The God Who is There - Romans 9:1-10:4 (Part 2)
Image
(Read the series so far.)
Recognition of God’s sovereignty in His work with people can be a tough subject to tackle. Even believers can become so earthly minded that we forget that God is not an elected leader Who seeks our approval. He is the Supreme. He is the Creator. All answer to Him, and He answers to none.
That can be deeply offensive to the American mind, but that makes it no less true. God is God—and as such, He is the Planner, the Author and the King. Don’t skip what Paul wrote and focus only on the offense: Paul made the point that God had (and has) a plan. He is at work. He has decided on the basis of His own desire to work through some people, and that wasn’t based entirely on them—but on His sovereign right to make such a decision.
Before you dive into what seems objectionable about those words, look at them. If you have a relationship with the Living God, you can celebrate the fact that you are not a cosmic accident. God has a plan He is working. He wanted you, and He chose you! How can that not be an exciting reality?
To be fair, any sensitive believer immediately thinks beyond their own chosen status and considers those who don’t know God. The converse of the choosing of God seems harsh. As a result, almost in the same breath, Paul recognized the objection of people to this stark truth about God, so Paul offered a bit of further explanation…
Because in God’s Plan He Chose to Have Only Some Relationships, Has God Been Unjust?
“What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!” (Rom. 9:14).
Paul un-spooled answers to this objection along several lines of reason.
- He attacked an “underlying presupposition” (that people deserve a relationship with God).
- He unraveled an “approach error” (that people can sit eye to eye with God and call His judgment into account).
- He suggested a “limitation error” (that we may not fully grasp what God is doing in His choices).
The objection was over the justice of God. Let’s take a moment and see how Paul responded.
First, he made clear there was a “Presupposition Error.”
Such a challenge to God’s justice begins with the notion that people deserve a relationship with God—but that is wrong! Look at Paul’s writing for a moment, and follow the words closely:
For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it [does] not [depend] on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. (Rom. 9:15-18)
It is easy to frame these words in the harshest way, and make God look uncaring and unloving in His justice. That is a mistake. The qualities of God are so deeply intertwined that they do not separate from one another. God isn’t merely just—His being defines justice. God isn’t merely good—His being defines goodness. God isn’t merely merciful—His being defines mercy. Christians need to stop viewing life through dualism There isn’t “good” and “bad” and God falls into conformity to doing good. God defines good and evil. He is the beginning template of all things. No one loves more than His love—since He is the core definition of love. No one is more just than He, since His character is the basic form from which the idea of justice flows.
We believe the Bible explains God’s revealed perspective of humanity. In the beginning of the human experience, the Bible explained that people began with a relationship with God and after a time they rebelled against Him. Given an opportunity to stand with God against the temptation of God’s enemy or follow that enemy—man chose rebellion. He didn’t do it because He was underprivileged or ignorant of God’s will—it was a mutiny pure and simple. That set the tone for the entire story of the Bible between man and God.
Don’t think of people in terms of innocence anymore—that isn’t the biblical view at all.
Think of the woman who walks into the house and discovers her man with another woman for the fifth time. Later, you meet the man and the line of his reasoning is that “He deserves more chances from her.” Do you agree? His desire for a renewed relationship overcame his memory of infidelity—but she remembered! HE abandoned the relationship, and now HE feels he is entitled to more chances. That is the kind of mutiny men pulled on God in the Garden. It isn’t right to blame God and assume people have a right to a relationship after a mutiny.
God wasn’t heartless—He made a way to bridge the gulf of man’s mutiny. Yet, here is the interesting thing: even today, a great many men seek another way to God that isn’t according to His plan.
They choose religion or good deeds over the plan God revealed of the gift of Jesus’ full payment at Calvary. When they attempt an alternative way to God, they continue their mutiny. Mutiny is a willful rejection of God’s plan in favor of our own. It happened in the Garden of Eden, and it is happening in churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and philanthropic pursuits around the world even now. When men make their own way to God, they continue to deny His absolute right to set the rules for all things—including how He is to be accessed.
Let’s be clear: God loves more than any of us. God is just in the purest sense of the word. Yet, God has been snubbed. Men are not innocent. They cheated on Him. They have no right to claim they deserve God’s changing of the plan to overlook their mutiny.
