Today I was at the Christian bookstore and I started talking to this sweet lady who is dealing with an unsaved husband who has some big sin issues in his life. I listened as she poured out her heart to me. These situations are awesome because it is an opportunity to love someone and respond to their emotions. To comfort her, I said, "Don't give up hope. If God can save me, a wretched sinner only worthy of his full wrath, than He can save your husband." She kind of interrupted me and said, "Oh, I know I won't be able to do it (change his heart), if God can't, than I can't for sure. " She goes on, "He (God) wants to change his heart, but it won't happen until my husband wants to let him." I was taken aback. Did she really just say that God was not able to change a person's heart until that person wants God to?
What we have now is a god who is not in control, who doesn't get his way, and must submit to the authority of created, fallen man.
What kind of god is this? He is not worthy of my praise. He receives no credit for my salvation, because, hey, I'm the one who gave him permission to "change my heart."
But, wait, it can't be possible for me to want God to change my heart before I let God change my heart because if in fact I want God to come into my heart, that very desire is a sign of a changed heart. Am I right?
He can't be the same God whom Job was talking about in Job 42:2, "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted [even by man]."
Romans 3:10-11 says, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God."
So, logically, if we do seek after God and desire Him, our heart has been changed, by God, not ourselves.
This automatically brings up the story of Paul in my memory. How did that story go again? Oh yeah...I remember... so Saul was walking one day to Damascus when he suddenly thought a thought, which was deep inside him, about how wonderful it might be to get to know Jesus as something more than he had. So, he decided, that he wanted Jesus so much that he was finally going to give Jesus what he wanted too. I get Jesus, Jesus gets me. Everyone's happy, everyone wins. Then Saul goes on to praise God for saving him, and thanks his mother for passing on so smart a brain to him. "How clever I am to find within myself that morsel of truth!" Paul states rejoicefully. The End.
But then again, I can't even remember where I put my keys...
53 comments:
Could be either (or both) of these two reasons...
1) Lack of correct sound teaching in the church
2) Lack of Spiritual understanding given from the Father
Pray that she learns the truth! :)
Thanks, Frank, for the godly comment.
julianne chica i posted a blog in your honor- check it out!
peace
and about your post...you could give her those scriptures and talk to her about the precious truth of God's soveriegnty. Give her a John Piper book-
I've heard ppl say that God only chooses people and saves people who have a certain personality that choose Him- but Who gave them that personality? Yes, my God can change the most hardened of hearts. With that I praise His name. :-) Luv ya girl! Focus on the finish line!!
Maybe we should focus on our own shortcomings rather than posting about people who need a good ole teological "learning".
Sorry cuz, I had to say it.
Sorry, I meant tHeological.
I going to get in trouble for that.
Stephen,
Yes, you are going to get in trouble for that comment. ;)
My point is how too often we form our own opinions about who God is based on unbiblical feelings or emotions. My post is not intended to bash this sweet woman, but to get others to think about what ideas they've formed in their minds about God. This is not just some little side bit of information which has no bearing on our Christian walk, this is essential stuff, cuz. This is important. That is why I took the opportunity to share with her the story of Paul. Thanks for your comment though. See you tonight.
Thanks, 9digs, for good advice. I hope I run into her again...
I just got blown out of the water. I guess I was a little agitated. Read my new post on my blog, eh?
seya.
stumbled upon this and LOVED it!! and job 42:2 is one of my favorite verses. i will keep the woman you encountered in my prayers...
Good thoughts! I've encountered fellow believers who say things like: "If we don't want to change, God can't do anything". I think that is very contrary to what the scripture says. God may chose to leave an individual to their own hardheartedness, but God also has mighty power in changing peoples hearts and sovereignly directing human affairs (and if that weren't the case.. no one would be saved)
juli, what is your interp on spiritual pride
Wow this is awesome. Awesome blog. You seem very well-read in Theology. You've read a number of the same books we read here. Have you had a chance to read Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress?
My roommate is currently reading Edwards's Religious Affections. I highly recommend these books if you haven't yet read them.
