stands opposed not to certainty, but to necessity. A free action is a voluntary one; and an action which results from the choice of the agent, is distinguished from a necessary one in this, that it might not have been, or have been otherwise, accord ing to the self-determining power of the agent. It is with reference to this specific quality of a free action, that the term contingency is used, ~it might hare been otherwise, in other words, it was not necessitated. Contingency in moral actions is, therefore, their freedom, and is opposed, not to certainty, but to necessity. The very nature of this controversy fixes this as time precise meaning of time term. The question is not, in point of fact, about time certainty of moral actions, that is, whether they will happen or not; but about the nature of them, whether free or constrained, whether they must happen or not. Those who advocate this theory care not about the certainty of actions, simply considered, that is, whether they will take place or not; the reason why they object to a certain prescience of moral actions is, that they conclude, that such a prescience renders them necessary. It is the quality of the action for which they contend, not whether it will happen or not. If contingency meant uncertainty, the sense in which such theorists take it, the dispute would be at an end. But though an uncertain action cannot be foreseen as certain, a free, unnecessitated action may; for there is nothing in the knowledge of the action, in the least, to affect its nature. Simple knowledge is, in no sense, a cause of action, nor can it be conceived to be causal, unconnected with exerted power; for mere knowledge, therefore, an action remains free or necessitated, as the case may be. A necessitated action is not made a voluntary one by its being foreknown: a free action is not made a necessary one. Free actions foreknown will not, therefore, cease to be contingent. But how stands the case as to their certainly? Precisely on the same ground. The certainty of a necessary action foreknown, does not result from the knowledge of the action, but from the operation of the necessitating cause; and in like manner, the certainty of a free action does not result from the knowledge of it, which is no cause at all, but from the voluntary cause, that is, the determination of the will. It alters not the case in the least, to say that the voluntary action might have been otherwise. Had it been otherwise, the knowledge of it would have been otherwise; but as the will, which gives birth to the action, is not dependent upon the previous knowledge of God, but the knowledge of the action upon foresight of the choice of the will, neither the will nor the act is controlled by the knowledge, and the action, though foreseen, is still free or contingent.
The foreknowledge of God has then no influence upon either the freedom or the certainty of actions, for this plain reason, that it is knowledge, and not influence; and actions may he certainly foreknown, without their being rendered necessary by that foreknowledge. But here it is said, If the result of an absolute contingency be certainly foreknown, it can have no other result, it cannot happen otherwise. This is not the true inference. It will not happen otherwise; but I ask, why can it not happen otherwise? Can is an expression of potentiality, it denotes power or possibility. The objection is, that it is not possible that the action should otherwise happen. But why not? What deprives it of that power? If a necessary action were in question, it could not other wise happen than as the necessitating cause shall compel; but then that would arise from the necessitating cause solely and not from the prescience of the action, which is not causal. But if the action be free, and it enter into the very nature of a voluntary action to be unconstrained, then it might have happened in a thousand other ways, or not have happened at all; the foreknowledge of it no more affects its nature in this case than in the other. All its potentiality, so to speak, still remains, independent of foreknowledge, which neither adds to its power of happening otherwise, nor diminishes it. But then we are told, that the prescience of it, in that case, must be uncertain: not unless any person can prove, that the Divine prescience is unable to dart through all the workings of the human mind, all its comparison of things in the judgment, all the influences of motives on the affections, all the hesitancies, and haltings of the will, to its final choice. “Such knowledge is too wonderful for us,” but it is the knowledge of Him who “understandeth the thoughts of man afar off.”
But if a contingency will have a given result, to that result it must be determined. Not in the least. We have seen that it cannot be determined to a given result by mere precognition, for we have evidence in our own minds that mere knowledge is not causal to the actions of another. It is determined to its result by the will of the agent; but even in that case, it cannot be said, that it must be determined to that result, because it is of the nature of freedom to be unconstrained; so that here we have an instance in the case of a free agent that he will act in some particular manner, but that it by no means follows from what will be, whether foreseen or not, that it must be.”
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:33 pm
If that last post was too much (sorry) here’s a great snipet from it:
“The foreknowledge of God has then no influence upon either the freedom or the certainty of actions, for this plain reason, that it is knowledge, and not influence; and actions may he certainly foreknown, without their being rendered necessary by that foreknowledge. But here it is said, If the result of an absolute contingency be certainly foreknown, it can have no other result, it cannot happen otherwise. This is not the true inference. It will not happen otherwise; but I ask, why can it not happen otherwise? Can is an expression of potentiality, it denotes power or possibility. The objection is, that it is not possible that the action should otherwise happen. But why not? What deprives it of that power? If a necessary action were in question, it could not other wise happen than as the necessitating cause shall compel; but then that would arise from the necessitating cause solely and not from the prescience of the action, which is not causal. But if the action be free, and it enter into the very nature of a voluntary action to be unconstrained, then it might have happened in a thousand other ways, or not have happened at all; the foreknowledge of it no more affects its nature in this case than in the other. All its potentiality, so to speak, still remains, independent of foreknowledge, which neither adds to its power of happening otherwise, nor diminishes it.”
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:35 pm
Adam, If g-d knows what will occur then g-d casn have a purpose for it as well and yet the person can have free will. For example,the jews sinned for many years so g-d sent Hitler to destroy them, and that was g-d’s purpose. Does that mean that Hitler had no free will?
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:37 pm
I think I understand what your saying Adam, about the “ka’asher”(?) being a comparative particle. But. it still holds up my explanation. Consider:
God tells me something in a dream and when I wake up I record it. God tells me, “tomorrow, when you go to school, your English teacher will be a substitue in your English class.”
Tomorrow arrives and I go to English class. But before I head in the school I see my English teacher being taken into an ambulance and carried away from the school. I then enter the school and go to English class where we wait for the substitue English teacher to arrive. he finally arrives.
I journal the following:
{Today I go to English class. But before I head in the school I see my English teacher being taken into an ambulance and carried away from the school. I then enter the school and go to English class where we wait for the substitue English teacher to arrive. He finally arrives, just as God told me.}
God didn’t tell me that my English teacher would be taken into the ambulance; but He DID tell me that I would have a substitute English teacher in my English class. And so it was. Prophecy fulfilled even still. The fact that he didn’t mention the ambulance scene is incidental and doesn’t negate the fulfillment.
God Bleass,
Josh
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:45 pm
And although I just explained myself in the previous post,there are some rabbis that disagree with the Idea that g-d can decree that a person get killed through another human being since that would take away the free will. They explain that when reuben tried to save joseph from the brothers what was his intention? He figured that if Joseph deserved to die then g-d would send snakes and scorpions to kill joseph,but if the brothers would kill him there would be no proof that it was DECREED by g-d for him to die since the brothers have free will and can kill joseph even if g-d did not want him dead.
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:53 pm
Adam,g-d did 2 things 1.he raised him up 2. He hardened his heart. he raised him up for the reason you mentioned,and he hardened his heart to make it a” fair ballgame”. Otherwise,there would be no point in the 10 plaauges g-d could have just hardened his heart and CASE CLOSED, g-d needed both ingredidents to give him free will.
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:55 pm
Josh,
I would say that, given what you have told me, your illustration is not parallel, because the phrase “just as God told me” in your illustration is still syntactically related to “He [the substitute teacher] finally arrives.” The point is that this precise relationship exists between the phrase “he hardened his heart” and “as the Lord had said” in Exodus 8:15. It is true that the ambulance indecent is incidental in your story, but it is not put in comparison with “as the Lord had said,” as the phrase “he hardened his heart” is put in comparison with “as the Lord had said” in Exodus 8:15.
God Bless,
Adam
January 27th, 2010 @ 10:58 pm
Zvi,
he hardened his heart to make it a” fair ballgame”. Otherwise,there would be no point in the 10 plaauges g-d could have just hardened his heart and CASE CLOSED, g-d needed both ingredidents to give him free will.
The problem is, again, that is not the reason that the text itself gives. The point is not about giving him free will; in fact, the point seems rather intimidating, namely, to show him his strength! Also, he raised him up so that his name would be proclaimed in all the earth. Because of this, notice what happens at the end of the narrative, namely, how everyone hears of what God did to the Egyptians, and how they all fear when Israel comes and enters the land, all because God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.
God Bless,
Adam
January 27th, 2010 @ 11:02 pm
What Robert stated on January 27, 2010 at 2:11 am was a really good observation. I liked it alot!
January 27th, 2010 @ 11:08 pm
Adam,again the point of putting pharoh was put up there was for the reason you stated.however it does not say that the reason the g-d hardened his heart was for that reason!
January 27th, 2010 @ 11:12 pm
Adam like I said G-d could have hardened his heart without giving him the ten plauges if the whole purpose was to show his strenght? The answer is that although it is true that g-d wanted to show his might, it was still necessarry for Pharoh to have free will.
January 27th, 2010 @ 11:12 pm
Adam you said, {“The point is that this precise relationship exists between the phrase “he hardened his heart” and “as the Lord had said” in Exodus 8:15.”}
But that’s my point. You say this, but you can’t ACTUALLY demonstrate that this is the case. I take the word of God seriously as I’m sure you do too. I have already demonstrated how the fulfillment can readily be shown using what is there.
Therefore the only reason you would insist on assuming as say an atheist might, for example, that in order for the fulfillment to be a fulfillment would be to include the in-between as well as the final product that God declared would happen, would be because your heart has already chosen to look at it that way. Not necessarily because it MUST be that way.
When Joseph saw in a dream that his brothers would bow to him, and he conveyed this message to them, he didn’t see the process in between, nor does scripture record the in between at that time.
I suspect that this is just an area where we may have to agree to disagree.
Once again God Bless,
Josh
January 27th, 2010 @ 11:18 pm
Zvi,
Adam,again the point of putting pharoh was put up there was for the reason you stated.however it does not say that the reason the g-d hardened his heart was for that reason!
The problem is that it is precisely because of the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart that God sent the plagues, and it was precisely because of the plagues that God’s name was made known throughout the earth. You cannot separate out the individual elements of the story, as they all are related.
Adam like I said G-d could have hardened his heart without giving him the ten plauges if the whole purpose was to show his strenght? The answer is that although it is true that g-d wanted to show his might, it was still necessarry for Pharoh to have free will.
Actually, given the nature of the Egyptian king, who was thought to be an incarnation of Re’, and was the one assigned to keep m”t [order], it was precisely because of all of the chaos of the plagues that God was showing him his strength! He was showing Pharaoh that he is not God, and that he has no power to stop the eternal purposes of God.
Also, you have to understand the second clause in relationship to all of this as well. The other nations feared the Israelites precisely because of what God did in the plagues.
God Bless,
Adam
January 27th, 2010 @ 11:21 pm
Josh,
But that’s my point. You say this, but you can’t ACTUALLY demonstrate that this is the case.
I don’t agree. I think you can demonstrate it the basis of the syntactical relationships between the two clauses within the comparison. The structure of the verse, in my mind, demonstrates what is being compared.
God Bless,
Adam
January 27th, 2010 @ 11:35 pm
Adam, I think your’e misunderstanding what I’m saying the question is where was the free will if g-d hardened his heart? The answer is the balance between the plagues and the hardening caused a fair ballgame. Was that the purpose? NO Does pharoh need free will to get punished? YES so he got it.
January 27th, 2010 @ 11:43 pm
Adam, the first time pharoh did not send out the jews was after his snakes got swallowed by Moses’ snakes, that should have been enough, so g-d hardened his heart,so now he was back to square one,and he didn’t listen, and so on. So in essence the plauges were sent not because his heart was hardened ,because g-d did that but rather the plaauges were sent because he misused his free will!
January 27th, 2010 @ 11:45 pm
My point is that g-d can have a purpose by letting an evil person commit a SIN by killing an individual that G-d wants dead. And with all that the evil person has free will,and is considered an evil person,yet he carries out the plan of g-d.
January 28th, 2010 @ 12:25 am
Steve Noel,
I’m not arguing that God’s omniscience is the cause and therefore determiner of man’s will. I’m arguing that because he knows, we know that it cannot be any other way than the way that he knows. Does that make sense? While God’s omniscience may not be the cause of our actions, it certainly indicates that our actions are determined in some way.
I’m a Calvinist, so I do not hold to Libertarianism. That does not mean that there aren’t issues with Compatiblism. I’m just pointing out that the objections to Compatiblism are not resolved in Libertarianism.
January 28th, 2010 @ 1:03 am
Nathaniel,
I believe I’m following you but don’t think “determined” is the best word to use. That causes confusion because it brings to mind Determinism which I think we would both reject. God’s foreknowledge make our actions certain but I would not say determined. In our experience in time they are contingent but from God’s vantage point (Eternal Now) they are certain. Thus our actions can be both contingent and certain.
January 28th, 2010 @ 1:53 am
It may be that G-d was determining the bonds and boundaries of relationship, with flexibility permitted up until resistance to His demand occurred.
January 28th, 2010 @ 8:37 am
Nathaniel said “My point is your decision is made before you make it.”
It’s not, though. God knows my decision before I make it, but Him knowing my decision does not necessitate the decision. I actually make the decision at the moment I make it, but God simply knows which decision I will make. Him knowing the decision before I make it doesn’t mean I must necessarily make the decision.
“If God knows your decision, then you will always make that decision”
Yes, if I will do P in the future, then God knows with certainty that I will actually do P. But God knowing I will do P did not necessitate doing P. The fact that I would do P is why God knows I will do P. His foreknowledge does not necessitate the event. I could have chosen Q, but God would have known I would choose instead.
“. By virtue of God’s omniscience of events, your decision is determined…just not by God. This is why many people who want to hold to libertarian freedom have to hold to Middle Knowledge.’
Well that’s another kettle of fish, and I myself haven’t decided whether I accept the Molinist position, but I don’t think it’s necessary to. You are simply incorrect that a prior knowledge of events means those events are determined. Since God’s foreknowledge is perfect, if He knows P is going to happen tomorrow, then P will happen, but it’s because P will happen that God knows it is going to happen. An astronomer can know exactly where a certain planet will be in 20 years, but that doesn’t mean he determined where it would be, he simply foreknows it.
Foreknown events do not equal pre-determined events.
January 28th, 2010 @ 9:12 am
Brennon,
If you read my comments above, I did not mean that God’s omniscience determines our actions. I’m saying that if God knows you will do P, you cannot not do P. In a sense, your choices are pre-determined, but not by God.
January 28th, 2010 @ 9:54 am
If you read my comments above, I did not mean that God’s omniscience determines our actions. I’m saying that if God knows you will do P, you cannot not do P. In a sense, your choices are pre-determined, but not by God.
Pre-known (i.e. foreknown), not pre-determined. If the choice is free it will be “determined” by the agent at the moment the choice is made. Yet this free determination by the agent is foreknown by God. But the Calvinist view has God causing our every thought, desire, and action. This is not only the case based on the Calvinist view of sovereignty, but also based on the Calvinist view of foreknowledge. Since Calvinism denies that God can foreknow true contingencies, His foreknowledge is therefore entirely based on His eternal decree and the infallible enacting of that decree in time. Every detail of that decree is irresistibly brought about by God (else He could not possibly foreknow those details). This would include every thought, desire, and action of His creatures (even the most wicked and vilest of thoughts, desires and actions). And this is exactly why Arminians charge Calvinist theology with making God the author of all sin and evil, and even the only true sinner in the universe. Thankfully, Calvinists generally deny the charge, though they can’t do it and be consistent with their theology as a whole. That is why “mystery” is so quickly appealed to at this point. Yet calling contradictions “mystery” is not an appropriate use of the word.
God Bless,
Ben
January 28th, 2010 @ 10:02 am
arminianperspectives,
The problem with knowing future contingencies is that knowledge in the very nature of the case is justified belief. If the actions are contingent, it is logically impossible to justify what will happen in the future, because it could be anything [i.e., it is contingent].
Secondly, I would not appeal to mystery, but I would appeal to the idea that what you mean by the “author of sin” is not what is meant by “author of sin” Biblically or historically. If you say that it is, then we need a demonstration of that from you. Even more broadly, we need a demonstration from you that it is somehow wrong for God to do such a thing. You are making a whole lot of assumptions here, and calling this a contradiction when you have not clearly defined your terms is not helpful.