Randall Smith Bio
Dr. Randall Smith is Teaching Pastor at Grace Church of Sebring, Florida; Director at Global Vision Outreach, Inc.; and a teacher at Great Commission Bible Institute. He bogs regularly at The Wandering Shepherd.
This looks like an interesting series so far. Keep up the good work.
God chooses to save ALL who come unto Him by Christ. Their not coming is not because He didn’t choose them. It is because they refuse to come (John 5:39). Of course, men have no claim on God, on His mercy, or on His grace. Man’s condemnation rests upon his refusal to use the free will God gave him in a way that makes him a subject of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (1 John 2:2).
This article appears just another attempt to pit the sovereignty of God with the free will God gave to man. I dare to predict it will be no more successful than a myriad of other attempts. The capacity of man to bring together these two parallel lines of thought will only be resolved in eternity, but yes, they will be resolved to the glory of God and to the satisfaction of God’s justice.
Jim, I think you’re reading into it.
“God chooses to save ALL who come unto Him by Christ.”
Absolutely no one questions that.
But we also must let Romans say what it says and let it guide us to better know who our God is. Paul’s argument in Rom 9 is pretty clear… and it’s also clear that he understood some of these truths are inherently disturbing to some extent—and hard to accept.
So if we feel reluctance, that’s kind of a good sign, but it should end in “the eyes of our understanding being enlightened” to borrow from Ephesians.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The context is specifically Israel and the Gentiles, not the saved and the unsaved in general. Paul intimates that Jews have a problem with God saving Gentiles (9:30), who have not followed the Law. He says that God can show mercy on anyone he pleases, and it pleases Him to show mercy on Gentiles. And it also conforms to His plan to “harden those whom He pleases, who have only pretentiously followed the Law (Jews). Hardness is what occurs in those who know God’s will and reject it (as was the case with Pharaoh, and is in this case with Israel, whom God hardens until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled; then a remnant will be saved). So the key thought about election here is that God may elect to save those who were not His people (Gentiles) and show wrath towards those who are His people (Israel).
The problem with Calvinism is that it pits God in his sovereignty against man with the free will God gave him, creating an image of God that is inconsistent with other aspects of His character. It makes John 3:16 say something it doesn’t. It perverts 1 John 2:2. It finds itself guilty of adding words to Scripture to make it say something it doesn’t. When are we going to stop this nonsense and simply take the plain sense of Scripture for what it says?
Oh, The great mystery of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will!
I accept that God chose before time to elect (Eph 1:3-5) “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world”
I accept that any who will repent and trust the Lord will be saved! (John 3:16)
I happily wear the tag “Calvinist” and I endeavor to tell as many as have opportunity.
This is the guiding principle — foreknowledge. The primary meaning of the word is “to know beforehand.” Even this, however, has been “theologized” by some to support a belief system that wants for biblical support without twisting Scripture. It is said that the word could not mean “to know beforehand” in every case because this would make God’s decision to save dependent upon the exercise of man’s will, thus robbing God of His sovereignty. However, according to Scripture man’s choice (before he made it) was known to God before man made it, and thus God’s predestination was dependent upon His foreknowing and not upon man’s decision. So the divine order is: (1) prior knowledge from eternity of a person’s faith in Christ — salvation in prospect — because there is nothing God cannot know; (2) predestination in eternity past of the believing person to all the divine blessings that faith produces, but based upon foreknowledge; (3) decision of the person in time to believe — salvation in actuality. This sequence of events makes sense of sovereign choice and human will.
Some have tried to equate the idea of a man’s “knowing” his wife sexually with the idea of God’s knowing (choosing) man, i.e. God’s having a relationship with believers before a man’s having believing faith. The two ideas do not agree at all. The Hebrew word for “sexually knowing” is “yada,” and while God is said to have this kind of relationship with His covenant people (Hosea 13:5; Amos 3:2), the word “yada” does not mean “to know in advance.” “Yada” in Hebrew, and “proginosko” in Greek are not equivalent to the best of my understanding.
As one writer explains: “We affirm that from eternity past God has known all that would happen in the universe and in the minds and affairs of men — not because He “wills all things” but because “He knows all things,” i.e., He is omniscient.”
God could certainly determine apart from man’s choice to save some and damn others, but would He be the God of the Bible? Is He not more glorified in creating the environment of freedom and permitting man to determine his destiny by his own choices to love God or to hate Him? Is not such a God more worthy of worship and love by His creatures?