I'm curious - how did you begin to study Theology to this depth? Who influenced you in this way?
Minor,
Thank you for leaving a comment. There are many things we could address here. However, I'll just post some Scripture.
Ephesians 1:3-5
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will."
Romans 9:13-16
"As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."
1 Thessalonians 1:4-5a
"For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction."
Romans 8:29-30
"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."
Ephesians 1:11
"In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will."
These are just a handful of verses which proclaim God's sovereign and divine work in a wretched, sinful, and depraved human being. This is truly amazing grace!
Ultimately we must submit to what scripture says and not to our own traditions. To say that God ordains everything that comes to pass does not (according to scripture) make people robots or unaccountable for their actions. Joseph and his brothers are one example of the same event possessing both human free choice AND God’s sovereign control. God's word holds the brothers accountable ... calling their actions and the intent of their hearts evil, yet the scriptures also say that God meant their very evil for good. God ordained this to occur. It does not say that God chose for them. It says they freely chose what is evil and yet God ordained that very evil for His own good purposes. Certainly the cross is another example of what God ordained before the foundations of the world (no plan “B” - Rev 13:8) and yet the "lawless" actions of those who crucified Him were certainly not seen as either forced by God (the mighty puppeteer) or excused by God because they occurred according to His “definite plan and foreknowledge” (Acts 2:22-23). This compatiblism is simply what we must submit to because scripture clearly teaches it. To say God determines in such a way that man is forced, misses the mark, and to say that God stands back and watches (modern tradition) because to do otherwise would violate man’s free will and thus be unloving, also misses the mark. I don’t get this definition in light of God sovereignly removing hearts of stone and giving hearts of flesh – Ezekiel 36:26. Certainly this transplant was done without consent. I doubt Lazarus minded the effectual call that brought him to life. This is the furthest thing from “spiritual rape”, and that it is assumed unloving simply baffles me. Again, whether we are able to comprehend or not, we must submit to Holy Scripture, and scripture teaches God ordaining in such a way that man remains free (obviously a freedom less free than God's) enough to still be accountable. I heard Mark Talbot recently say, “We cannot understand how these things can possibly be … Yet we can understand why we can’t understand it. It is because attempts on our part to understand this involve our trying to understand the unique (meaning “nothing like it”) relationship between the creator and His creatures in terms of our understanding some creature-to-creature relationship.” We try to think of such things within the wrong category (creature-to-creature) and we have no frame of reference to compare, and thus understand the category of creator-to-creature. Abandon the modern tradition that assumes an unbiblical definition of love and submit to scripture. You want to emphasize God as Father and not King. God is both Father and King. God certainly is our Father and yet many are confused with this subject because they try to fit this creature-to-creature category on a subject that simply has no earthy comparison. You say, “If men can do only as God has directly caused them to, then they are neither obedient or disobedient, only complicated machines … I am not denying his ability to do this, but I don't see how they would be either particularily evil or particularily holy if it was only action done without the consent or existence of their own wills. That's what we call insanity.” The day I enter heaven God will in an instant glorify me, removing my sin nature. When this occurs I will obediently only be able to do as God commands, and this is certainly loving. By your definition our glorification will be an unloving act and our actions will be like that of a machine … for all eternity!
You keep using the word “slave”. Yet we were slaves, infected at birth with a sin nature, and bent to freely choose our strongest inclination … sin. God set us free. God gave us a new heart, and with that new heart, yes we did choose Him. To emphasize God as king does not eliminate Him as loving father nor does it eliminate our choice. But we must understand how our choice for God was made possible. This is an act of God, we did respond to His choice with ours, and because this is God’s work we cannot boast.
This seems a bit arrogant. Have I responded to you before? - “you again seem to have missed the point”.