God Bless,
Adam
January 28th, 2010 @ 11:27 am
Adam,
Before answering I wanted to be clear on your position. Are you saying that God’s foreknowledge is based on His decree which He infallibly brings to pass down to the very smallest detail (including our sinful thoughts, desires, and actions) and yet God should not rightly be called the “author” of such things? What should we call it then? You say that what I am saying about “author of sin” is not what is meant by the term “Biblically and historically.” I think that that is a claim that you need to back up as well. I think I defined my terms well enough in my comments. What exactly are you confused about?
God Bless,
Ben
January 28th, 2010 @ 11:46 am
Ben,
Calvinists do not usually have a problem with God causing evil. Frame and Grudem have a good discussion of this in their theologies. I would maintain that God can cause evil without being culpable for it. I think that’s essentially the message of the book of Job. God is just even when he brings evil upon people. Furthermore, there is no such thing as gratuitous evil. All evil that God brings about is ultimately for the greater good (as determined by God).
January 28th, 2010 @ 11:51 am
Ben,
Before answering I wanted to be clear on your position. Are you saying that God’s foreknowledge is based on His decree which He infallibly brings to pass down to the very smallest detail (including our sinful thoughts, desires, and actions) and yet God should not rightly be called the “author” of such things? What should we call it then?
Actually, we should simply say that God is sovereign.
You say that what I am saying about “author of sin” is not what is meant by the term “Biblically and historically.” I think that that is a claim that you need to back up as well.
Actually, it is just the opposite. You are the one defining your own terms, as you have said, and thus, you are the one making the assumption that this is what we are to mean Biblically and historically by the phrase “author of evil.” Hence, you bear the burden of proof to show that that is what is meant by the term. If you are departing from the Biblical and historical usage, then one must ask why you are departing from the Biblical and historical usage.
God Bless,
Adam
January 28th, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
Dr Brown, you said:
“Adam,
One last reply and I’ll probably be checking out for a bit: I’m not sure how fluent you are in Hebrew, but the text does not speak of anyone planning anything. Rather, it speaks of intentions, the brothers vs. God’s. They had one thing in mind (evil) and God had another thing in mind (good). If you want to claim that the text states that God ordered these events in detail and moved on the brothers to act in hate and malice, be my guest, but what it actually states is that God had different purposes to accomplish through these events.
Once again, it appears that I hold to a higher view of sovereignty that do my Calvinist friends. He does not have to decree events in order to accomplish His purposes.
In any case, if the text stated that God moved on the brothers to do evil, so be it. I would bow down to God and His Word without hesitation. It simply doesn’t state that.”
I find this to be extremely contradictory. With all due respect, you said here two different things here. First you explain that the phrase “you meant it…God meant it..” has to do with intentions. But then you change the definition of “meant” when it comes to God to mean “Passively permits or allows”.
So, when the brothers “meant” something, they actively moved to do something, but when God “meant” something, suddenly the definition doesn’t mean “actively move to do something”, but “passively allow or permit”
In other words, you gave the definition, but then you changed the definition to match your viewpoint on this subject.
When God meant it for evil, that’s exactly what it means. He intended it. He was actively involved in bringing it about. In the same way the brothers “meant” it by being actively involved in bringing it about. You then say that Calvinists are “reading into the text what isn’t there”, but how can that be? It is you that read into it and changed the definition. Calvinists leave the definition as-is, and we are accused of reading into the text?
I think the problem here is that we, as Christians, feel the need to jump to God’s defense and start creating theodocies. But this is not necessary, for God himself declares “I make the light and the darkness, I make peace and create evil…I am the Lord who does all these things”. And the author of Lamentations rhetorically asks “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?” (Lam 3:38)
God’s sovereignty in both good times and bad times is a bitter pill to swallow. But this is what the Bible teaches. However, this doesn’t mean that God is morally guilty of sin or evil. It is clear that God sinlessly uses sin and evil (and sinners) to accomplish his purposes.
Therefore, a person does not need to come to God’s defense and start changing the definitions of “meant” to imply that God had nothing to do with it, but instead cleverly turned a bad situation into a good one. A sovereign God intended it for His own, righteous purposes, in the same way that wicked men intended it for their own, sinful, selfish purposes. To me, that’s clearly what the text is saying. The same thing can be seen in Acts 4:27-28.
My 2c. Thank you for the radio program. It was a pleasure to listen to.
January 28th, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
Skala’s comments (January 28, 2010 at 1:11 pm) just do not fly. Dr. Brown is using “meant” as it is normally used in such a context. Normally, when one person does an action and means something for it and another person who does not do the action also means something for the action, there is no suggestion that the person who did not do the action somehow really did do it or irresitibly caused the other person to do it. If my son chooses to sign up for baseball, and means to have fun by it, and I mean for him to learn discipline by it, it does not mean that I made him sign up or that I irresitibly caused him to sign up or somehow irresistibly caused him to desire to sign up. He means it in the way appropriate for the person actually doing the action, and I mean it in a way appropriate to someone who has authority over the situation and power to stop the action. It is not a difference in the meaning of the word. Simply a difference of context (of course the two uses of the word share the same basic context, but are used with respect to different people in the context, so that context does differentiate them to some degree).
January 28th, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
Dr. Brown,
Sorry for taking so long, I did not see your response. The comments are filling fast on this post!
As far as my background, I am currently working on a Phd in Hebrew and Semitics, and am almost done with my masters degree at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
The place where I got “plan” is actually from one of the standard lexicons of the Hebrew language, the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, definition 5, “to plan,” and, in fact, it sites this very text as an example of that definition.
Anyway, my point was that one cannot say that Joseph’s brothers intended evil, and not also say that, in the same sense, God intended the same evil. That is the reason I said that the antecedent of the 3fs suffix is so important. If the suffix does, indeed, refer back to the “evil” in the previous clause, then the sense of the passage would be this:
You intended evil against me,
but God intended the evil for good.
Thus, the evil would be intended in the same way, as they are in parallel in both clauses. The difference between the two clauses is whether it was meant to be against Joseph, or for good. However, the evil is intended in the same way, as they are in parallel in both clauses.
In other words, there is a sense in which the two clauses are the same [both God and the brothers intended evil in the same sense], and a sense in which they are different [one intended evil in order to hurt Joseph, the other intended evil in order to save many people alive].
I hope that does better to clarify what I am saying, and where I am getting it from the text, in terms of both the parallelism between the two clauses, as well as the differences. Sometimes message boards like this can be really difficult for communication.
Also, I do want to tell you that I don’t mean any of these disagreements as saying you are somehow “stupid,” or are “not enlightened,” as you have said many Calvinists are giving you the impression. I am here because I like to learn about the Hebrew Bible, and grow in wisdom, and one of the ways you can do that is by friendly conversation with those with whom you disagree. Everyone here at Trinity, especially Dr. Averbeck, praises your work in refutation of Orthodox Judaism, and I highly respect the work that you have done in that area, even if we disagree on this area.
Also, I understand that you are busy. I am currently working on getting ready for comprehensive examinations, and so, I know that a message board like this can be quite distracting. Thank you for the good discussion, though.
God Bless,
Adam
January 28th, 2010 @ 2:28 pm
Greg, in your post of January 28, 2010 at 12:46 am, you asked Dr. Brown, “If you disagree with the doctrines of Calvinism (TULIP), and you disagree with their understanding of God’s character, is it reasonable to assume that you then believe that the Jesus of whom they promote is not the biblical Jesus? And if Calvinists aren’t advancing the kingdom of the true, biblical Jesus, do you really want them to follow in the footsteps of others that promoted another jesus? Would you rather them follow in the steps of Cartwright, Wesley, Finney, Taylor, Booth, or Graham?
I guess the question should be asked if the level of perceived error with Calvinism rises to the point of anathema?”
It seems to are implying that Cartwright, Wesley, etc., had “promoted another jesus” and that their (Arminian based) teachings concerning Christ “rises to the point of anathema”.
If you can, please advise me if I misunderstood you.
January 28th, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
Re: Genesis 50:20, wherein I think Dr. White reads moire into the text than is actually stated, (1) there is not even a hint about predestination; (2) the issue is “intention”, not the action itself,which was an evil act indeed.
The point is, the brothers did what they did with evil motives but God allowed it to occur and in order to bring about a greater good that was in direct relation to his plan – and this is a crucial point to keep in mind – to raise and build a nation out from whom Messiah would come.
January 28th, 2010 @ 2:44 pm
Nelson,
Then why is the action of God and the action of the brothers parallel, if one was “doing” and the other was just “allowing?” The very same terminology is used for God intending evil, as is used for the brothers intending evil. You are right that there are differences between the two clauses, but, in terms of the actual planning, just as the brothers planned evil, God also planned evil, but each for different purposes.
God Bless,
Adam
January 28th, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
Couple of points:
1. Evil is simply the absence of God. God did not create ‘evil’. Evil results from the choices we make contrary to God’s will. God still knew evil could come about by the choices we make, but He had intended everything to be done for good for His glory. With the system God had set up for us to be independent choice makers, He knew evil would still result, but He didn’t create it.
2. God hardened Pharoah’s heart, meaning the actions of God caused Pharoah’s heart to become hardened, not that God went into Pharaoh’s heart and turned the lever to the ‘hardened’ position. If someone did something to make me angry and become bitter with them, you could say that they hardened my heart.
January 28th, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
Arminian,
Thank you for the comment, but I must disagree with you (No surprise, hehe). You use the analogy of your intentions for your son signing up for baseball to be different than your son’s intentions.
This analogy fails to point out that in this situation, the father didn’t “intend” the son to do anything in the same way God, in the story, intended something to happen.
In your analogy, the father had nothing to do with the son’s deciding to sign up for baseball. He simply learned what the son wanted to do, and then responded/reacted to that and deciding to allow it or permit it for another intention. So we are still left with the same problem.
However, in the Bible, I think it is clear that God intended the entire situation to happen *IN ORDER* to bring about a purpose. He didn’t just react/respond to a situation that happened completely apart from His plan/purpose/decree. In your analogy, the father had nothing to do with the son signing up for baseball.
But in the Bible, it cannot be said that god “had nothing to do with evil”, for you saw the Bible verses I posted with your own eyes. Both good and bad flows from the Most High.
January 28th, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
“Both good and bad flows from the Most High.”
Good = directly
Bad = Indirectly
Remember Saul? And “evil” spirit from God entered him.
It’s like with Job. Satan left the presence of God and afflicted Job directly.
January 28th, 2010 @ 6:27 pm
Skala,
Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” How does Isaiah 45:7 agree with the view that God did not create evil? There are two key facts that need to be considered. (1) The word translated “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.” Notice how the other major English Bible translations render the word: “disaster” (NIV, HCSB), “calamity” (NKJV, NAS, ESV), and “woe” (NRSV). The Hebrew word can refer to moral evil, and often does have this meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, due to the diversity of possible definitions, it is unwise to assume that “I create evil” in Isaiah 45:7 refers to God bringing moral evil into existence.
(2) The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.
Same explanation applies to Lamentations 3:38. “Bad” has to do with God’s punishment, not bringing moral evil into existence.
January 28th, 2010 @ 8:46 pm
Great program! Cordial and informative
1) In terms of omniscience, my concern is that James White does not believe that God could know “anything,” unless He has determined “everything.” If true, then isn’t that a denial of God’s omniscience.
James White writes: “How God can know future events, for example, and yet not determine them, is an important point….” (Debating Calvinism, p.163)
Dave Hunt responds: “White denies omniscience in his repudiation of any ‘grounds upon which to base exhaustive divine foreknowledge of future events outside of God’s decree.’ If God must decree the future to know it, He’s not omniscient.” (Debating Calvinism, p.389)
2) If “two autonomous wills cannot coexist,” then how does one explain 1st Cor. 10:13? (For this reason, some C’s believe that “the elect” possess a free will.)
3) In terms of Gen. 20:1-7, concerning God having kept Abimelech from sinning, James White challenged you to explain “why” God did this, and the answer is found in the text itself, when God says that He prevented the sin on account of him being innocent, in having been misled, concerning her marital status: “Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her.”
James White: “God prevented Abimelech from committing an act of sin. If God could keep him from sinning in this instance, could He not have kept him from sinning in any other given instance? Of course. And yet, He had not done so. Why? He had a purpose in restraining Abimelech in this instance. And if He has a purpose in this instance, does He not have a purpose in all instances, with each and every person? Surely.” (Debating Calvinism, p.41)
Clearly, you can see that James White has missed the point of the text, when he assumes a *secret sovereign purpose* as the reason, when yet God declares that there is no such secret at all, and that the man was simply misled by Abraham, and as a result, an infinitely fair-minded God, took notice of said innocence, and thwarted his plans, and now with the matter having been clearly explained to him, he is assuredly accountable, and duly warned by God with a threat, if he does not release her. Seems straight-forward, and yet James White seems to have missed this fairly simple point.
January 29th, 2010 @ 10:02 am
Nathaniel,
You wrote,
Calvinists do not usually have a problem with God causing evil. Frame and Grudem have a good discussion of this in their theologies. I would maintain that God can cause evil without being culpable for it. I think that’s essentially the message of the book of Job. God is just even when he brings evil upon people. Furthermore, there is no such thing as gratuitous evil. All evil that God brings about is ultimately for the greater good (as determined by God).
I am familiar with Grudem’s theologies (I have read two of them). Job is a good example, but not for Calvinism. In Job God allows Satan to harm Job. But God does not control Satan to harm Job. In Calvinism God would have caused everything. He would have caused Satan to challenge Him. He would have caused Satan to desire to harm Job. He would have caused every one of Satan’s evil thoughts. That is not permission, but causation. That is also not what is happening in Job. As God says to Satan,
“And [Job] still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him, to ruin him without cause.” (1:3)
But in Calvinism God actually caused Satan to “incite” Him against Job without cause. So really God just incited Himself to harm Job through Satan. The whole narrative quickly becomes ridiculous when Calvinistic presuppositions are brought to bear on it. It becomes an elaborate puppet show.
So Job really gives no support to the Calvinist accounting of sovereignty or the implications of God’s foreknowledge being based on the irresistible enacting of an eternal secret decree. It does support the Arminian account that God allows His creatures to do evil and holds them accountable for their actions, though He in no way causes them to do such evil. It is the difference between causation and non-prevention.
And no one is denying that God can bring good out of evil. What I am denying is that God causes that evil since in Calvinism God is the only true actor in the universe and all of His creatures are but passive instruments through whom God irresistibly enacts all of His secret eternal decrees, including every sinful thought, desire, and action (and that is exactly why Arminians say that the logical implication of consistent Calvinism is to make God the author of sin).
It truly amazes me that Calvinists do not find such ideas reprehensible, for it renders God’s holiness meaningless and mocks those passages of Scripture that affirm that God hates sin and evil, for “the Lord detests the thoughts of the wicked.” (Prov. 15.26) Yet, in Calvinism God alone is the ultimate source of those wicked thoughts that He detests and causes the wicked to think those exact thoughts in accordance with His eternal and irresistible decree.
Hopefully, you can see the difference now.
God Bless,
Ben
January 29th, 2010 @ 10:21 am
Actually, we should simply say that God is sovereign.
But that is a bizarre definition of sovereignty. One can certainly say that God is sovereign without affirming exhaustive determinism. That is not how the word is normally defined or understood. When we think of a sovereign state, entity, or ruler, we do not think of exhaustive meticulous control. We think of a ruler with absolute authority to whom all of his subjects must answer and give account. We think of a state or entity that has the right to establish its own rule and guidelines and to hold those who live there to those standards, etc. That is also the Biblical definition. God is the ultimate athority and ruler in the universe. He has the sovereign right to run His universe as He sees fit (in accordance with His holy nature). This right certainly includes the right to create free moral agents and hold them accountable for their actions. But Calvinism denies God this right and so actually threatens His sovereignty.
Actually, it is just the opposite. You are the one defining your own terms, as you have said, and thus, you are the one making the assumption that this is what we are to mean Biblically and historically by the phrase “author of evil.”
You seem to very confused. I explained the reason why Arminians charge Calvinists with making God the author of evil. You are the one who came up with the idea of some sort of historical and Biblical definition that I was not adhering to in my use of the phrase. So it is up to you to demonstrate this historical and Biblical definition that I am apparently not adhering to. I never said anything about a Biblical or historic definition. I merely said that Calvinism makes God the cause of sin and evil and that is why Arminians say he is the author of sin in Calvinism. It really is not that complicated. This whole thing seems like a red-herring to me.
Hence, you bear the burden of proof to show that that is what is meant by the term. If you are departing from the Biblical and historical usage, then one must ask why you are departing from the Biblical and historical usage.
But again, you keep saying I am departing from the historic and Biblical usage without defining what that historic and Biblical usage is. You are trying to hold me to a standard without telling me what that standard is, except to arbitrarily say that I am not holding to some sort “historical and Biblical” definition. So you either need to demonstrate what this historical and Biblical definition is that I am supposedly not adhering to, or stop making the charge that I am not adhering to it.
God Bless,
Ben
January 29th, 2010 @ 10:26 am
Michael K.,
Very good comments.
January 29th, 2010 @ 11:02 am
Ben,
What would you say about this verse at the end of Job?
Job 42:11:
“Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him FOR ALL THE EVIL that the LORD had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold.”
January 29th, 2010 @ 11:28 am
Nathaniel,
I would understand it in the context of Job 1-2 as mentioned earlier. It is in the context of non-prevention (permission) and not causation. As the Lord Himself said to Satan,
“And [Job] still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him, to ruin him without cause.” (1:3)
Also, it can easily be understood as representing their limited perspective on the situation, since they were not privy to the heavenly circumstances surrounding Job’s trial.
God Bless,
Ben
January 29th, 2010 @ 11:33 am
Skala (re: your comments of January 28, 2010 at 3:27 pm)
Your response to my analogy begs the question, because you assume what you’re trying to prove. The disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians over that passage is exactly over whether God intended the Joseph’s brothers to sin and so brought it about, or whether the brothers intended evil and God intended their actions to accomplish good. You simply assume that God intended for the brothers to sin and broguth them to decide to sin as they did, and then criticize my analogy on that basis. But my analogy showed how it is very reasonable and natural for one person who performs an act to intend to do something, and then as a result another person to intend for the other person’s carrying out of the action to accomplish something different.
Skala said: “In your analogy, the father had nothing to do with the son’s deciding to sign up for baseball. He simply learned what the son wanted to do, and then responded/reacted to that and deciding to allow it or permit it for another intention. . . . However, in the Bible, I think it is clear that God intended the entire situation to happen *IN ORDER* to bring about a purpose. He didn’t just react/respond to a situation that happened completely apart from His plan/purpose/decree. In your analogy, the father had nothing to do with the son signing up for baseball.”
**** Here you completely beg the question as mentioned above. You just assert the Calvinist position and then use that to say that the Arminian position is invalid. I don’t think the text suggests at all that God wanted the brothers to sin against Joseph. By definition sin is against his will. Moreover, as the Almighty God, he could have easily brought Joseph to Egypt and power there in a different way. The way he did so was partially contingent on the free will actions of various human agents involved. My original point was that it is perfectly natural–and indeed, the normal meaning–for the performer of an action to intend an action in one way as the originator of the action and one who has power to intend it in a different way that does not involve any instigation or causing of the action. Normally, when one person does an action and means something for it and another person who does not do the action also means something different for the action, there is no suggestion that the person who did not do the action somehow really did do it or irresitibly caused the other person to do it or instigated it. He takes account of what the actor wants to do, and then responds/reacts to that and decides to allow it or permit it for another intention. Perhaps he might direct certain aspects of the events to bring about the result he intends. But he doesn’t insitgate the evil.
January 29th, 2010 @ 11:38 am
Ben,
But if God is allowing evil to come against Job, and God is sovereign, why doesn’t he stop it? If God did not ordain this evil, why did he volunteer Job for temptation?
Yes, it’s true that Satan was responsible for the evil, but in 2:3 God says,
“…although you incited ME against him, to ruin him without cause.”
God says that he’s the one ruining Job. What do you say about that?
January 29th, 2010 @ 11:51 am
But if God is allowing evil to come against Job, and God is sovereign, why doesn’t he stop it?
Because He doesn’t have to. It is His sovereign right to allow it for whatever reasons He sees fit (in this case because God was pleased to test Job and also demonstrate that Job’s commitment was genuine, though there may have been other reasons as well). That is still a far cry from causing every evil desire, thought and act of Satan against Job. Really, I think the narrative explains this rather well without much need for commentary.
If God did not ordain this evil, why did he volunteer Job for temptation?
Where does the text say God volunteered Job for temptation? And why do you assume that God cannot allow something without ordaining it (unless you are using “ordaining” in the sense of allowance/non-prevention).
Yes, it’s true that Satan was responsible for the evil, but in 2:3 God says,
“…although you incited ME against him, to ruin him without cause.”
God says that he’s the one ruining Job. What do you say about that?
Again, it is in the context of non-prevention. Satan incited God to allow Satan to bring harm to Job. God allowed Satan to do this within certain limits. God did not intend or desire to ruin Job. That was Satan’s intention. But God did allow Job to be ruined by granting Satan’s request (and that is what God means in 2:3). However, in the Calvinist account God actually did intend to ruin Job and caused Satan to desire to ruin Job and then caused him to act on that desire (which makes no sense in light of the language of God in 2:3). As I said before, it becomes an elaborate puppet show. But that is not how the narrative reads at all.
God Bless,
Ben
January 29th, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
Ben,
I am going to have to cut these posts down to things I deem important, as, being a graduate student, I have not got the time to be on here all day responding to posts, as they just keep getting bigger and bigger.
First of all, you have presented an accusation against Calvinism based upon a specific definition. You know we reject your definition, and believe that the phrase refers to the person who committed the first sin, thus bringing evil into the world. However, you refuse to defend your definition, and thus are wanting to accuse the other side, without ever demonstrating that your definition is Biblical or historical. Since you are making the accusation, you bear the burden of proof.
Secondly, as far as Job goes, the text is clear in 1:21-22:
Naked I came out from my mother’s womb, and naked I will return. The Lord has given, and the Lord has taken. May the name of the Lord be blessed! ” In all this, Job did not sin, and he did not say anything unseemly against God.
and, after his wife tells him to “Curse God and die,” Job says in 2:10:
Then he said to her, “You speak as one of the fools. Should we expect good from the Lord, and not trouble?” In all this, Job did not sin with his lips.
Now, if this is just the context of not prevention, why is God the subject of active verbs in 1:21? God is not just simply “not preventing,” God is doing something [giving and taking] which is the very definition of an active verb! It is also the opposite of passive permission. Because of the parallelism between giving and taking in 1:21, we must assume that, in the same way God gave Job these blessings, he also took them. If you deny that, then you deny the parallelism that is stated here in the text.
Also, 2:10 very clearly says that the evil came “from God,” not that it came from Satan with God just refusing to stop it. What is worse is, if you say that this is what the phrase referring to evil means, then, by logical extension, you must say that this is what the “good” means. Thus, logically you would be left with a meaning of the text something like, “Should we expect that God would passively permit good to happen to us, and not passively permit evil to happen to us?” That makes God entirely foreign to the events and affairs of his people, both good and bad. It also ignores the clear statements that have come from 1:21ff.
Worse than that, in every instance of all of these statements, the Bible clearly says that Job did not sin with his lips. Hence, no one can say that Job was simply mistaken here. God clearly says that Job was not wrong!
Worse than that, the entire book of Job assumes what is stated here. The whole idea of the book of Job rests upon retribution, namely, that God would never bring this suffering upon Job if he were a just man. God rewards everyone equally, bringing calamity upon the wicked, and reward upon the righteous, as his friends say, and thus, Job must have sinned. What does that presuppose? It presupposes that God was the one who both gives blessings to the righteous, and gives curses to the wicked. However, through all of this, Job never denies that God has given this, but consistently assumes that God has done this. How do I know that? Rather than denying that God has truly done this, he calls God unjust, saying that God has given retribution to a man who did not deserve it.
All of these things, from the larger structure of the book of Job, right down to the individual sections of the book lay out the fact that we have Satan doing these things to Job, but God’s hand is behind the whole thing.
So, yes, you do have the texts at the beginning with God giving permission to Satan, but you cannot isolate them from the context of the rest of the first two chapters, and, indeed, from the rest of the book as a whole. When you don’t do that, it becomes clear that God gave Satan permission to inflict Job, but also had ordained that Satan inflict Job, and that his losses come from the Lord, as the text itself says.
God Bless,
Adam
January 29th, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
Adam,
But Ben is not isolating the texts that give the greater details of what happened from the ones the describe them. He is actually bringing them together. The ones that give the greater details of what actually happened must be given precedence for fuller understanding. When they are brought together with texts that describe the situation generally, it becomes apparent that God allowing Satan to afflict Job can be described as God bringing calamity on Job. That is perfectly fine. That supports the Arminian position. It shows that such language that at first blush might lead one to think God was directly causing Job’s trouble can actually refer to him allowing Job’s affliction. It is simply understanding the language contextually. But you have to read so much into it to get your result. We have the text actually depicting the details of what happened–God allowing Satan to afflict Job and actually inciting God to so allow–and then decribing this as God bringing calamity on Job. It makes perfect sense that this language could so used. For God’s decision to allow Satan to afflict Job does result in Job’s affliction. But against what the text depicts actually going on, you take the language that says God brought calamity on Job to mean that the details depicted in the text must be understood other than they state, that it means God actually irresistibly caused Satan to desire to afflict Job, and to incite God to allow him to do so, and to actually do so. It is reading much into the text. More reasonmable exegesis would simply conclude that God allowing something can be described as him bringing it about. Arminians have no problem with that, as long as the context is kept in view and what the actual meaning of the statement is. But it is far from the Calvinist view.
The parallelism issue you bring up is irrelevant, for the context fills out the details yet again. God had blessed Job directly. Satan challenges that God’s blessing keeps Job loyal rather than his heart for God or what have you. Then we get the details that Gid allows Satan to afflict Job. The parallel does not have to be exact. Indeed, the parallel is a nanththetical parallel. The details of the text reveal that the parallel is general. God brought good to Job by blessing him directly. God brought calamity on him by allowing Satan to afflict him. There is still parallel. And there is no need for it to be completely exact. It is a genera parallel, one that I htink most Christians understand quite well.
January 29th, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
Adam,
Likewise, I don’t much time to devote to this either.
First, regarding Job’s statement it is said that Job did not charge God with evil because Job simply expressed God’s sovereign right to bestow blessings and take them away. Was God active in taking them away? Yes, by allowing Satan to do these things. His action was permission. The use of the active does not mean that permission cannot be involved. Indeed, we know that it was through permission because of the plain language of the narrative in chapters 1-2. But that is not the same as saying that God had planned to bring disaster on Job and controlled Satan to enact His eternal decree. Not even close. God makes it clear that he had no intentions of bringing harm on Job, but did so (through giving Satan a measure of freedom to harm Job) because Satan “enticed” Him against Job “without cause.” (But again, if Calvinism is true God was really just enticing Himself through Satan, if that even makes sense).
All of these things, from the larger structure of the book of Job, right down to the individual sections of the book lay out the fact that we have Satan doing these things to Job, but God’s hand is behind the whole thing.
No one is denying that. But the question is in what way is God’s hand behind the calamity brought upon Job? Chapters 1-2 make it clear that it is through granting permission to Satan to do to Job what God did not intend for him (which is made very clear in 2:3). God’s intentions were to bless Job. Satan’s intentions were to destroy him and prove to God that Job’s love and devotion to God was hollow and conditional. Satan challenged God that Job’s integrity was a direct result of the blessings He had poured out on Job. God allowed Satan to test his theory to see if Job’s integrity was indeed the result of the favor God had given him. Again, the narrative is really straight forward and the Calvinist accounting renders most of it non-sensical, especially in light of Job 2:3
So, yes, you do have the texts at the beginning with God giving permission to Satan, but you cannot isolate them from the context of the rest of the first two chapters, and, indeed, from the rest of the book as a whole.
But the beginning of the book sets up the proper context for understanding the rest of the book as a whole. You want to re-interpret the first few chapters which set up the story in light of various phrases isolated in subsequent chapters. That is a backwards hermeneutic. Chapters 1-2 set the stage and give the necessary background for properly understanding the rest of the book.
When you don’t do that, it becomes clear that God gave Satan permission to inflict Job, but also had ordained that Satan inflict Job, and that his losses come from the Lord, as the text itself says.
There is nothing in the text that even comes close to describing prior ordination. And there is no problem in seeing that Job’s losses came from the Lord as described above and in harmony with chapters 1-2 which tell us exactly how Job’s losses came to be.
First of all, you have presented an accusation against Calvinism based upon a specific definition. You know we reject your definition, and believe that the phrase refers to the person who committed the first sin, thus bringing evil into the world.
What? But since you brought up the first sin, how do you explain it without admitting that it was in accordance with God’s irresistible eternal decree, just as every other sin that has ever been committed? Where did Adam’s impulse to disobey God and sin come from?
However, you refuse to defend your definition, and thus are wanting to accuse the other side, without ever demonstrating that your definition is Biblical or historical. Since you are making the accusation, you bear the burden of proof.
You are really confusing me here. I explained exactly what I meant by “author of sin”. I never said it was some sort of historical or Biblical definition (the Bible doesn’t say “author of sin” nor does it describe the concept at all). You are the one who made an issue out me not adhering to some sort of “historical and Biblical definition”, not me. Even the writers of the Westminster confession seemed to know exactly what “author of sin” meant and recognized that the charge was easily brought against their doctrines, which is why they sought to deny the charge, though they could only do so through double talk and mere assertion,
“The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” (The Westminster Confession of Faith, IV. Of Providence)
From the first days of Calvin’s Institutes being published there were those who quickly charged that his doctrines logically made God the author of sin for the exact reasons I explained in my first post. Again, it is really not that complicated.
God Bless,
Ben
January 29th, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
Arminian,
I am wondering what is so unclear about “The Lord has given, and the Lord has taken.” It seems to be fairly straightforward, and explicit.
<iThe parallel does not have to be exact. Indeed, the parallel is a nanththetical parallel. The details of the text reveal that the parallel is general. God brought good to Job by blessing him directly. God brought calamity on him by allowing Satan to afflict him. There is still parallel. And there is no need for it to be completely exact. It is a genera parallel, one that I htink most Christians understand quite well.
The parallelism is antithetical? Are you suggesting that we translate this clause, “The Lord has given, but the Lord has taken?” That makes no sense.
The problem is that it doesn’t just say that God brought calamity on Job, but, rather, it was God himself who “took” from him. There is no causative here; there is no passive here. Your interpretation flies in the face of the grammar itself.
Also, no one is arguing that the parallel has to be exact. The question then becomes, if you take your position, in what sense are the two clauses parallel at all? You are saying, “The Lord did one thing, and had a hands off policy on the other thing.” That makes no sense.
Also, I think that, what is worse is that there is no reason, given your interpretation of the passage, to understand why anyone would even think of saying that Job was attributing evil to God. Yet, the text makes sure to let us know that Job did not sin by these actions.
Also, this interpretation would require Job to know what happened in the throne room of God. Job has no clue what has happened there, as is apparent throughout the rest of the book, especially the sections where he calls God unjust.
It also makes no sense in the general understanding of retributive justice. Is it really true that God repays evildoers by allowing something to happen to them? Is that what the retribution on judgment day is going to be, namely, that God just allows them to go into the lake of fire? Or is it, as this is more clearly developed, that God *casts* them into the lake of fire?
I think that, far from the arminian understanding of this passage, far from relating to the whole text, it is being artificially hoisted on this text, and other texts are grabbed, without any consideration as how those other texts fit into the overall storyline.
God Bless,
Adam
January 29th, 2010 @ 3:08 pm
Ben,
Was God active in taking them away? Yes, by allowing Satan to do these things. His action was permission.
However, the verb is not, “to give permission,” but, “to take.” You would be correct if the verb were some verb of granting permission, but it is not.
God did not intend for him (which is made very clear in 2:3)
No, that assumes that the Hebrew term swt somehow bears with it the idea that God was unwilling to do something. It means ” to incite.” Thus, it is simply referring to the idea that he was *encouraging* God to do this, or *urging* him to do this. Of course, the question naturally becomes, “urging him to do what?” This text actually argues for my position, not yours. Remember that Satan is responding to God’s boasting of her servant Job by a challenge, which involves a request to God. When you make a request to someone, do you not encourage them to do something, even if they already know what they are going to do? So how is this relevant?
But the beginning of the book sets up the proper context for understanding the rest of the book as a whole. You want to re-interpret the first few chapters which set up the story in light of various phrases isolated in subsequent chapters. That is a backwards hermeneutic. Chapters 1-2 set the stage and give the necessary background for properly understanding the rest of the book.
I agree, but there is nothing contradictory between the two sections. God allowed Satan to do what he did, and his hand was behind what Satan did. You want to argue that the allowing is what is *meant* by “giving and taking.” That is something you must argue. As I said, these are active verbs, and they are in parallel with blessings.