A similar point we were making is an agreement that sovereignty and man’s free will are not mutually exclusive, but how we say this is altogether different. You say you won’t hold onto your biblical interpretation when it is opposed to reason. To this I would encourage you to humbly admit to the possibility of your reason being less than iron clad. To all, I would (again) say that we must submit to the clear teachings of scripture, and that scripture clearly (see examples from previous post) teaches single events where men freely choose and where also (same single event) God sovereignly ordains the event (involving these choices of men) to occur. We must avoid relativism as it concerns biblical interpretation. Where there may be millions of applications, there is only one correct interpretation. If there are going to be any helpful discussions on this (or any) topic it must remain with arguing for a correct interpretation of scripture and not be an argument of (only) reason. If scripture clearly teaches that men freely acted and are responsible, and that God also (same event) ordained there very actions for His purposes, then we must submit to scripture even though it does not conform to our ideas of “reason”. It is to this mind boggling biblical truth that I spoke of not being able to completely understand, but being able to understand why we can’t understand it. Certainly we are given many anthropomorphisms to help us understand our relationship with God, and these are very helpful. The point I was making is that we become confused (it doesn’t fit our reasoning) with this particular dilemma because we try to use creature-to-creature categories (Father-to-child) when it simply does not fit. If we try to force it (like a square peg in a round hole) we’ll end up ignoring passages of scripture where God clearly determines the “free” actions of men, and hammer it into position by saying God sovereignly limits His sovereignty. This may sound reasonable, but it does so at the expense of ignoring passages that clearly teach to the contrary. We must deal with scripture. This (and not reason alone) is our authority concerning God’s revelation of Himself.
Something else that may be helpful is coming to a biblical definition of free will. What does this mean? Is unregenerate man (apart from God’s intervention) morally neutral and capable of choosing either sin or righteousness? How has the fall impacted every person since Adam? Is he neutral or is he contaminated with a sin nature? What does it mean to have a sin nature? In light of this, define man’s free will. Is free will the ability to do whatever you desire? Does man always choose according to his strongest inclination? Can man, apart from the Holy Spirit, have a truly righteous inclination? How does Romans 1 help us understand God’s negative causation concerning Joseph’s brothers or Pharaoh?
Thanks
Steve,
You said we should focus on our own shortcomings and not worry about others, and, yet, you were correcting Julianne with those very words (hmmm). Odd, ay? The fact is, 2 Tim. 3:16 very clearly lays the grounds of Scripture being used for reproof and correction. In Galatians, Paul corrected/rebuked Peter in front of the whole assembly. So Julianne, while others are crying, keep correcting... it's the loving thing to do. I tire of hearing "the Bible says don't judge"; it rings in my ears and hurts my head, because the Bible does NOT say that (at least, not in the sense or context that many would like to think).
As for free will, I was too tired to read everything said, but I seem to align more with Brian. I do believe in responsibility, but I do not believe in free will (in regards to salvation). I'm not so sure that I can take as compatiblisitic a view as any of you have, as the burden of proof seems to rest on the one claiming that the Bible speaks anywhere of "free" choices made by men. Sure, it speaks of choices, but where does it speak of "free" choices? Isa. 46:10 clearly shows that God ordains the beginning and the end, and in some instances He even brings about sin without sinning Himself (Isa. 53:10; compare with Acts 4:28). Thus, though I submit to James 1 and am careful to not accuse God of sin, this obviously does not mean that He cannot in some sense ordain certain sinful acts. In Romans 9, He also hardens Pharaoh's heart (and, no, Pharaoh did not "harden his own heart first"; see Ex. 4). However, aside from the issue of predestination and everyday decisions (like touching my hand to a flame), lets talk about a man dead in sin and unable to bridge the gap between himself and God. Romans 8:6-8 says that the sinful mind [b]cannot[/b] submit to God's ways. Could it be clearer? Choices that we make are a result of the choices God has made, although I do not succumb to Hyper-Calvinism and claim any sort of fatalism. We are responsible beings, but responsibility does not necessitate capability. How do every day actions happen, and how do they fit with God's sovereignty? I'm not sure. But, if you ask me how a dead man can raise himself to life, I'll tell you what Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3: he can't!
God bless...
Thanks Adam for the comment.
I know Juli real well and the comment I left was more banter than anything else. We go to the same church and are on the same wavelength(I think) theologically. You don't need to explain to me why free will is wrong, as I do not believe it. And how does that relate to my comment?
I believe we should lovingly correct people who we talk with, I am just sick and tired of people using as a means of self-gratification. I know most people don't do this and as God's elect we should be even more humble than people we talk to. I just don't see it very often. And I wholly agree with the judging part. To not judge people just gives us an excuse to passively tolerate the world. But I really think we should consider the Matthew 7:5 passage before and alsways.
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
Thanks for your concern, Adam.
I meant always.
I wish blogger had spell-check.
Adam,
This is why I suggested defining terms. Someone may say “free will” and assume the person with whom they are speaking defines it as man’s autonomous ability to choose either sin or righteousness, while they really define it as man’s ability to choose for his strongest inclination. I definitely go with the latter. At one time I would say, “I don’t believe in free will”, but now (even though my view hasn’t changed) I’ll say, “Yes, I believe in free will - free will in the sense that man always chooses for his strongest inclination.” The reason for this distinction is that it forces the person to ask, “What is man’s strongest inclination?” The heart of this issue is total depravity. If fallen man only possesses a sin nature, and not the Holy Spirit, then his strongest inclination will always be sin. Yes, unregenerate man may choose for something that is morally right, but apart from God’s Spirit this moral choice is still sinful because the motivation will always lack what is genuinely righteous, that being to bring glory to our maker. So I absolutely believe that man always freely chooses what he desires. The problem isn’t choice, the problem is desire. Unregenerate man is bent toward sin. He freely chooses what he wants. The problem is he always wants sin. So he’s free within his own ability. Once God removes his heart of stone and puts in a heart of flesh, THEN man’s desires are changed and he now possesses the God-given ability to choose for a stronger desire that previously he did not possess. Can man boast in this? No! This is the gift of God.
Compatiblism acknowledges a mystery that is clearly taught in scripture, one that we cannot fully understand. This mystery shows man making a choice in which he is accountable, while God has also ordained that same choice in a way that does not remove man’s accountability. Joseph’s brothers are the classic example. Their decision to sell Joseph into slavery was freely made – in that this is what they desired to do. They acted according to the evil intent of their hearts. They were not coerced or threatened to do this, they desired to do this. Yet scripture reveals that God meant their very evil for good. He ordained this to occur for His own good purposes. Joseph’s brothers are held accountable. They are not seen as puppets on God’s string. Compatiblism acknowledges that they made a real choice according to the evil intent of their hearts – one for which they will be held accountable, while also acknowledging that scripture clearly states God ordaining this to occur.
Now I typically hate the “mystery” card. I don’t like this because too many people use this as an excuse to not use the gray matter God has given them. I have heard helpful explanations on compatiblism, but I also think I may think I have it figured out only because I don’t fully understand the dilemma. Have you heard examples of secondary causes and those causes being either positive or negative? This is very helpful. When you see that God restrains the evil actions of people and then (ala Romans 1) removes his hand of restraint so that they do what they want to do (Pharaoh), you can see how God ordains a person’s evil acts without positively causing them to sin. He ordains it by removing restraint, possessing perfect knowledge of what the person will do, and yet the person actually does what they want to do and are held accountable.
Thanks Julianne for providing a blog that people actually read!
Steve, my second paragraph on free will had nothing to do with you, sorry for the confusion. As for the fact that you and Julianne are very close, I'm glad to hear that. Yet, why did she have to delete your latest comment? *wonders*
Brian, it sounds like I would agree with most of your soteriology. Thanks for clarifying.
Steve... still concered... ; )
Steve, question: you also mentioned after the first comment here that you had been agitated... sooo, just banter? I don't think any of us would disagree that truth should not be an end in itself or that Christians should not become prideful about doctrine. Anyway, just wondering. Sorry, Julianne, not trying to pollute your comments page. : )
J. Magnum,
Thank you for reading and commenting on my blog. In previous posts, we have discussed Molinism and Middle Knowledge. I noticed in your favorite authors that you respect Plantinga and William Craig. Recognizing that all of our thought processes come from a central worldview, how would you discribe the thought process of "middle knowledge" in relation to this story we are in?