There is nothing in the text that even comes close to describing prior ordination. And there is no problem in seeing that Job’s losses came from the Lord as described above and in harmony with chapters 1-2 which tell us exactly how Job’s losses came to be.
Okay, then how do you reconcile the idea that God was the one who gave and took without the idea of foreordination? Did God somehow change what he had planned? Also, if you believe that the beginning of chapter 1 is what is meant by “:Job’s losses came from the Lord,” then do you also agree that this is how Job got his blessings, but God’s passive permission? The two are parallel, and cannot be separated.
Also, the Westminster confession is simply saying that God is not the author of sin, because they are describing what they are teaching. Also, you know that we believe God decreed the fall, but now it is incumbent upon you to show that this is sin on God’s part. If you cannot, then Adam is still the first sinner, and Adam is the one who brought sin into the world, even though God was the one who decreed that Adam would bring sin into the world.
God Bless,
Adam
January 29th, 2010 @ 3:25 pm
Adam said: “The parallelism is antithetical? Are you suggesting that we translate this clause, “The Lord has given, but the Lord has taken?” That makes no sense.”
**** It is antithetical in terms of being opposite types of action, giving vs. taking. An antithetical parallel does not need to coordinated by “but”. However, I was not necessarily indicating formal poetic anthithetical parallelism. The point is that the two parts depict God acting in two opposite ways.
Adam said: “The question then becomes, if you take your position, in what sense are the two clauses parallel at all? ”
**** This seems obvious in light of what I wrote concerning God bring calamity on Job (and you seem to have implictly granted some legitimacy by downplaying the “brought upon” language and pressing the “take way” language”). You admit that the parallel can be general. The context fills out the details yet again. God had blessed Job directly. Satan challenges that God’s blessing keeps Job loyal rather than his heart for God or what have you. Then we get the details that God allows Satan to afflict Job and to take from him. God brought good to Job by blessing him directly. God took from him by allowing Satan to take from him.
Adam said: “The problem is that it doesn’t just say that God brought calamity on Job, but, rather, it was God himself who “took” from him. There is no causative here; there is no passive here. Your interpretation flies in the face of the grammar itself.”
**** Honestly, this comment seems strange, as if “taking away” is somehow stronger language than “bringing upon”. I would say that it is every bit as reasonable to understand “taking away from Job” to mean allowing Satan to take away from Job in light of the greater details Job 1-2, which reveal that t his is exactly what happened. This doesn’t fly in the fac of grammar. It is to interpret language in accordance with standard exegetical methodology–in context.
Adam said: “Also, I think that, what is worse is that there is no reason, given your interpretation of the passage, to understand why anyone would even think of saying that Job was attributing evil to God. Yet, the text makes sure to let us know that Job did not sin by these actions.”
**** Well, Job wasn’t attributing evil to God at this point. Job eventiually does accuse God of wrongdoing, and it gets him into trouble. Hopefully you are not saying that you believe God committed wrongdoing against Job, are you? The approval of Job’s words has to do with his accepting his troubles from God’s hands and attributing no wrongdoing to God, just ther opposite of what it sounds like you are saying.
Adam said: “Also, this interpretation would require Job to know what happened in the throne room of God. Job has no clue what has happened there, as is apparent throughout the rest of the book, especially the sections where he calls God unjust. ”
**** Not at all. Any way you slice it God is involved in the siutation and his actions did result in calamity for Job. Job attributes it to God. But that is a far cry from saying that God irresistibly caused all that happened. And we don’t know exactly what how Job thought God was responsible at this point. When he comes to charge God with wrongdoing later, then he gets censured and eventually repents. He is also speaking generally in the midst of tragedy. Moreover, the text itself gives us an objective view of what actually happened and just how God took from Job–he allowed Satan to do so at Satan’s instigation.
Adam said: “It also makes no sense in the general understanding of retributive justice. Is it really true that God repays evildoers by allowing something to happen to them? Is that what the retribution on judgment day is going to be, namely, that God just allows them to go into the lake of fire? Or is it, as this is more clearly developed, that God *casts* them into the lake of fire?”
**** This seems irrelevant. Job does not charge God with punishing him for guilt. He insists on his own innocence and charges God with wrongdoing for afflicting him without cause. The context of the book reveals that God allowed Job to be afflicted by Satan without cause in that the affliction did not come for Job doing something wrong, though God’s permission was with cause in that God had a purpose to allow Satan to afflict Job without any guilt on Job’s part.
January 29th, 2010 @ 4:01 pm
Hello Nathaniel,
“If you believe that God is omniscient (if you don’t, we have other problems), then before we were ever created God knew what choices we would make.”
I am guessing that you are alluding to open theists (“if you don’t, we have other problems”). It ought to be noted that both open theists and Calvinists are in agreement that God cannot know the future choices of people if libertarian free will is involved (I have a simple LFW view: if we have a choice with regard to particular options, if our choice is not necessitated, then we have libertarian free will with regard to that choice). The open theist rejects divine infallible foreknowledge (scripture contradicts the open theist as it clearly teaches that God knows all things) and keeps free will. The Calvinist throws out free will (scripture contradicts the Calvinist as it clearly presents that we sometimes have choices). The bible affirms both infallible foreknowledge and free will. Perhaps I may not know or understand how the two can both be true (this is similar to understanding how God is one God and yet three persons, how Jesus is fully God and fully human, etc.), though there are differing suggested explanations (e.g. Molinism, Ockham’s view, the Boethian view, etc.), I personally see no conflict and affirm both as the bible affirms both.
“This means that even Arminians believe that we do not HAVE choices, we only make the choices that God KNEW we would make before the foundation of the world.”
Now you directly misrepresent my view (i.e. “even Arminians believe that we do not HAVE choices”). Arminians and other non-Calvinists believe that we DO HAVE choices.
It is the Calvinist whose exhaustive predeterminism precludes us from ever having choices, so that all we end up doing is making the choices that God decided we would make beforehand. I say that we both have and make choices and that God foreknows both the options that we will have (i.e. the choice that we have) as well as what selections we end up making (i.e., the choice that we make).
“However, this is not the main problem with your argument. The real issue is how we define freedom.”
I am affirming the common and ordinary understanding of “free will” (i.e., that we have multiple possibilities from which to choose and we then choose one of them). I would also suggest that the bible evidences this same view of free will, as the bible presents many passages (this is what Dr. Brown means when he says “hundreds of bible verses”) where people have a choice. It is the Calvinist, the determinist, who because of his system of theology is forced to **redefine** free will so that it means only doing what you desire to do (which leaves out the reality that we sometimes HAVE CHOICES). It is because the determinist must redefine free will that Kant called it that “wretched subterfuge”.
“You are viewing freedom in a libertarian sense. In this system, choice is defined as: “being able to choose anything even against your greatest desire.””
First you claim my definition of free will is wrong, now you caricature and misrepresent my view as being able to choose “even against your greatest desire”. I never said that or suggested that. In fact I believe we do in fact choose to do what we desire to do.
By misrepresenting my view you set up a false dilemma, the choice is between a misrepresentation of my view (not mine and not that of other libertarians: (A) that free will means choosing against your greatest desire) versus your view (B) that we choose according to our greatest desire (i.e. “Calvinists believe in compatiblist freedom which is defined as, “being able to choose what is constrained by our greatest desire.” ). And actually your presentation of the Jonathan Edwards view is mistaken here as well (he did not argue that out choices are **constrained** or limited by our greatest desire, he argued that our choices are necessitated by our greatest desire).
“So the discussion about what it means to HAVE choices and to MAKE choices is really irrelevant because we are comparing to different systems of freedom.”
Actually it is quite relevant. Again I am operating from the ordinary and common sense understanding and of what it means to have free will (i.e. to have and then make a choice with respect to a particular action). Now you may not believe that free will as ordinarily understood exists due to your theological system, but my understanding not yours is evidenced throughout scripture. And if you read my initial post carefully I provided a very clear way of absolutely refuting Calvinism (at least the version that claims all events have been decreed, all events have been predetermined, all events have been pre-decided by God): that form of Calvinism contains within it a universal negative (i.e. that we never ever have a choice). Any (and there is lots and lots of it both from scripture and our own daily experience) evidence that counters this universal negative refutes that form of Calvinism.
“ The Calvinist would say HAVING choices is not a necessary condition for freedom, since we always choose according to our greatest desire.”
Some Calvinists would say that, those who are determinists would say that, those who want to believe that God predetermines all events. Some Calvinists (e.g. I have a friend who runs a prominent apologetics organization who holds to TULIP when it comes to his soteriology but also believes that we sometimes have choices, so he holds to both TULIP and libertarian free will in certain areas) would allow for the reality that we sometimes have choices.
“The Libertarian would say the opposite. It is necessary that we HAVE choices in order to have freedom, but in the light of God’s omniscience we do not actually have freedom in a libertarian sense.”
Here you simply declare that if God foreknows a future outcome then that outcome eliminates libertarian free will. But this is not an argument but merely an assertion. If you want to see various responses to this assertion, I suggest that you go to the Society of Evangelical Arminian website and look in the section dealing with foreknowledge:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/taxonomy/term/6
(included you will find an article that I wrote on this very subject showing there is no incompatibility between libertarian free will and God’s infallible foreknowledge).
Robert
January 29th, 2010 @ 4:02 pm
Hello Adam,
“Robert, do you ever do something that you are not inclined to do? If you don’t, then your choices are always determined by your inclinations.”
Perhaps you need to define what you mean by “inclination”. If you mean “desire” then I would agree that we do what we desire to do. The problem is that sometimes when facing a particular choice we may have different desires from which to choose (e.g. do I want the chocolate because it is my favorite or do I want the vanilla because the vanilla flavor is on sale today?)
“Here is the question. We as Calvinists believe that God decrees an action. Why do assume that you cannot, because of your own inclinations, choose the same action that God has decreed?”
It is not merely a question of choosing to do what God has decreed. The problem is to assume that God has decreed ***everything that takes place***. Can you agree that if God decrees an outcome that we do something, then we will in fact do that? If so, then if God has decreed all events, then we always and only do what he decreed that we would do. And if we always and only do what he decreed that we would do then we never ever **have** choices. In such a fully predetermined world we **make** choices (i.e. we make the choice that God decided beforehand that we would make, but we never ever **have a choice** between options were we could choose either option).
“Put another way, we just need to add this simple truth, and I believe it resolves this problem: God can make human actions certain without the use of coercion.
How does he do that? I don’t know. However, there is nothing self-contradictory about it.”
I believe that God can make a particular future action certain to occur via his infallible foreknowledge (he knows you will choose todo something in the future and he does not interfere with your making that choice and his foreknowledge is infallible so you will do that action with certainty), though I do not know how he foreknows actions that involve freely made choices.
The crucifixion of Jesus is a perfect example of this. God knew the reaction and responses that men would freely choose in response to the Incarnation of Jesus and Jesus’ words and actions. God knew if Jesus came in the flesh, then specific evil people would make specific evil choices including crucifying Jesus (“you nailed to a cross b the hands of godless men and put Him to death” Acts 2:23) . God permitted these evil choices to occur and so through his infallible foreknowledge knew the outcome. So the crucifixion of Jesus involved evil choices freely made by evil men, choices that God knew they would make, the outcome was certain to occur and God could thus speak of it beforehand in OT prophecy and the apostles could declare it to be planned by God not accidental (“this Man delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” Acts 2:23, cf. Acts 4:27-28 “both Herod and Pontus Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur”).
Robert
January 29th, 2010 @ 4:02 pm
Hello Christophe,
“In your long treatise you have presented a lot of philosophical and humanistic thinking regarding choices but not one Scriptural proof to discuss which would do you and us much better than repeating over and over the same deliberations…”
I have sometimes seen Calvinists attempt to frame things as between the “humanism and man centeredness of non-Calvinists” versus the “biblical and God-centeredness of Calvinists”. This is an unfair characterization of non-Calvinists. A non-Calvinist may be very biblical and God centered **without being a Calvinist**. Your words here seem to be implying this distinction.
I would also add that God designed us with a mind and expects us to use our minds and carefully think through things. My earlier post was not “humanistic thinking” it was merely speaking and thinking logically through the issue of free will (which I take to mean simply that we sometimes have and make choices).
“You misunderstand Reformed position and you misunderstand Dr. White presentation.”
Actually I understand Calvinism very well. In fact I understand multiple versions of Calvinism (including the supralapsarian and infralapsarian positions, the Molinist version of Calvinism as espoused by people like Ware, etc. etc.).
Unfortunately this is a common response from Calvinists when their beliefs are challenged (i.e., they will say: “you say that because you really do not understand our position”; when in reality it is precisely because non-Calvinists understand Calvinism that they reject it).
“the Reformed do not deny that we have choices and will but we have those according to our nature that is either regenerated nature or reprobate nature.”
Apparently you have not thought through the implications of a Calvinism which affirms that God predetermines every event,that God has a total plan than encompasses all events which he then brings about as actual history.
The fact is if God has predetermined every event then we can never ever have a choice.
The most the Calvinist (who espouses exhaustive predeterminism of all events) can affirm is that he **makes** choices. But if he is consistent with his exhaustive predetermination of all events, then he must both admit and affirm that we **never ever have a choice**.
Here is an example to clarify what I mean that this version of Calvinism precludes us from ever having a choice.
In Genesis before the fall (so it cannot be argued that Adam’s choices were necessitated by a sinful nature), God paraded the animals before Adam and said to Adam that it was up to him whatever name the animals would have. Say Adam was looking at a lion considering whether to call it a “blip”, a “blop”, or a “bleep”. If Adam had free will, if he had a choice with regard to these options then he could have named the lion any of these three names. And whatever name Adam ended up with, God who foreknows everything, would know what the name would be.
In exhaustive predeterminism on the other hand. God decided beforehand what name Adam would give to the Lion as part of his total plan for the World (say God decided the name would be a “bleep”) and though God said to Adam the names were up to him and his choice; this was not in fact the case at all. If the name was predetermined, predecided by God, then Adam may have thought that he had a choice so that he could call the Lion a “blip”, a “bleep”, or a “blop”. Adam may have mistakenly taken the words from God that the names were up to him as meaning that he had a real choice, that it was up to him what they would be named and that different possibilities were available. But not if all of his actions were predetermined (in that case he would have had to have called the lion a “bleep” and it was **impossible** for him to have chosen the name “blip” or “blop” or anything else).
And if he had to name it the predecided name, and it was impossible for him to do otherwise, then he did not HAVE A CHOICE.
He would go through the motions of making the choice, deliberate about it, consider different options, but make no mistake he would have had no choice, it would have been impossible for him to have a choice in that situation. Having a choice would have been precluded by the fact that God had already decided beforehand what the name would be and God predetermined his every action and thought and directly and completely and continuously controlled him to ensure that he give it the name that God decided he would give it.
Robert
January 29th, 2010 @ 5:03 pm
Arminian,
It is antithetical in terms of being opposite types of action, giving vs. taking. An antithetical parallel does not need to coordinated by “but”. However, I was not necessarily indicating formal poetic anthithetical parallelism. The point is that the two parts depict God acting in two opposite ways
This seems obvious in light of what I wrote concerning God bring calamity on Job (and you seem to have implictly granted some legitimacy by downplaying the “brought upon” language and pressing the “take way” language”)..
Because you aren’t clearly defining what you mean, you confusing categories. There are certain concepts of parallelism that will help us with this, but we need to define our terms properly.
First of all, what you are referring to here in Job 1:21 is called a lexical aspect of parallelism. Lexemes used within parallelism can, indeed, be opposites. However, these must be understood as opposites in terms of the *meaning* of lexical items, and not in terms of *grammatical forms,* such as active vs passive.
Now, there is a category of parallel of grammatical forms, and, yes, even active to passive. However, in all examples of this, there is a clear shift from an active construction to a passive construction. Consider these examples:
Psalm 24:7
Lift up your heads, O ye gates,
Be lifted up, ye ever lasting doors.
1 Samuel 1:28
And I, in turn, lend him to the Lord
For as long as he lives he is lent to the Lord.
As you can see, examples of this kind of parallelism are very distinctive, and very clearly not what we have in Job 1:21.
You admit that the parallel can be general.
No, what I said was that parallelism does not have to be synonymous. However, there must always be some relationship between the two. If there isn’t any relationship between the two, then in what sense can the two clauses be said to be parallel?