J. Mag,
In response to your comment on Paul, when God rips out our heart of stone (without our permission) and puts in us a heart of flesh; one that is able and willing to love and obey God, we can do no other.
Was Saul spiritually blind when the glory of God was revealed to him? Did Saul turn to God in belief in his blinded state? Or, did God make the scales fall from his eyes to see the glory of God and then believe? Or, did Saul, after seeing God with "new eyes" then have a changed heart? Or, was his heart changed right before he saw?
You say,
"There is no indication whatsoever in the text that Saul couldn't have said 'Nah, sorry God, I'm going to take my blindness and go the other way. Forget you!'"
How could Saul "take his blindness and go" if, in fact, God had already taken the scales off?
Many questions, I know, and some which really cannot be answered.
For clarification, what do you mean by "violate his will?" If our wills are naturally against God and for evil, how else do we come to a saving faith?
Magnum,
God clearly drags wicked hearts from darkness to light, and Julianne's point was right on. Acts 21:30 (which speak of the leaders "dragging" Paul away) and John 6:44 (which speaks of the Father's "drawing" us) both use the same Greek word. Also, you kept going on about how the Hebrews actually understood Scripture back then by saying that Scripture shows God and man involved (e.g. Saul slaying himself); though, you didn't actually say anything Hebrew culture or thinking. Point being, you quickly inserted that Saul was involved in what happened "more directly of course"... where did you catch that part in Scripture. Where is the verse that speaks of God's will being subservient to man's? I will post more later, but I have homework for tomorrow and it's after 12 am already. But, a quick word of advice: before you "LOL" Julianne, you might think about your own exegesis before haphazardly writing out your argument.
It's late... too many typos... anyway, you get the idea. ; )
I wish I had time to respond in depth (maybe this weekend), but let me say that I think your exegesis of John 6 is entirely lacking. I don't mean that as an ad-hominem, but John 6 is clearly soteriological. I'll post more later. Magnum, as a note, it helps to talk about this stuff in short spurts rather than huge comments. I'm not insulting; I'm actually serious. It's just a suggestion; it generally encourages other to jump in and helps keep good conversation going. See you, and thanks for replying.
Also, before I respond later: be sure to guard against false dichotomies in Scripture (such as saying that something is not soteriological because it is christological). This is a serious danger especially in philosophy... there is a way of wrongly analyzing a text rather than rightly analyzing it and considering its perspicuous reading.
Julianne,
From an exegetical point of view a structural dynamic analysis orients the serious scholar toward a soteriological point of view. Don't you agree?
Brian,
I definitely agree. How could it not be so? There can be no doubt that the meaning of major elements is further compounded by considering the unfortunate faux-pas of neo-orthodoxy. Thanks for bringing this up, it's worth consideration.
Sounds funny coming from someone named philosapologist. I'm actually glad for your comment because my post was actually a joke. I have no idea what I actually said. Just wondering if people would actually respond. I think Mr. Selleck is too busy writing his book on Mullinism. You know I did realize Rich Mullins had so much to say? Thanks for making my point with understandable words Phil ;-}
Oh stop being such a sullenist Phil ... I wasn't calling anyone stupid, just having fun. If anything I was making fun of myself for me being so stupid as to equate Molinism with Rich Mullins. I guess I'd never make it in philosophy. I am sorry that my bad humor upset you.
Also, I'm trying to help Julianne hit 100 posts!
So, do any of you guys know each other? rugged, phil, mag??? Just wondering how people find my blog. Thanks for posting.
rugged,
What is love? On human levels it might be something like what you say. I feel loved when I am being made much of. When someone cares enough to think my problems are worthy of sympathy or when they fuss over me. This is how it works on human terms. Give and receive.
But, when God is the Giver of love, the most loving thing He can do is give us Himself. It is not love for Him to make much of us, knowing that He is the most awesomest, holy, perfect Being, and that we are so depraved.