Well, Job wasn’t attributing evil to God at this point. Job eventiually does accuse God of wrongdoing, and it gets him into trouble. Hopefully you are not saying that you believe God committed wrongdoing against Job, are you? The approval of Job’s words has to do with his accepting his troubles from God’s hands and attributing no wrongdoing to God, just ther opposite of what it sounds like you are saying.
No, the point is that no one is ever going to even think of attributing wrong doing to God just by allowing Satan to have his “free will.” However, someone might think God has done something wrong if his hand was in back of everything that happened to Job.
Honestly, this comment seems strange, as if “taking away” is somehow stronger language than “bringing upon”. I would say that it is every bit as reasonable to understand “taking away from Job” to mean allowing Satan to take away from Job in light of the greater details Job 1-2, which reveal that t his is exactly what happened. This doesn’t fly in the fac of grammar. It is to interpret language in accordance with standard exegetical methodology–in context.
However, the grammar of that passage is part of the context. Grammar, syntax, pragmatics, paranomatics, discourse, etc. must all be taken into consideration, and, if an interpretation flies in the face of any one of those, it is impossible.
Not at all. Any way you slice it God is involved in the siutation and his actions did result in calamity for Job. Job attributes it to God. But that is a far cry from saying that God irresistibly caused all that happened. And we don’t know exactly what how Job thought God was responsible at this point. When he comes to charge God with wrongdoing later, then he gets censured and eventually repents. He is also speaking generally in the midst of tragedy. Moreover, the text itself gives us an objective view of what actually happened and just how God took from Job–he allowed Satan to do so at Satan’s instigation.
You are missing the point. How could Job be talking about something that happened back in chapter 1 in the throne room of God, when he knows nothing of what happened in the throne room of God? We know that this is the case simply because of the fact that he calls God unjust. It is clear he doesn’t understand what happened with Satan. Hence, how could he be referring to what happened with Satan?
This seems irrelevant. Job does not charge God with punishing him for guilt. He insists on his own innocence and charges God with wrongdoing for afflicting him without cause. The context of the book reveals that God allowed Job to be afflicted by Satan without cause in that the affliction did not come for Job doing something wrong, though God’s permission was with cause in that God had a purpose to allow Satan to afflict Job without any guilt on Job’s part.
No, but his friends do. For example, Job 8:6:
If you are pure and upright, Surely now He would rouse Himself for you And restore your righteous estate.
However, I think the clearest example of this is in Job 4:7-9:
“Remember now, who {ever} perished being innocent? Or where were the upright destroyed?
“According to what I have seen, those who plow iniquity And those who sow trouble harvest it.
“By the breath of God they perish, And by the blast of His anger they come to an end.
The point his friends are making is that God would never afflict a man who is righteous since God rewards the righteous. However, it is by the breath of his anger that he gives the wicked their just desserts. Is that active or passive? Again, the main point that Job’s friends are trying to argue is that Job is getting his just recompense for some sin he must have committed. That is clearly active in character, not passive. Job does not deny that God has caused this, but believes that he has wrongly afflicted him.
Again, I have no problems with trying to understand this text in the context of chapters 1 and 2. The problem is that the two statements “God permitted Satan to harm Job,” and “God’s hand was behind the action of Satan harming Job” are not contradictory. Calvinists allow both texts to speak for themselves. You are trying to equate the two, without any exegetical justification.
God Bless,
Adam
January 29th, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
Hi Adam,
I just saw your comment. Sorry I hadn’t seen it earlier. The parallel is not focused on the action itself but on the intentions behind the action. In any case, (1) White is making too much of it being parallel, like the whole weight of the interpretation of the text is based on that; (2) nothing at all is stated regarding God preordaining (or predestinating) anything. How White gets the idea of “predestined” from the Hebrew (wherein the KJV translates it as “meant”) is beyond me.
Please note, where does it say God planned evil? You go beyond the meaning of the text and thereby impugn God’s goodness; you charge him with planning a morally evil act in conjunction with his brothers. That it God worked it out for good is irrelevant. Like Paul, I ask, should God do evil – moral evil, sin – that good may come out of it?
January 29th, 2010 @ 5:10 pm
Nelson,
Please note, where does it say God planned evil? You go beyond the meaning of the text and thereby impugn God’s goodness;
Well, the text says:
You planned evil against me,
but God planned it for good.
To what does the “it” refer to? It is clearly feminine in the Hebrew, and the only feminine noun in the context is ra’ah, “evil.” Hence, God and Joseph’s brothers both planned the same evil. The difference is that one planned the evil with good intentions [God], and the other planned it with evil intentions [Joseph's brothers]. Hence, while I agree that there is a difference in intention, there is not a difference in terms of who planned what.
God Bless,
Adam
January 29th, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
Adam,
First, the simple meaning of the Hebrew is that “it” refers to what happened to Joseph, and referring to “it” in feminine is perfectly appropriate.
Second, ra’ah often simply means “bad” as opposed to “evil” (although here, it could well mean “evil” since it was the brothers intent to harm.)
In any case, it is a totally gratuitous and plainly wrong reading of the Hebrew here to claim that it means that God planned evil in the case of Joseph. Absolutely not! The text says the exact opposite, and I challenge you to find one solid Hebrew scholar would make a good case for the reading you suggest. Even on a logical level, your interpretation is impossible, as if it meant, “God planned evil for good!”
January 29th, 2010 @ 6:56 pm
Robert,
“I am affirming the common and ordinary understanding of “free will””
The common and ordinary understanding of freewill would have to be confirmed (of course) by Scripture. I do not think it is. I reject this “common and ordinary understanding” (as you call it) in favor of what I think is represented in Scripture.
“First you claim my definition of free will is wrong, now you caricature and misrepresent my view as being able to choose “even against your greatest desire”. I never said that or suggested that. In fact I believe we do in fact choose to do what we desire to do.”
Ah, in order to be libertarian free will it must be free of all causation. That does not mean you cannot be influenced by desire, but it does mean that in order to be free, to must not be constrained by anything in order nature – that includes our greatest desire.
“(A) that free will means choosing against your greatest desire) versus your view (B) that we choose according to our greatest desire (i.e. “Calvinists believe in compatiblist freedom which is defined as, “being able to choose what is constrained by our greatest desire.” ). And actually your presentation of the Jonathan Edwards view is mistaken here as well (he did not argue that out choices are **constrained** or limited by our greatest desire, he argued that our choices are necessitated by our greatest desire).”
First, I did not say that you choose against your greatest desire but that you have the ability to do so. Second, I did not mean misrepresent Edwards. Although “constrained” can be used (indeed we are constrained by our greatest desire), it is not as precise as necessitate. We are constrained by our natures and always choose according to our greatest desire. You could be more charitable to me in representing my argument.
“Now you may not believe that free will as ordinarily understood exists due to your theological system, but my understanding not yours is evidenced throughout scripture.”
Here’s where the difference is. I believe that I have ample support in Scripture for Compatiblist freedom, and I believe that your system does not fully explain what is attested in Scripture.
January 29th, 2010 @ 7:07 pm
Dr. Brown,
First, the simple meaning of the Hebrew is that “it” refers to what happened to Joseph, and referring to “it” in feminine is perfectly appropriate.
It could be appropriate, but not in this context. Waltke/O’Connor in An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax write the following with regard to this usage:
Finally, we may mention cases in which there is no true antecedent for a pronoun-what, so to speak, is the gender of a situation or an action? Such a dummy or imersonal pronoun is usually feminine IBHS §6.6d
Thus, Waltke/O’Connor state that this dummy usage is only in a situation where we have no clear antecedent, which we clearly do here.
Even someone who doesn’t agree with me, someone like Victor P Hamilton, likewise agrees that the antecedent is not the previous clause:
As attractive as it is, Brueggemann’s proposal overlooks one point. The text reads literally, “You planned [or 'reckoned,' or 'did'] against me evil; God planned [or 'did'] it for good.” That is, the second occurance of chashab (now with God as the subject) has a pronominal suffix (3rd fem. sing.) attached to it. The antecedent for “it” can only be ra’a or an implied machashaba.
Notice also how Hamilton also uses “to plan” as his main translation for chashab. Also, a man who you might think would be totally against my translation, also accepts the translation of “plan,” Dr. Walter Brueggemann:
The conventional translation “meant” is illuminated by the alternative rendering of chachab as plan. Thus, “you planned it for evil, but God planned it for good” [Genesis Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, p.373].
In fact, if I may add two scholars to the mix who are currently Phd students here at Trinity. The first is M.A. Scott Booth, who is also not a Calvinist, and he told me that my understanding “God planned evil for good” is correct, and the fact that it is correct is a non-issue. He told me that the text is difficult, but, even stronger, he told me that your understanding of the text is theologically driven, and not exegetically driven. I was suprised he was so strong, but that is what he said. Likewise, M.A. Jillian Ross, another Phd candidate colleague of mine, said that I was correct, and that the referent for the 3fs was “evil.”
Also, Scott and I did a study on accordance to find examples of parallel clauses in which you have a feminine noun mentioned in the first clause, and a fs suffix in the second clause, and yet, it not refer to the noun, but the entirety of the preceding clause. We couldn’t find any. Examples we found that were similar to this text were Genesis 23:11, Deuteronomy 30:5, Ezekiel 7:22, and Malachi 2:2, all of them clearly referring back to the previous noun, and not the previous clause.
Second, ra’ah often simply means “bad” as opposed to “evil” (although here, it could well mean “evil” since it was the brothers intent to harm.)
I think the context dictates that it should be “evil,” since it is “against” Joseph. You don’t “mean bad” or “plan bad” against someone.
In any case, it is a totally gratuitous and plainly wrong reading of the Hebrew here to claim that it means that God planned evil in the case of Joseph. Absolutely not! The text says the exact opposite, and I challenge you to find one solid Hebrew scholar would make a good case for the reading you suggest.
Of course, I need to point out that the likelihood that I will be able to find someone who will express these things in the exact words I have is very low. However, can I find someone who says the same thing, but in different words? Sure. The whole school of interpreting this passage that comes from Van Rad. Consider Gordon Wenham quoting Von Rad at this point:
Van Rad (432) says, “The statement about the brothers’ evil plans and God’s good plans now opens up the inmost mystery of the Joseph story. It is in every respect, along with the similar passage in ch. 45:5-7, the climax to the whole. Even where no man could imagine it, God had all the strings in his hand. But this guidance of God is only asserted; nothing more explicit is said about the way in which God incorporated man’s evil into his saving activity [Genesis 16-50 p.490].
Now, let me ask you, what does it mean that God had all the strings in his hand, other than that he was planning and purposing everything that happened, including the evil? That phrase should make any Arminian screech in horror. Clearly then, both Wenham and Von Rad, and that entire school of interpetation of this text would be a valid group of scholars to point to.
Even on a logical level, your interpretation is impossible, as if it meant, “God planned evil for good!”
What is so incoherent about the idea of God planning evil for a good purpose, and a good intention?
God Bless,
Adam
January 29th, 2010 @ 8:20 pm
Adam,
God doesn’t do evil, by definition. If it’s evil, it’s not from Him — as universally attested in the Word. When God does ra’ or ra’ah, it refers to disaster or calamity, not “evil.” God is light and in Him is no darkness. That’s why, e.g., He puts to death but does not murder. (Show me where “murder” is ever used with regard to Him in the Word, just as one example.)
Furthermore, the fact that some scholars read Gen 50 in a Calvinistic way proves what we know: Some do and some don’t. But even God pulling all the strings doesn’t mean He moved on someone to do evil. He simply superintended all the events that took place to get His desired ends.
As for the observations above, yes, I understand that potentially, “evil” could be implied in the second phrase, but it is patently obvious that this is not the case, but rather the whole event or, as stated above, the mahshabah is what is in mind. If, however, you step back from the viewpoint you’re trying to find in the text and understand things differently, then it works fine: You intended this evil act for your diabolical purposes, but purposed to use it for good purposes.
In any case, you can attempt to prove the point all you want, but it will go nowhere, since you have to force it onto the text and since it violates the revealed nature of God — particularly in the case where the meaning of ra’ah, as applied to the brothers, can only mean “evil” — and therefore this cannot apply to God’s own actions.
As for translating with “plan,” it’s possible but would not be my first choice, but, with God’s foreknowledge, He could plan that what you plan for evil purposes, He will use for good purposes.
I stand in awe before the wisdom of our God.
January 29th, 2010 @ 8:23 pm
Adam,
BTW, the note in the Jewish Study Bible nicely sums up the obvious: “[Joseph's] rationale rests on the idea that the malignant intentions of human beings can realize the benign intentions of God.”
January 29th, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
Adam,
One last note: Aside from the fact that you’re quoting Von Rad and not the Bible (presumably from Wenham’s commentary, where Von Rad is cited), if you think this would make any Arminian screech in horror, then you really don’t understand what we believe at all. And even Von Rad is against you, stating that “God incorporated man’s evil into his saving activity.” Exactly! He didn’t cause the evil but incorporated it into His saving activity.
January 29th, 2010 @ 11:56 pm
“The fact is if God has predetermined every event then we can never ever have a choice.”
Robert
Not so. You claim to know Reformed Faith… What does it mean for you? Five Points? Five Points is just a cover of a great and thick book and I speak in terms of the wealth of a blessing.
As far as will of God which is really ONE even though to begin to understand it and to begin to relate to it biblicaly we have to differentiate two facets of it READ here:
”
May the will be properly distinguished into the will of decree and of precept, good purpose (eudokias) and good pleasure (euarestias), signified, secret and revealed? We affirm.
I. Although the will in God is only one and most simple, by which he comprehends all things by a single and most simple act so that he sees and understands all things at one glance, yet because it is occupied differently about various objects, it thus happens that in our manner of conception, it may be apprehended as manifold (not in itself and intrinsically on the part of the act of willing, but extrinsically and objectively on the part of the things willed).
II. Hence have arisen various distinctions of the will of God. The first and principal distinction is that of the decretive and preceptive will. The former means that which God wills to do or permit himself; the latter what he wills that we should do. The former relates to the futurition and the event of things and is the rule of God’s external acts; the latter is concerned with precepts and promises and is the rule of our action. The former cannot be resisted and is always fulfilled: “Who hath resisted his will?” (Rom. 9:19). The latter is often violated by men: “How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not (Mt. 23:37).
III. As there are various passages of Scripture in which the will of God is taken either for the decree (Rom. 9:19; Eph. 1:ll) or for the precept (Ps. 143:10; Rom. 12:2), so there are also some in which both wills of God are signified at the same time (i.e., Jn. 6:38, where Christ says, “I came down to do the will of him that sent me” [i.e., to fulfil the things decreed by God and to obey the command of the Father]). And when we say in the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy will be done,” we ask that our lives may correspond to his precepts and his decrees be fulfilled.
IV. Although the precept falls also under the decree as to proposition, still it does not fall as to execution. Thus they may be properly distinguished from each other, so as the will of decree may be that which determines the event of things, but the will of precept that which prescribes to man his duty. Therefore God can (without a contradiction) will as to precept what he does not will as to decree inasmuch as he wills to prescribe something to man, but does not will to effect it (as he willed Pharaoh to release the people, but yet nilled their actual release).
V. Hence it happens that although these wills may be conceived by us as diverse (owing to the diversity of the objects), yet they are not contrary. For as was just said, they are not occupied about the same thing. Undoubtedly if God by the power of his decree would impel men to do what he has by his law prohibited, or if when attempting to obey the law he would by an opposite impediment recall them from obedience, he would will repugnancies and be himself opposed to his own will. But the decree of God does not contend with his command when he prescribes to man his bounden duty (for the performance of which, however, he does not will to give the strength because he wills indeed the thing as to the proposition of duty, but yet not as to the execution of the event).”
Francis Turretin
Source: http://bit.ly/c72Zqc
“And if he had to name it the predecided name, and it was impossible for him to do otherwise, then he did not HAVE A CHOICE.”
Robert,
I know that the “holy grail” of so many Arminians is the “CHOICE”…This is the paradigm in which GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has to fit in to be acceptable to Arminian.
Not so if you want to be subordinate to His Word and not to subordinate His Word to you.
As in:
“all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”
Daniel 4:35 ESV
SDG
Christophe
January 30th, 2010 @ 12:18 am
Christophe,
Do you understand that the reason that those of us here are not Calvinists is because we insist on being subordinate to the Word? You claim that we want to subordinate His Word to ourselves. But that just proves again that you fail to recognize what motivates us (or, speaking for myself, me) to hold to this position.
Whatever God says, I bow down to; whatever I see in His Word is truth; no matter how costly. Friends of mine have been tortured for their faith. One of the men we recently sent out to minister in tribal regions in India was martyred by Hindus. As a Jew, I have faced ridicule and rejection because of my faith in Yeshua. But the Word is true and Jesus is Lord and therefore I joyfully submit and obey. Yet you make the utterly vacuous claim that those who are not Calvinists want God to conform to them. Really, I hesitate even to dignify such a comment, yet it calls for correction, hence this post.
Until you recognize that I am not a Calvinist because of (what is to me) the clear testimony of the Word, you have no ability to dialog in truth. On my end, although I’m convinced you are mistaken, I have no question that you’re seeking to submit to the testimony of Scripture. Unfortunately, the very Calvinistic arrogance that I mentioned to Dr. White (and which he deplored) manifests itself in comments accusing those of us who reject your views of somehow trying to create a God who “has to fit in to be acceptable to Arminian.” To the contrary, I emphasize choice because God did in His Word and in His system. If He emphasized what you believe, I would advocate that.
May the Lord help you to understand those with whom you differ. And Daniel 4:35 has been a wonderful, oft-quoted, favorite text of mine for many years too. That is the sovereign God before Whom I stand in awe.
January 30th, 2010 @ 1:34 am
Hello Nathaniel,
“The common and ordinary understanding of freewill would have to be confirmed (of course) by Scripture. I do not think it is. I reject this “common and ordinary understanding” (as you call it) in favor of what I think is represented in Scripture.”
When Dr. Brown has said repeatedly that there are lots and lots of verses that support free will. He means that when many bible verses are interpreted by proper interpretive methods and according to the plain and intended meaning of the texts, the “ordinary understanding” of free will is all over the bible. In fact you have to reinterpret a lot of bible verses not to see it.
“Ah, in order to be libertarian free will it must be free of all causation.”
Wow that is an amazing caricature of the libertarian free will view.
Where did you get that?
So you think the libertarian believes that freely made choices are UNCAUSED EVENTS?
Which libertarian says that?
Where have I said or suggested **that** in any of my posts here?
I never defined free will as being “free of all causation” nor do the libertarians that I know define it that way. I believe that we cause our own intentional actions (i.e. I believe in agent causation).
Example = say a student is in a class and is deciding between the alternative of lifting up his/her arm and asking the professor a question versus the alternative of not lifting up his/her arm to ask a question. If they end up choosing to ask the question and so signal the professor by lifting up their arm: WHO LIFTED UP THE ARM? They did. Did the lifting of the arm involve any causation? Of course, they caused their own arm to lift up.
“First, I did not say that you choose against your greatest desire but that you have the ability to do so. Second, I did not mean misrepresent Edwards. Although “constrained” can be used (indeed we are constrained by our greatest desire), it is not as precise as necessitate. We are constrained by our natures and always choose according to our greatest desire.“
Jonathan Edwards claimed that: we always choose according to our greatest desire. But Edwards’ claim is a mere tautology (i.e., a proposition that is true by definition). The student is considering whether or not to ask the question, if they ask the question then that choice was their greatest desire according to Edwards, if they don’t ask the question then that choice was their greatest desire according to Edwards, either way whatever they end up choosing to do is their greatest desire. That means that the claim that we always choose according to our greatest desire is a mere tautology, it is true by definition, but in reality it really doesn’t say much. The more important issue which Edwards neglected in his book on free will is why, with respect to a particular choice where there are competing desires, different alternative possibilities. The person ends up choosing one alternative rather than the other (when both alternatives were attractive in some way, the person had access to both possibilities, and the person had the ability to do either action).
Many Calvinists today appear to remain stuck on Edwards type thinking on free will, like a needle stuck in a broken record: not realizing that the contemporary discussion of free will has progressed beyond Edwards (which is why he is not cited much anymore in contemporary literature except for Calvinists, whom, you guessed it, appeal to Edwards’ view of free will in order to argue for their Calvinism.)
“Here’s where the difference is. I believe that I have ample support in Scripture for Compatiblist freedom,”
The Scripture **is** clear, people have lots of choices and we then make choices and are responsible for those choices.
“and I believe that your system does not fully explain what is attested in Scripture.”
“your system . . . “
What system?
I don’t have a system.
That is one of the problems: people interpret according to a man invented system and their system dictates their interpretations, like the calvinistic system, the Dispensational system, etc. etc. so the scripture has to be made to fit their preconceived system (rather than vice versa). Some act as if they are slaves of their systems completely unable to think in any other way or even understand or comprehend how someone else could possibly think or interpret things differently. Instead of scripture leading to their conclusions and being the basis of their conclusions, the scripture is **made to fit** (sometimes even forced to fit) their preferred system. And often if you know what system the person is committed to, then you can predict very well how they will interpret certain bible passages (not because the bible says what they are claiming, but because the system says one thing and so for them to be consistent with their system the bible will have to be made to say the same thing as the system).
Robert
January 30th, 2010 @ 2:22 am
Robert,
“I never defined free will as being “free of all causation” nor do the libertarians that I know define it that way. I believe that we cause our own intentional actions (i.e. I believe in agent causation).”
You really haven’t defined freedom at all. I think it would worth while for you to give a formal definition. Your example, however, is lacking. The student caused himself to raise his hand; however, if we were to ask the student why he raised his hand, we would find a string of many reasons that ultimately leads to nowhere. The reason why the student raised his hand is free from any necessary causation, which includes causation that could be derived from his own nature.
“The more important issue which Edwards neglected in his book on free will is why, with respect to a particular choice where there are competing desires, different alternative possibilities.”
We can have competing strong desires, but what we ultimately choose is our greatest desire. For example, I could really want to obey God’s law, but I have other desires in my nature that are stronger than that desire to obey God’s law. I think John Frame deals with this really well in his book, Doctrine of God.
“Many Calvinists today appear to remain stuck on Edwards type thinking on free will, like a needle stuck in a broken record: not realizing that the contemporary discussion of free will has progressed beyond Edwards”
Edwards discussion on the will is definitely important to us, but that’s because we think he’s right. I would not say that we are stuck on it, for many Calvinists have continued to advance and fine tune Edward’s argument. Again, I refer to John Frame as a demonstration of that point.
“What system?
I don’t have a system. ”
Yes you do, Robert. Everyone goes to one system or another. We may not be Roman Catholic about it. We may differ in some areas or many areas, but that does not mean we do not find ourselves inside a system of thinking. Actually, I cannot imagine why you would object to the term. We are influenced by philosophy, theology, science, etc. Of course, we attempt to view the world through Scripture. That is, we try through prayer, meditation, communing with the saints, etc. to become more Biblical in our understanding of the world. We want our system to be the Biblical system. However, you and I differ on what the Biblical system entails. That’s why I say your system is do not provide a convincing explanation of what’s in Scripture.
January 30th, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
Dr. Brown,
This will be my last reply to you on this topic, as I think the issues have been laid out clearly. You have the last word, if you want it.
I think that your first paragraph is exactly what I want to say. The main reason that you cannot accept what I have said has more to do with the fact that, if you believe God planned evil, you would have to say that God has done something evil. That, I think, is exactly what I want to say. Exegetical discussions aside, this really is the bottom line with your understanding of this passage.
Secondly, as far as the statement from Von Rad, I was not referring to the statement you quoted. I was referring to his statement about “strings in his hand.” Secondly, I did find the quotation from Von Rad. The edition of his commentary being cited is the 1961 Westminster Press edition, page 432.
Also, I was in the library earlier today looking to see how some of the older grammarians understood this passage, and I came upon the following quotation by S.R. Driver:
The verse brings out the didactic import of the narrative: God often accomplishes his ends through human means, without the knowledge, and even against the wishes, of the agents who actually give them effect [The Book of Genesis. Westminster Commentaries. Methuen and Co. London, England. 1904. p.398].
Also, my intent in quoting scholars was not to say that this proves my case; obviously, that is up for grabs for people to argue and debate. My only point was that the things I was saying about the translation of this text are not unusual at all. I have carefully reasoned out what I believe about this passage, and, as you have said, we just have to agree to disagree.
Now, as far as the antecedent to the suffix, it is not a matter of possibility, it is a matter of what is most likely. I do not believe that it can be a feminine neuterum since, as Waltke/O’Connor said, it is in a place where there is no clear antecedent. Even one of the commentaries I cited say that there were really only the two possibilities.
However, other than that, when it comes to both the antecedent of the suffix, the meaning of chashab, or any other issue, we have to consider which is the most likely meaning in terms of grammar, syntax, pragmatics, structure, and even, at times, phonology. We cannot just talk about what is “possible.” For example, not only do you have only one word intervening between the noun ra’a and the verb with the suffix, but you also have an assonance connecting ra’a with the following clause:
we’atem chashabtem ‘alay ra’a elohim chashaba letoba
Again, the issue has to be, taking into account the assonance between these two clauses, taking into account the fact that the feminine ra’a is only two words before chashaba, one has to ask what is the most likely?
Also, again, no one is arguing that it is not *possible* for ra’a to mean something like “calamity.” The issue is, again, the other semantic considerations. As you mentioned, it is the parallel actions of the brothers, as well as the context of chashab that argue strongly against such an understanding. While it is true that God can be the one who brings ra’a, and it can mean “calamity” in such a context, I am unaware where there is any context where it has that meaning as the object of chashab, with God as the subject, being paralleled with the evil actions of the brothers.
The same thing is true with chashab; Yes, the meaning “to plan” is not the most common meaning, but we are in a context where there are direct objects, and we are in a context where wicked deeds are the object. That is why the commentaries I cited, as well as the Hebrew Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament, in definition 5, applies that meaning to this passage. One has to take other things into consideration than just lexicography, grammar, etc. alone. When one is looking at the meaning of a passage. All of these things work together to give us a much broader picture of meaning within language.
Even Dennis Pardee criticized Waltke/O’Connor because of their lack of discussion of textlinguistics in a textbook on syntax. His discussion shows that syntax, grammar, and even the choice of lexicographical meanings must be intimately related to other branches of linguistics such as pragmatics, grammar, syntax, the whole discussion of textlinguistics, and even phonetics at times. If you don’t take these things into consideration, and focus on what is possible, you can never understand what is specifically going on in an individual text.
Also, Dr. Brown, let me conclude this discussion with you very warmly. While I don’t agree with your understanding of this text, I want you to know that I pray for your ministry, and I specifically pray that your ministry will lead thousands of Jews to Christ. I also appreciate the fact that you are challenging antitrinitarians, and defending the faith against the issues that really do separate the orthodox from the unorthodox. Also, I really do appreciate that you are one of the people standing up for Christian values, in a world that is self-destructing fast.
So, again, please understand that I do have a lot of respect for you and your ministry, as do all my professors. One day, maybe our paths will cross in the academic world!
God Bless,
Adam
January 30th, 2010 @ 1:57 pm
Adam,
Thanks for your gracious words, and I do appreciate your desire to do serious exegesis of the text. Re: Von Rad, I fully understood the portion you were citing and attempted to respond to that, and yes, I had located his quote in the Wenham commentary, although I have Von Rad as well. Thanks also for the other linguistic references you provide here as well.
To be succinct in my reply (especially since, having reviewed the issues again last night and looking at a host of translations, beginning with Onkelos, I see no valid way to support your understanding of the text), my formal academic training is in comparative Semitic philology, not theology. Everything for me begins with the original language texts (I’ve far more proficient in Hebrew than in Greek, but because of my philological training, I’m able to assess the Greek issues fairly well too), and it is based on those texts that I do exegesis, then build my theology on that. My book Israel’s Divine Healer, is probably the best example of that approach. So, when you write that, “syntax, grammar, and even the choice of lexicographical meanings must be intimately related to other branches of linguistics such as pragmatics, grammar, syntax, the whole discussion of textlinguistics, and even phonetics at times. If you don’t take these things into consideration, and focus on what is possible, you can never understand what is specifically going on in an individual text.” I give my hearty amen! That’s exactly how I approach the biblical text. I could not have said it better myself. In fact, in the article I mentioned to Dr. White on my program, I cited my primary mentor at NYU, Prof. Baruch Levine, who noted that “one whose ultimate goal it is to reconstruct biblical civilization will have to transcend philology, in the last analysis, but he cannot bypass it as the proper, first step in solving problems of biblical interpretation.”
So, I base my comments here on a careful reading of the Hebrew text, and I interact theologically by explaining how I reject the idea that God is actively behind “evil.”
Again, thanks for your prayers and your gracious comments, and thanks for the interaction here. May I ask, BTW, where you are studying, or does that tell too much?
January 30th, 2010 @ 2:13 pm
Dr. Brown,
Yes, not a problem. I am studying at a divinity school called Trinity Evangelical Divinity School:
http://www.tiu.edu/divinity/academics/oldtestament/
The two professors I have studied under the most are Dr. Willem VanGemeren and Dr. Richard Averbeck. I have also studied Epigraphic Hebrew under Dr. Lawson Younger, and Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Hebrew under Dr. James Hoffmeier. All of these men have nothing but good to say about your ministry to the Jewish people.
Again, keep up the good work, and God bless!
God Bless,
Adam
January 30th, 2010 @ 2:24 pm
Adam,
Great to hear that! I was a visiting professor back at TEDS more than a decade ago and I have the highest respect for the program there. Dr. VanGemeren hosted me at the school and was one of the editors for my Healer book; he also was the first one to discuss with me writing the Jeremiah commentary in the new EBC (it just came out this week); and I had the joy of writing a number of articles for him in NIDOTTE. As for Dr. Averbeck, we participated in an Isaiah 53 conference together last March, and of course, who can touch his knowledge of Sumerian among us evangelicals? And Drs. Hoffmeier and Younger are at the top of their field. What a wonderful faculty, and what great, godly examples too.
I took a semester of Egyptian Hieroglyphics while working on my doctoral dissertation at NYU but didn’t have time to pursue it. Semitics were enough to keep me busy and I couldn’t make the journey over to Ham.
Blessings on your studies!
January 30th, 2010 @ 3:28 pm
Dr. Brown,
Thanks so much for your encouragement, and your kind words about my school. Yes, I have loved being in this atmosphere here at Trinity, and getting to interact with as many fine Christian Hebrew Bible thinkers as I do.
I did forget to mention one other professor that I have had, mostly because I don’t want him left out, and that is Dr. Dennis Magary. That man is one of the hardest workers I have ever seen. I am taking a class in Old Testament Textual Criticism with him right now, and it is fascinating.
Thanks again for all your encouragement!
God Bless,
Adam
January 30th, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
Adam,
Dr. Magary picked me up at the airport the first time I taught at TEDS. In fact, when I sent the profs. there copies of one of my vols. in the Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus series, I remember inscribing one to him in Syriac, his specialty area. Please give these fine gentlemen my warmest regards.
Blessings on you! And remember to keep a strong devotional life, centered on Jesus our Lord, during your times of intense academic studies.
January 30th, 2010 @ 3:47 pm
“Do you understand that the reason that those of us here are not Calvinists is because we insist on being subordinate to the Word? You claim that we want to subordinate His Word to ourselves. But that just proves again that you fail to recognize what motivates us (or, speaking for myself, me) to hold to this position.”
Dr.Brown,
Respectfully, but this is not an argument because the same issue is raised by Arminians against Calvinists. Therefore, it appears like it is appriopriate for you to say that I fail to recognize Arminianism for what it is but when I say the same thing about Arminians and their deep misunderstandings of Reformed Faith then it is not appriopriate to say that…
At least , I do not see you correcting Arminians here when they say that Calvinists twist the Scripture and they try to fit it to their thinking. In fact you support this claim and even encourage it by stating that “Calvinism is unbiblical”
“I have no question that you’re seeking to submit to the testimony of Scripture. Unfortunately, the very Calvinistic arrogance that I mentioned to Dr. White (and which he deplored) manifests itself in comments accusing those of us who reject your views of somehow trying to create a God who “has to fit in to be acceptable to Arminian.”
Please explain to me why is it arrogant for me to say that Arminian is trying to fit the Scripture to his view which is basically saying that Arminism is unbiblical.
Yet when you say the very same thing in essence Dr.Brown and that is claiming publicly that “Calvinism is unbiblical” then that is not arrogant but only appropriate and correct.
Please forgive me but it clearly points to double standard and subjectivity
Thank you.
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
January 30th, 2010 @ 3:59 pm
Adam said: “Because you aren’t clearly defining what you mean, you confusing categories. There are certain concepts of parallelism that will help us with this, but we need to define our terms properly.”