Just a question: I believe that God chooses me and that He does ALL the work in saving me (even compelling my will). You believe that God does everything, but that you must choose Him to make that work applicable to you (apart from God's intervention in your heart). Am I right?
My question is this: why would you rather speculate that you get to play a part of "some of the action" by choosing based on your free will (which is independent from God's will?)? Or, err on the side of God's sovereignty in divinely choosing a people for His own?
I don't understand why some are so oppossed to this line of thinking when the whole OT is so full of God choosing a people whom are His own. It's not a foreign concept, in biblical thought.
Thanks for your comments.
phil,
I only have a second, as I'm leaving for school. One thing: in Romans 9:14? or near that, Paul says that we cannot receive God's promise by choosing it or willing it. What does that mean?
rugged,
You said, "some how i find it incredibly arrogant to suggest that our complete just and all loving God would arbitrarily pick and choose a persons salvation based upon his will. Personally i believe scripture teaches that God loves his creation of human beings(not robots) and is dismayed when we choose not to conform to his will. I mean who am i, that God would choose to save from eternal destruction."
Are you saying God is incredibly arrogant, or those who believe God saves in such a way are arrogant? I’m assuming you’re speaking of the people. Think about what you said. I’d like to break this apart and make some points and ask some questions.
You basically said that it’s arrogant that God arbitrarily picks. When we think of the word arbitrarily we tend to think of this definition - "Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle." If this is what is meant, then it’s a poor choice of words because a Calvinist does not believe God’s choice is on a whim, made according to chance, or without reason or principle. I would appeal to Ephesians 1:5-7, which says,
In love He predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
God’s choice is not arbitrary. This says that His choice was not a whim or haphazard, but that it had purpose, and that purpose was to demonstrate His grace and to bring about praise.
You also described God as just and loving, and we see that this passage describes God’s choice as loving, and I find it curious that you say "just", because justice apart from grace would require we all go to Hell. God would be just in not choosing any. The point here and also in Romans 9:22-24 is that God’s purpose for choosing some is to demonstrate his grace.
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called
God chooses in this way in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy. In other words, if He chose everyone to be saved then we would not have a right comprehension of His mercy. We’d expect it because everyone gets it. Without this contrast we do not rightly understand the just punishment we deserve, and the worth of His glorious grace is not understood.
This does not require God to be unfeeling for the loss of those not chosen. It is true that He does not delight in their destruction, but it is not contradictory to say that He wills it to occur because He has a greater delight in the revelation of His glorious grace.
Actually I find it arrogant to believe what distinguishes you from those who will not be saved is your own choice. If the offer is to all and the only thing that sets you apart as a Christian is your own choice, then wouldn’t this be arrogance? You were apparently wise enough or smart enough or insightful enough to make that choice when others were not. That is arrogant. Maybe you think it’s arrogant because you think Calvinists believe God chose the winners – those who somehow stand out to Him as better candidates for His choice. I think this is what people must think (that say it is arrogant), but this is not what a Calvinist believes. Remember total depravity? Remember unconditional election? None is capable of being saved apart from God, and there is no condition that they meet, which draws God’s favor. If so, I agree, that would be arrogant. But a Calvinist believes God chooses purposefully – according to Himself and to display His glorious grace, and not because some stand out as better. Actually, all arrogance is stripped away and God’s grace is proclaimed in understanding that I am saved by God’s choice and not mine. I have nothing in which to boast. Quickly, I might add that a Calvinist does not believe they do not choose God. We are saved by faith through grace. We are not saved by election apart from faith. An expression of faith (us choosing) IS necessary, but I cannot boast in this choice because I know that apart from God changing my heart I would not have chosen Him. Any other way you look at it tends to be arrogant and grounds for boasting on your part.
"For Brian, the critical component of his comments seems to be an inference that grace could not be properly understood if everyone received it. But this just strikes me as whoppingly false. Grace need not be compared and contrasted to damnation."
"What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction". Why would God show His wrath on vessels prepared for destruction? Answer ... "in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory"
I don't make this argument, Paul does. Paul says that the reason God pours forth wrath on those who are going to Hell is for the express purpose of making known the riches of His glory to those whom He saves. You may reason that grace does not need to be compared and contrasted to damnation in order to know it, but the fact is, Paul does make this argument whether you like it or not.