**** I am not confusing categories. I told you I was not necessarily indicating formal poetic antithetical parallelism but semantic parallelism. So I didn’t claim a grammatical form parallelism in the first place. And in fact, poetic parallelism as it is most usually exploited for interpretive purposes has to do with semantic parallelism. Indeed, the category of antithetical parallelism typically has to do with semantics and not grammar per se. You are being pedantic by reviewing some examples of grammatical parallelism of active to passive voice. I never claimed the the grammatical form in Job is of active to passive, but that the statement that God took from Job is best understood most fully to refer God allowing Satan to take from Job. Now you point out that Job did not know about that. True, so his statement may well refer to God doing directly. But not necessarily. We don’t know exactly what Job’s belief in God’s providence was. I would think he would not have thought God actually caused otehrs to sin and do evil. But in any case, the text gives us greater details and shows us how Job misunderstands what is going on, which is why he eventualy has to repent. And if I remember correctly you have been trying to claim that the text specifically approves of Job’s statement. But that is not totally accurate. It apporives of the fact that he did not accuse God of wrongdoing. And it affirms that Job did not sin in what he said (by accusing God of wrongdoing).
I said: “You admit that the parallel can be general.”
Adam said: “No, what I said was that parallelism does not have to be synonymous. However, there must always be some relationship between the two. If there isn’t any relationship between the two, then in what sense can the two clauses be said to be parallel?”
**** I had argued that the parallel does not have to be exact, but can be general. And you responded by saying “Also, no one is arguing that the parallel has to be exact.” That implied you concede that the parallel is general. So does it have to be exact, or as is really undeniable, can it be general (what’s undeniable is that parallels *can* be general and don’t have to be exact; you will not find any scholar claiming that parallels must be exact, but you will find plenty of them talking about general parallels at various points). You said, “there must always be some relationship between the two.” Of course, and I have laid that relationship out very clearly.
Adam said: “No, the point is that no one is ever going to even think of attributing wrong doing to God just by allowing Satan to have his “free will.” However, someone might think God has done something wrong if his hand was in back of everything that happened to Job.”
**** It is hard to believe you would say this. People blame God all the time for “allowing” things when he could have stopped them. If you deny this, then I think you are out of touch with the reality of the real world (I don’t mean this in an nsulting way, but to say that you would be unaware of a very common phenomenon). But even if Job thought God directly responsible for everything taking place, it does not support your point of view. As I mentioned above, the text does not blanketly approve everything Job said, but the text does give us greater details that make it clear that God was not directly causing all that took place, which overturns Calvinism, which holds this to be the case.
Honestly, this comment seems strange, as if “taking away” is somehow stronger language than “bringing upon”. I would say that it is every bit as reasonable to understand “taking away from Job” to mean allowing Satan to take away from Job in light of the greater details Job 1-2, which reveal that t his is exactly what happened. This doesn’t fly in the fac of grammar. It is to interpret language in accordance with standard exegetical methodology–in context.
Adam said: “However, the grammar of that passage is part of the context. Grammar, syntax, pragmatics, paranomatics, discourse, etc. must all be taken into consideration, and, if an interpretation flies in the face of any one of those, it is impossible.”
**** Are you seriously suggesting that an active *grammatical* form cannot be used to describe a *semantically* passive act? Even on the mere grammatical level, there is a figure of speech known as heterosis of the verb, one form of which is use of the active for the passive. That’s not particularly what I am suggesting here. It;s just that you seem unaware of the flexibility of language. What’s more, allowing something is not even necessarily passive. To allow is actually an active grammatical term. You are confusing grammar and semantic content, and then suggesting an interpretation is impossible on that faulty basis. You seem to not understand some basic lexical prinicples such as context determining meaning, reckoning with idiomatic expressions, and reckoning with figures of speech.
Adam said: “You are missing the point. How could Job be talking about something that happened back in chapter 1 in the throne room of God, when he knows nothing of what happened in the throne room of God? We know that this is the case simply because of the fact that he calls God unjust. It is clear he doesn’t understand what happened with Satan. Hence, how could he be referring to what happened with Satan?”
**** I never said he was referring to what happened with Satan. But you read a Calvinistic understanding of his words into his statement. Saying that the Lord has taken away is a far cry from supporting echaustive determinism. And as I said, the text does not tell us exactly how Job thought God was responsible at this point. But as for an objective view of it all, the text fills us in precisely on what actually happened and just how God took from Job–he allowed Satan to do so at Satan’s instigation.
I said: “This seems irrelevant. Job does not charge God with punishing him for guilt. . . ” He insists on his own innocence and charges God with wrongdoing for afflicting him without cause. The context of the book reveals that God allowed Job to be afflicted by Satan without cause in that the affliction did not come for Job doing something wrong, though God’s permission was with cause in that God had a purpose to allow Satan to afflict Job without any guilt on Job’s part.
Adam said: “No, but his friends do.”
**** But that is also irrelevant. They get proven wrong! And their belief does not necessarily impinge on Job’s. In fact, he completely disagrees. That’s what God eventually vindicates him for against his friends.
Adam said: “The point his friends are making is that God would never afflict a man who is righteous since God rewards the righteous. However, it is by the breath of his anger that he gives the wicked their just desserts. Is that active or passive? Again, the main point that Job’s friends are trying to argue is that Job is getting his just recompense for some sin he must have committed. That is clearly active in character, not passive. Job does not deny that God has caused this, but believes that he has wrongly afflicted him.”
**** But that does not in the least begin to tell us the details of how Job conceived of God’s exact role in his troubles. Even if it did, Job gets corrected by God for accusing him of wrongdoing, and part of the issue is that Job does *not* know the whole story or God’s reasons for acting as he has. But the bokk iteslef does give us the bigger picture, part of which is that God did not directly afflict Job, but allowed Satan to do so. Moreover, the active vs. passive distinction you are trying to press seems irrelevant here in light of all that I have said above, not to mention that “allowing” is not even technically passive.
Adam said: “Again, I have no problems with trying to understand this text in the context of chapters 1 and 2. The problem is that the two statements “God permitted Satan to harm Job,” and “God’s hand was behind the action of Satan harming Job” are not contradictory. Calvinists allow both texts to speak for themselves. You are trying to equate the two, without any exegetical justification.”
**** Arminians don’t view those statements as contradictory either. They just allow the text of Job to define how the two relate. It makes perfect sense to see God’s hand being behind the action of Satan harming Job in God permitting Satan to harm Job. That’s the exact picture the Book of Job gives us.
January 30th, 2010 @ 4:02 pm
Christophe,
I think I made myself clear in my post and see no reason to belabor it here. Suffice it to say that we both believe the other’s system is unbiblical — meaning, not in accordance with the scriptural testimony but certainly not heretical — but I don’t accuse you of trying of having to make God comport of what is acceptable to you while you accuse others of doing just that. That to me is an arrogance, since it makes judgments on the motives or biases of others.
If that’s not clear to you, then enough said, and we’ll leave things here. I would just urge you to stay with what you believe the Word says in your posts and leave the personal judgments out.
January 30th, 2010 @ 4:23 pm
Adam,
Here’s another point that shows very clearly active language being used to describe God allowing Satan to ruin Job. The end of Job 2:3 says
“And he [Job] still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause.” (NASB)
Since this refers to Satan obtaining God’s permission to afflict Job, the idea of God ruining Job without cause clearly refers to God granting Satan permission to ruin Job. Moreover, as a side note that also militates against Calvinistic determinism, this is presented as something that is an action that is contingent on Satan’s action, for Satan provoked God’s active action of allowing Satan to act. But agsint this, you would have us think God irresitibly decreed and caused Satan to provoke God to give Satan the permission.
One more thing. It seems like the issues are getting blurred about the issue of determinism that we have been talking about. Just how is it that the Book of Job is supposed to portray determinism. It seems to portray just the opposite, as Ben’s (of Arminian Perpectives) posts in this thread have eloquently described.
January 30th, 2010 @ 8:10 pm
“I think I made myself clear in my post and see no reason to belabor it here. Suffice it to say that we both believe the other’s system is unbiblical — meaning, not in accordance with the scriptural testimony but certainly not heretical — but I don’t accuse you of trying of having to make God comport of what is acceptable to you while you accuse others of doing just that. That to me is an arrogance, since it makes judgments on the motives or biases of others.”
Dr.Brown,
With all due respect Sir, you did not say that explicitly but others did yet your correction of that was nowhere to be found. Furthermore, you have said something very close implicitly by saying that “Calvinists make a work out of the faith.” This statement is loaded with meaning for anyone who knows what biblical salvation is… And since we know what biblical salvation is stating that someone is trying to work it is judgmental and paints Reformed Faith in a dubious light as far as salvation goes…
I might be wrong but in the exchange on this forum I have not seen Calvinist accusing Arminian of outright heresy or paganism. Yet, I have seen Arminians more than once stating that Calvinists have a different God and believe in a different God than the one reveled in the Bible. On one occasion you have corrected this accusation but what I find rather telling is that you did not find it “arrogant”…
Needles to say this again points to a double standard as far as recognizing arrogance Dr.Brown.
Here is the difference between Calvinists and many but not all Arminians. We believe that Arminians are true Christians. We believe that they are saved. We recognize that most Arminians find themselves in this position mostly but not always by a default and we maintain that GOD saves despite inconsistent theology and erratic hermeneutics.
I hope you will recognize this as a gracious statement as this is not on the par if I would say that Arminians try to earn their salvation by working it…
Kind regards,
SDG
Christophe
January 30th, 2010 @ 8:18 pm
Christophe,
I have not attempted to read every post on this forum (that is never my practice, especially when there are lots of posts), and you are free to claim that there is a double standard being used. I can point you to websites that claim that you can not be both evangelical and Arminian, so I’m used to seeing accusations flying both ways.
Please read my response to Bryan (on this thread or the other large one) re: Calvinists making faith into a work, and that will explain it itself. And no one here said that ” that Arminians try to earn their salvation by working it…” Once again, you seem to missing the point of some of the statements here, which is unfortunate (but I certainly don’t have the time to post at length over a period of days to demonstrate that to you).
You are free to have your opinion on things, but from what I’ve read, both sides have sought to be fair, and when, in the rare case, I have noted something that I felt needed input or correction, I have offered it.
You wrote: “Here is the difference between Calvinists and many but not all Arminians. We believe that Arminians are true Christians. We believe that they are saved. We recognize that most Arminians find themselves in this position mostly but not always by a default and we maintain that GOD saves despite inconsistent theology and erratic hermeneutics.”
You can switch those words from Calvinists to Arminians and say the exact same thing. In fact, I have never met an Arminian who felt that a Calvinist was not saved because of their faulty theology and erratic hermeneutics, yet somehow, you are hearing things that are simply not being said, apparently leading you to take exception to my post and others here. I do hope that you can understand truly what people are saying, whether you agree or not.
January 30th, 2010 @ 8:43 pm
Dr.Brown,
Agreed that it is impossible to read all posts and I do not expect that of you and I would hope you don’t expect that of me either. We both have lives even though we are both passionate about the Word and God. There is no question in my mind that you are a better person and a better Christian than I am and probably ever will be…but that is not the point.
The point was and is that the accusations of “Calvinistic God” were made on this forum and you have to remember that as you corrected that at least once. Besides correcting it your over all reaction to this extremely judgmental faith denying accusation against Calvinism was rather mild and dismissive.
In comparison, when I said that maintaining “free choice” agenda causes people to fit Scripture to their preconceived expectations your reaction was way stronger than the one you have expressed to the Arminian who claimed that Calvinists are de facto pagans having a different God. Certainly you have not found it “judgmental” nor have you found it “arrogant” but if anything it was exactly that. It hurt but I did not even brought it up or addressed it…
Let the bygones be bygones but my hope is that in the future your reaction will be more measured to the gravity of the cause. That’s all. I appreciate your ministry. I appreciate the civility exemplified during the two day conversation with Dr.White and I do hope and wait with others for a real debate which will shed light on who really has a faulty theology and erratic hermeneutics as the real debate will show that, especially if Dr.White is involved in it.
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
January 30th, 2010 @ 8:58 pm
Christophe,
Would you kindly ask anyone who claimed that Calvinists have a “different God” if they meant that in a literal sense, thereby claiming that Calvinists are “de facto pagans” (to use your words)? Please do take a moment to ask those folks for clarification here, and if, in fact, they intended to say that, then I will be the first to admonish them. If they were using extreme and unnecessary rhetoric, we can address that as well.
Be assured also that my responses have been quite measured and it is my hope that you can review your statements in light of my input and learn something from that, just as I have always sought to do when admonished or corrected.
Thanks for your gracious spirit.
January 31st, 2010 @ 1:53 pm
Dr. Brown,
I will most certainly give all of them your regards.
Also, thank you so much for the admonishment. You are correct that it is one of the hardest things to keep prayer and devotional life up when you are at school. You get done with a whole day of reading Hebrew, studying Exegesis, and reading Cuneiform and Egyptian Hieroglyphics, you just fall down and say, “Wow, I have to get back into the Hebrew text for devotions????” I guess you just have to force yourself to go back into the word, and pull meat out of it to help you through your struggles.
Thanks again for your encouragement!
God Bless,
Adam
January 31st, 2010 @ 2:41 pm
Adam,
Actually, at times, as I was immersed in language learning, I would have times when I only read the Word in English, simply feasting on God’s truth and seeking to obey Him, refusing to think about linguistic issues or insights. I still read the Word in English for that very reason, while continuing to pour into the original languages, both for study and devotion.
Always keep John 15:1-9 central!
February 1st, 2010 @ 12:38 am
I understood very little about the main issues in this show
February 1st, 2010 @ 1:07 am
Ben,
You cant expect the full details to be debated on a radio show due to time. You will only get bits and pieces of it.
February 1st, 2010 @ 1:47 am
“But there are hundreds of scriptures that say otherwise”. Hmmmm, yet James is the only one quoting scripture after scripture.
February 1st, 2010 @ 4:55 am
Algo gave a chart on the “Ordo Salutis”. But that chart is but an opinion of what the order of salvation is. Faith, justification and the new birth happen at the same time. God doesn’t react to our faith by saving us, but saves us through the giving of faith, or rather the causing of faith in us.
And yes, that is an opinion as well.
Blessings.
February 1st, 2010 @ 10:57 am
Adam,
I think “Arminian” answered you well enough on Job, so I will leave that alone. But I do want to focus on the issue of my charge that Calvinism makes God the author of sin. You wrote,
Also, the Westminster confession is simply saying that God is not the author of sin, because they are describing what they are teaching.
But this seems to dodge the question. Why would they even feel the need to say that their doctrines do not make God the author of sin unless they had an understanding of what that charge means and that what they are describing can easily lead to such a conclusion?
Also, you know that we believe God decreed the fall, but now it is incumbent upon you to show that this is sin on God’s part. If you cannot, then Adam is still the first sinner, and Adam is the one who brought sin into the world, even though God was the one who decreed that Adam would bring sin into the world.
I’m sorry, but I think it is incumbent on your part to explain how God was the cause of Adam sinning in such a way that Adam could not have possibly done otherwise, and yet Adam was the one who “brought sin into the world” (not to mention the problem raised by your previous line of argumentation regarding how Adam, whose nature was “good” could have done evil?). The confession is simply affirming absurdity in my opinion and dismissing it without trying to deal with the problem. It is saying God made Adam sin but it was still Adam’s fault. Really? That sounds rather arbitrary to me. If Adam was just a passive instrument through whom God effected His irresistible decree, then how is Adam responsible for his actions? Truly, they were simply God’s actions performed through Adam, since Adam was not in any meaningful way the originator of his own actions. It wasn’t Adam’s idea or desire to disobey God but God’s idea and desire given irresistibly to Adam. Then God judges Adam and his posterity for doing exactly as God irresistibly caused him to do. Let me break this down into parallelism since you seem to like parallelism as a form of arguing
In Calvinism one can apparently take credit for salvation unless God causes faith in a person. Because God causes faith (i.e. irresistibly causes someone to believe) God gets all the credit, and the person believing gets none. If God did not cause us to believe, then we would be able to take credit for our faith and boast in it (according to Calvinism). But how is this different than God causing us to sin? How is it that when God causes faith He gets all of the credit and we get none, but when God causes sin we get all of the credit and He gets none? I hope that you will be able to answer this question without appealing to mystery or avoiding the question by saying the burden of proof somehow rests on me, etc.
Thanks and God Bless,
Ben
February 1st, 2010 @ 5:51 pm
Hello Christophe,
You quoted me as saying:
“The fact is if God has predetermined every event then we can never ever have a choice.”