As far as the arrogance issue, I understand that you would not say, "I'm smarter or wiser, or more discerning than those who do not choose God". But the fact is, if all have the ability to make this right choice, and it comes down to making this right choice, then the only thing that distinguishes you from those who do not make this right choice is ... YOU. You know better than to admit you're smarter, wiser, or more discerning, because this just sounds horrible, but the fact is YOU are the difference, and this leaves room to boast. Even if you chose not to boast, there still remains room for boasting. The only way that removes possibility for boasting is to see salvation in spite of you, not because of you. And I do not say this as if our choice is irrelevant. The choice must be made. I agree, and this is not the issue. The real issue is how one bent by a sin nature becomes able to make this choice. You would say man is capable apart from God’s intervention, which leaves possibility for boasting, and I would say God enables me to make that choice, thus I have no room to boast because I neither possess something superior nor have I met a condition that caused God to enable me. There is a superior choice made no matter how you look at it. My superior choice did not originate with me, so I cannot boast, while your superior choice originates from you and thus, (whether you do or don’t is not the issue), you CAN boast. So I am always baffled when someone arguing against Calvinism says that it is arrogant, because if properly understood and represented, Calvinism removes the possibility for arrogance.
And to the point of human responsibility, I would again reference Joseph's brothers and the cross (specifically Acts 2:22-23), for to argue for God's sovereign decree does not remove human responsibility. My argument does not ignore human responsibility. I've said numerous times now that God judges all men according to the evil intent of their hearts. This is just and men are accountable, yet we're faced with examples in Scripture that indicate human responsibility AND God's sovereign decree in the same single event, and yet they are not contradictory. The actions of Joseph's brothers are said to be evil, and the actions of those who crucified our savior are said to be lawless. The scripture (for the same account) also says that Jesus was crucified "according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God." This is why I mentioned earlier that there are some CREATOR-to-creature situations that we simply have no creature-to-creature relationship from which to compare and help us comprehend. If you and I (creature-to-creature) have a power struggle, one of us ends up submitting to the other, but apparently in this CREATOR-to-creature relationship it is possible for man to be fully responsible and justly held accountable for his evil actions, AND for God to have ordained this same event to occur. We have no relationship to compare. This is hard to understand. But I submit to what scripture says whether I comprehend it or not. Man is accountable and God ordains.
Magnum,
We both agree that some are fit for destruction and some are graciously saved. Arguing for HOW these are fit for destruction was not even my point. My purpose in quoting Romans 9 was because Phil said …
"For Brian, the critical component of his comments seems to be an inference that grace could not be properly understood if everyone received it".
You argue for those fit for destruction to have fit themselves. Fine. The fact is there are some fit for destruction, and my point was showing that Paul specifically gives a purpose for some going to Hell. That purpose being "in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory". I also agree that the heart of God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. The cross is an example of God having the ability to (in one sense) be outraged at the death of His Son, and also for this same event to be the most glorious of all events.
I would agree with you that people fit themselves for destruction. You seem to assume I do not agree. You also assume that because people fit themselves for destruction that God has absolutely no part. Again, I would refer to compatiblism, which shows people responsible and accountable for their actions and yet God also ordaining this very hardening. You've giving examples where the text shows both. I would argue that we do not have a conundrum or contradiction to accept both. This is part of this CREATOR-to-creature relationship that is unique and beyond our full comprehension. Scripture does indicate both (as you have demonstrated). I would simply say that both do not create a contradiction. I would also again refer to Romans 1 as an example of God causing in a way that does do no violence to the will of man. There is a difference between positive and negative causation. If God is the cause in a negative sense (removing his hand of restraint) then man acts freely and is justly held accountable. If God is the cause in a positive sense (which is what happens at conversion) then man is graciously given something that enables him to choose God, and then and then only is he incapable of boasting, AND the contrast he sees (what he deserves) is "in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory".
24 more to go!
I mean 22!
Magnum,
Wow, I'm using philosophy! Cool! ;-) So giving a word or labeling a teaching of scripture is stepping outside of scripture as my authority? I am submitting to what I see in scripture, and what I see is one event in which man acts as a free agent and yet God says that He has ordained man’s very act for His purposes, and the text does not indicate that by God doing so, man’s accountability has been altered. This revelation of scripture is given a name, that name being compatiblism. The word compatible is defined as – “Capable of existing or performing in harmonious, agreeable, or congenial combination with another or others”. So in compatiblism there is no contradiction, but instead a harmony that is difficult to completely understand because we have no similar relationship from which to draw understanding. Now I think I have said that I hate using mystery, and if you’ve read what I said in the past you’ll know that I have not left it there. I do believe positive causation (God actively wills) and negative causation (passively wills) give a satisfactory answer that removes this from the realm of contradiction. I only come back to mystery in that I do not want to arrogantly think I have this problem wrapped up in some neat little package, and say “there, done, I completely understand this.” So I haven’t “pulled the mystery card” without giving some explanation, and yet I only refer to mystery because I do not want to arrogantly say this covers every possible dilemma. I think it covers problems you have raised, but I suspect there are areas that are beyond anyone’s ability to answer because we simply have no comparative category from which to draw understanding. I say this because it is helpful to know WHY we cannot understand. Yet I do think I understand this and I do give explanation, I just don’t want to be this little ant arrogantly saying I understand my creator.
As far as Saul committing suicide and the scriptures saying, the Lord slew him; this is no different than “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it (antecedent is evil) for good”. I would refer to Romans 1 and its example of God causing or ordaining in such a way as to not violate man’s will. That would be negative causation or God passively willing by removing His hand of restraint and allowing the creature to do what he wants to do. God being the creator and possessing perfect knowledge knows what the creature (Saul in this case) will do. In this sense the Lord slew Saul, AND Saul is responsible for the sin of suicide because he acted according to his own evil heart and not some positive influence (actively willing) of God.
You’ve written so much, and honestly I have only read the beginning of your first post. I hope to read more and comment more. Normally I’d be at work these past couple of days, but I’ve been home nursing my back after a fall off a ladder – ouch! I suppose God negatively caused this event by removing His restraining hand. Not restraining my own stupidity that is. He ordained this to occur, and yet this does not remove my stupidity. Thanks for helping me pass the time. I’m bored, hurting, and foggy from the percocet.
Take care.
19 more! – that’s the percocet talking.
This is interesting because I don't believe I am departing from a Calvinistic view. Hey, maybe you guys are closer to endorsing Calvinism than you realize? ;-) I do appreciate your desire to understand, and to not settle with the mystery card. When Phil says that I'd find it fruitful to look at The Only Wise God by Craig so as to reconcile God's providence with man's freedom I think of Spurgeon saying, "I never try to reconcile friends". I may look at this book. Have you guys read Gordon Clark's book "God and Evil"? You might might find this to be meaningful. I'm curious if someone who holds to middle knowledge has a biblical view of depravity, which then helps define man's freedom. I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks for the good dialog.
Hey is this the percocet or might we be getting along?
Brian
ditto
Oh great! Now I went and waisted a bunch of time writing a snappy come-back only to erase it because you had to go and apologize.
Just kidding.
There was some truth to what you said. Certainly anything can be done to excess or with wrong motives. So if we blog to boastfully show what we know, then ... get a life, and if we blog in humble submission to God's word, which involves time spent in study, discussion, and defense ... don't feel guilty.
Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Cor 10:31).
Thanks for a good reminder.
Is it just me, or are you guys just going in circles?
It's just you.
thanks for the clarification
keep going brian, you're almost to 100!
Steph-o, I'm a little afraid of what will happen. There may be some centennial bug that will blow this blog to smithereens. Save your food and water!
or maybe just fireworks
Are you guys alright? What a relief. Hey, does anyone want to buy some extra water, toilet paper, and powdered milk?
Congratulations on being #100 Tom!
Post a Comment