And responded with:
“Robert
Not so.”
Care to explain how every event could be predetermined and necessitated and I could still have any choices (not make choices, but **have** choices where I could actualize one possibility or another)?
Robert
February 1st, 2010 @ 5:53 pm
Christophe,
You cited Turretin on the “two wills of God” theory that many Calvinists hold. James White repeatedly in the discussion with Dr. Brown made reference to this theory as well. It needs to be noted that you Calvinists speak of it as if it is a fact. And not only do you **assume** it to be true, you allow it to control your interpretation of scripture. But I don’t buy this distinction at all. There are multiple problems with the two wills theory. Here are some of them.
First, it is an EXTRA-BIBLICAL principle. The bible does not state the two will theory anywhere. It is not derived from exegesis of biblical texts. It was invented and developed by Calvinist theologians as a method to harmonize biblical texts with their erroneous system of theology.
Second, the distinction sanctions and affirms an incredible amount of contradictions. God says one thing (the prescriptive will, what He expresses in scripture) in the one will, which is directly contradicted by the secret or sovereign will. The sovereign will is supposedly (I say supposedly since the bible does not say that God has a total plan, this is assumed by Calvinists who believe in exhaustive predeterminism of all events) God’s exhaustive total plan that encompasses every event of history. God conceives of this total plan in eternity, he then ensures that it occurs via his “sovereignty” (which is then defined as God exhaustively determining every event by directly, completely and continuously controlling everything). Note that this calvinistic interpretive principle consists of assumption piled upon assumption.
So where is the contradiction?
The contradiction is between what God says in the bible and what He really plans and desires in the sovereign will. He says don’t commit murder. And yet if he predetermines and predecides every action that every human person does, then every murder that actually occurs in history is exactly what God wanted, exactly what God decided would be part of his total plan. Or take abortion. Conservative Christians interpret the bible to be saying that it is wrong (so according to his prescriptive will abortion is murder and is wrong). But if God predetermines and predecides every action that every human person does, then every abortion that actually occurs in history is exactly what God wanted, exactly what God decided would be part of his plan. And we could multiply the examples but the point is clear: he says one thing in his Word but contradicts what he says in his sovereign/secret will.
Third with the prescriptive/sovereign will distinction in mind, it leads to “interpretations” of scripture where the proper and intended meaning of the text is eliminated, minimized or thrown out. God says in his Word that He desires the salvation of all. The Calvinist comes alone and says that while that may be true in his prescriptive will, in his sovereign will, the will that determines what really happens, God desires the salvation of only a preselected few. With the two will principle the theological determinist can then harmonize “difficult” or problematic passages with his errant theological system.
Fourth, it is similar to the way a Jehovah’s Witness interprets the bible(note carefully I did not say nor am I implying that Calvinists are cultists, they affirm orthodox doctrine such as the trinity, the deity of Christ, justification through faith, etc.). They start with the teachings of the Watchtower as their controlling presupposition and grid. They have these teachings in mind **BEFORE** they get to a biblical text. The biblical text is then made to harmonize with this pre-understanding. So the biblical texts never end up contradicting the teachings of the Watchtower and amazingly all line up with exactly what the Watchtower teaches!
Fifth, you find no evidence of this two will theory in the early centuries of the church. This suggests both that it is an EXTRA-BIBLICAL PRINCIPLE and that it was invented by theological determinists.
Sixth, if God really says one thing in his Word and does another in his secret will, this may lead to real lack of trust in what the bible says. This is because the bible really does not represent the “bottom line,” concerning reality, rather the secret will is the “bottom line”. God’s truest desires, what He really wants to happen, are seen in and expressed in the secret will, not the bible.
Seventh, some determinists will claim that the secret will is known to God alone or beyond our understanding, etc. etc. This is not accurate. If everything that occurs in reality is part of the secret will, then we need only look at reality, look at what actually occurs to see the sovereign will being carried out. Look at any past event, that is exactly what God desired to occur. Look at any present reality, that is exactly what God desires to occur. We may not know the future but we can know the secret will in terms of all realities that involve the past or the present. Now this is troublesome when we consider some of the things that God therefore desired to occur. Every evil or sin that has occurred or is occurring in its every detail is exactly what God wants to occur as it is all part of his sovereign will/secret will/total plan.
Eighth and particularly troubling for non-Calvinists is what the two will theory says or implies about God’s character. A person who says one thing and does another is considered a hypocrite. A person who says he desires one thing but really desires another cannot be trusted and may even hide malicious plans and actions behind expressed words (cf. like a dishonest politician who says one thing publicly but in private holds a very different view). A person who claims to be good, righteous, merciful, to have good character (again when speaking publicly) and yet privately is the opposite and desires the opposite has an evil and untrustworthy character.
Robert
February 1st, 2010 @ 5:54 pm
Christophe,
“I know that the “holy grail” of so many Arminians is the “CHOICE”…This is the paradigm in which GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has to fit in to be acceptable to Arminian.
Not so if you want to be subordinate to His Word and not to subordinate His Word to you.
As in:
“all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?” Daniel 4:35 ESV”
First the passage from Daniel 4 is merely an assertion that when God does an action no one is able to stop him from doing that action (no orthodox Christian denies this). This is true because he is God and has the attributes of God including being all-powerful, all-knowing, being the Creator and maintainer of all that exists, etc. This passage says nothing about whether or not God designed us to freely do our own actions or not. Or whether or not his plan of salvation includes human persons freely choosing to trust him alone for their salvation.
If God is sovereign (and the bible defines His sovereignty as He does as He pleases in all situations) as Daniel 4 implies and a whole host of bible verses explicitly presents. Then if HE decides to design humans to act with free will and if He designs a plan of salvation involving free will, then that is the way things are going to be no matter what a theological determinist says otherwise.
Second, I don’t have a “choice paradigm” in which scripture must be made to conform. Instead I derive my view that we sometimes have free will from the proper exegesis of biblical statements that refer to situations where people have a choice. If they have a real choice then their action is not predetermined though it is foreknown. It is the theological determinist who must conform scripture to their theological system. In their system where everything is predetermined, free will must be eliminated (or redefined so that an action that is absolutely necessitated is defined as “free”) so that all the passages in which people have a choice are eliminated by interpreting them incorrectly.
Third, free will is not “the Holy Grail,” this is just a typical Calvinist put down, caricature of the non-Calvinist position. We hold to the reality and existence of free will as ordinarily understood because of its clear and abundant presence in scripture and in our daily experience. A theological determinist must eliminate free will as ordinarily understood because if it ever exists, then his exhaustive predeterminism is false.
Robert
February 1st, 2010 @ 6:08 pm
Hello Nathaniel,
You make some strange statements about free will and intentional actions including the following:
“Your example, however, is lacking. The student caused himself to raise his hand; however, if we were to ask the student why he raised his hand, we would find a string of many reasons that ultimately leads to nowhere.”
I don’t have the time or interest to go through these kind of statements so I want to focus upon one single issue here.
I had explicitly said:
“What system?
I don’t have a system.”
You responded with:
“Yes you do, Robert. Everyone goes to one system or another. We may not be Roman Catholic about it. We may differ in some areas or many areas, but that does not mean we do not find ourselves inside a system of thinking.”
First of all, you don’t know me personally, you don’t know about my familiarity with theological systems, or personal experience with theological systems, so how can you make such a grand claim that I have a system?
Especially when I explicitly say that I do not?
Second, if I have a system then what is it? Tell me about it.
“Actually, I cannot imagine why you would object to the term. We are influenced by philosophy, theology, science, etc.”
I don’t object to the term, in fact I am quite familiar with many false systems of theology including Calvinism. Nor did I claim to have no influences on my own thinking. I did however explicitly claim not to have a system.
“We want our system to be the Biblical system.”
That involves the unwarranted assumptions that we want or are supposed to have a system.
By the way, where in the bible does it tell us that we need to have a system or that we all have a system?
“However, you and I differ on what the Biblical system entails.”
No, I think I am quite aware of what having a man-made theological system looks like. And regarding a “biblical system” that is invented by men, there is no such thing. At best we are to properly interpret the scriptures. Where we really differ is in the interpretation of certain bible verses.
“That’s why I say [that] your system is do[es] not provide a convincing explanation of what’s in Scripture.”
Again WHAT IS MY SYSTEM?
Robert
February 1st, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
Lee,
So, you only count the verses that Dr. White cites while ignoring all the verses I cite? That’s an odd way of counting! Or, once I cite a verse in the sense that most commentators understand it, and then someone has a different take on it, that now makes the verse I cited not count as a verse? Odd, indeed!
And do you deny that there are hundreds of verses that call for people to repent, believe, follow, obey, make a choice, etc., and then verses that explain how God responds to those decisions? Those are the hundreds that I frequently reference, as I mentioned again at the beginning of the show on Jan. 29th.
February 1st, 2010 @ 7:01 pm
Robert,
“You make some strange statements about free will and intentional actions…”
And yet, you have not engaged my argument.
“Second, if I have a system then what is it? Tell me about it.”
I do not know what your system is. I’m not familiar with your philosophy, theology, etc. But our system is formed by what we think on those issues. It’s absurd to claim that you do not have one. That’s like saying you don’t have opinions or thoughts or ideas. Of course, we are trying to be Biblical, so we want Scripture to shape our system.
Calvinism is not a static system as you seem to suggest. I would describe myself as Calvinist because my beliefs about what Scripture says are very near equal to TULIP. If you don’t like the term, call me “Calvinistic” or “Monergistic” or “One who affirms Lordship-Salvation” or “Reformed Baptist.” I don’t care what you call it. It’s not like I take LBC or WFC and try to line up Scripture with what they say.
Furthermore, do you call yourself a Christian? Do you use the term Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox to refer to yourself? Are those not systems of belief?
“No, I think I am quite aware of what having a man-made theological system looks like. And regarding a “biblical system” that is invented by men, there is no such thing.”
Now you’re confusing. Perhaps you should argue your point more clearly. So far all you’ve said to me is that Calvinism is a man-made system of theology – and it’s false…and you’ve proven neither point.
“At best we are to properly interpret the scriptures. Where we really differ is in the interpretation of certain bible verses.”
Yes, that’s my point. Perhaps you should read what I said more carefully.
““That’s why I say [that] your system is do[es] not provide a convincing explanation of what’s in Scripture.””
Sorry I wrote this at 2am, so if there are mistakes in my grammar, I apologize.
February 1st, 2010 @ 7:02 pm
Hello Ben,
Ben wrote:
“In Calvinism one can apparently take credit for salvation unless God causes faith in a person. Because God causes faith (i.e. irresistibly causes someone to believe) God gets all the credit, and the person believing gets none. If God did not cause us to believe, then we would be able to take credit for our faith and boast in it (according to Calvinism).”
So according to Calvinism God irresistibly causes a person to become a believer?
If you are irresistibly caused to do something, aren’t you being forced to do something?
But I have heard some Calvinists speak about God’s sovereignty as if it is the direct, complete and continuos control of all things. If God exercises that kind of control over human persons, then why would he have to force someone to become a believer? Why would he have to force anyone to do anything if he directly, completely and continuously controls his or her will?
“But how is this different than God causing us to sin?”
This is a very good question for the theological determinist.
If God is the author of the whole play (which is what the theological determinist is claiming when they claim that God has a total plan, a secret will, that God has already decided every detail in advance). Then just like a human author decides who the heroes and villains will be and EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE OF THEIR OWN PLAY, God must do likewise with his total plan/his secret sovereign will.
“How is it that when God causes faith He gets all of the credit and we get none, but when God causes sin we get all of the credit and He gets none? I hope that you will be able to answer this question without appealing to mystery or avoiding the question by saying the burden of proof somehow rests on me, etc.”
Right, if God gets all the credit for salvation of a person because he controls everything and controls and causes the person to be a believer, then doesn’t that same control apply to those whom he decided beforehand would go to Hell and be punished for eternity?
You cannot simultaneously claim that an author is the author of **the entire play**, and then when speaking of the villains or the bad things that happen in that same play, claim that they are not the author of them **all** as well.
That is why the theological determinists’ claim that God is **not** the author of sin does not make sense logically, it is extremely inconsistent.
If He is the author of the whole play in all of its details, then that includes **every** detail of that same play.
Why can’t the Calvinists/theological determinists who claim he is the author of the whole play, at the same time then admit that he is the author of sin as well? Isn’t every sin part of that total plan, that secret will?
Robert
February 1st, 2010 @ 11:13 pm
Christophe,
With my past interactions with other Calvinists, you could be titled as a Hyper Calvinist from other Calvinist. Would you agree or disagree.
February 2nd, 2010 @ 8:52 pm
“Eighth and particularly troubling for non-Calvinists is what the two will theory says or implies about God’s character”
Robert,
Very well said. I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I hope you don’t mind if I borrow your post? It would make a nice addition to my blog.
Blessings,
Greg
February 2nd, 2010 @ 10:40 pm
Hello Greg,
“Very well said. I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I hope you don’t mind if I borrow your post? It would make a nice addition to my blog.”
Glad to see the agreement, regarding borrowing the post, sure no problem. Just wondering, what is your blog? I’d like to see it (can you provide a name or web address, thanks).
Robert
February 3rd, 2010 @ 12:18 am
Hi Robert,
My blog is here -> http://thoughtfultheologythinks.blogspot.com/
I mainly just have a few short blogs right now. I’m relatively new to the debate so if you have any nuggets of wisdom you’re more than welcome to comment. God bless.
Greg
February 6th, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
Hello Greg
This is slightly off topic. Are you the Greg who wanted the Craig Keener talks? I sent them to you but I received a notice that the email did not get there. I will try again.
You could repost your email address on the blog, in case I have the wrong end of the stick.
Anthea
February 6th, 2010 @ 10:41 pm
Hi Anthea,
Yes, I was eager to check out those files, but they never came!
My email address is gregorama91@yahoo.com
I look forward to your message.
Thanks,
Greg
February 25th, 2010 @ 2:07 am
It seems that Dr.White has trouble separating foreknowledge from predestination. Dr. Brown won the debate early on IMO. The chess match analogy was terrific.
February 27th, 2010 @ 8:42 am
I always find it interesting that Calvinists like Dr. White think it’s important to debate the validity of Calvinism. If predestination is true then winning or losing all the debates in the world is pointless as he cannot change (and why even try) the minds of those he thinks were predestined to believe or not.
January 27th, 2012 @ 8:25 am
I found a bitesize 3 minute discussion of predestination by Roger and Faith Forster :
http://www.ichthus.org.uk/Articles/141798/Home/Free_Resources/Coffee_with_the/_06_Predestination.aspx
Roger wrote a TREMENDOUS book on this called ‘God’s Strategy in Human History’ :
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Strategy-Human-History-Responsibility/dp/0946616558/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327670554&sr=1-2
In the Appendix,he discusses the fruit of Augustine,the man who first brought the pre-selection view of predestination.
January 30th, 2012 @ 4:35 am
Personally,I would like as many people as possible to OBJECTIVELY make the connection between the ACID TEST of Jesus Christ in Matthew 12:33-37,and the ACIDIC WORDS of John Calvin on February 13,1546 ; words which,in 1553,he put into action ; actions which,in 1554,he sought to defend – twice. With regard to the ACIDIC WORDS of Martin Luther,they were not directed at Jewish people alone,and not only penned in old age during sickness (Is age or health a mitigating circumstance ? In sickness or health, if a branch abides in the true vine,an advance in years is supposed to lead to maturation and increasing conformation to the image of Jesus,is it not ?). In chapter one of Leonard Verduin’s TREMENDOUS book ‘The Reformers and Their Stepchildren’,Leonard wrote,’They [the leaders of the Magisterial Reformation] constantly urged the magistrate to draw the blood of the opposition’. Now,if a spade is still a spade,what is to be OBJECTIVELY made of that. SOUNDNESS and KILLING are mutually exclusive – period. ( Just as a newborn baby is vaccinated against deadly diseases they can contract from the world,alas,newborn disciples need to be vaccinated against various deadly deceptions they can contract from the Body – Reformation-inspired OSAS being chief among them.) As said,may as many people as possible make the connection.
A free article on John Calvin’s fruit has been written by Daniel Corner.
Daniel’s article :
http://www.revivaltheology.net/1_cal_arm/ashes.html
Leonard’s book :
http://www.amazon.com/Reformers-Their-Stepchildren-Dissent-Nonconformity/dp/1579789358/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_pap?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325147580&sr=1-1