But 2 things…
1- John 3.16 is not in dispute. Everybody agrees that “whoever believes” will have everlasting life.
2-We discover what kind of God is worthy of worship by finding out what the God Scripture reveals is like… We don’t decide what He is like by asking what seems worthy of worship. That’s backwards.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
So God knew some wouldn’t believe … yet He created them anyway … so they could go to hell! Created for hell!
Are you intimating that God didn’t know from eternity who would and who would not believe? And He just created hell so He could send some there? That’s a naughty conclusion, and one not worthy of you from what I have read of your posts before. Hell was created for the Devil and his angels. It was enlarged to receive those who chose to follow him rather than follow Christ. God didn’t create any man to go to Hell, though He could not be unaware that it would happen.
No one disputes what John 3:16 says. Some dispute to whom it may apply. Some imply that “whosoever” applies only to those who are “the elect.” Others do not fit into the verse. Some Calvinists are infamous for adding to Scripture when they mutilate certain Scriptures by implying they refer to “the elect only,” when in fact they have universal application.
The thought of “God being worthy of worship” is not meant to imply that God is on trial, but rather with reference to how apologetically we answer those who doubt His worthiness to be worshiped because some present Him as a God who only created some (as Jim above implies) to send them to hell.
Man alone is responsible for God’s condemning him to hell.
“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” - ESV
––––––––––––
Where does this verse fit into this discussion? Is this indicative of Limited or Unlimited Atonement?
Well, it sure doesn’t fit well with the Limited Atonement view, does it?
I’m in the middle of writing some discipleship lessons for new Christians for use in my church. I’m laying a foundation for appreciating God’s grace in salvation, so the new Christian will understand his obligation to live a holy life for the Lord out of love and gratitude. I’ve already covered election and predestination with a new Christian, and it was amazing to me how calmly she took the entire issue. She hadn’t been poisoned with caricatures of God’s sovereignty, so she had no trouble at all in accepting the truths of unconditional election and effectual calling to salvation.
During one lesson, the issue of God’s justice came up. Was God somehow evil for not choosing to save everybody? I used these two graphics in the lesson packet to help her understand how God really sees as in our natural state - as rebellious criminals in his eyes. We ought to be grateful He decided to save anybody, instead of impugning His character:
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Some dispute to whom it may apply. Some imply that “whosoever” applies only to those who are “the elect.”
Nobody denies that it applies to all who believe.
It’s just easier to represent the view as though it excluded someone who wants to be saved. But it does not.
One question I’ve never heard a free-willer answer (as opposed to evade) is this (it takes a bit to set it up…)
- Suppose that everybody is equally able to believe and respond positively to a presentation of the gospel.
- Suppose two guys hear the gospel at the same time.
- Suppose one (Ralph) believes and the other (Lars) did not.
- What was the mechanism that triggered (I think in Aristotelian terms it would be the “efficient cause”) Ralph to believe? To say it another way, in what way is Ralph different from Lars at the moment of decision?
Now, some of the usual answers I’ve heard are things like these:
- a. The Spirit convicted Ralph, but did not convict Lars.
- b. Ralph saw the truth but Lars did not.
- c. It’s a mystery and we shouldn’t try to answer that.
- d. Ralph was more humble than Lars.
I suppose I’ve heard some other variants I don’t recall now. But they boil down to two possibilities:
a. There is something different about Ralph
b. There is something different in God’s interaction with Ralph
If you go with “a”…. sorry, it begs the question. Why is Ralph different? How did that happen?
I think I remember someone trying to say that it could be c. Circumstances were different… but this is rephrasing a. If the circumstances are different for Ralph than for Lars, Ralph is different. His circumstances have affected him.
But even if we admit c. as a third option, how did these circumstances come about?
–-
(On a mostly unrelated note, I’m so glad to see that SEP—Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) is back. For several months I couldn’t find it. Domain name changed or something. But hurray! It’s back. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#FouCau)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Not sure what letter I’m on…! Remembered another answer I’ve heard to this:
e. Completely random chance
But this leads to very similar questions to what I’ve already raised because if you dig into what they mean by “chance,” it leads to some condition or other that just happened to occur. But why/how did that condition/circumstance occur?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” - (1 Timothy 2:1-7 ESV)
––––––––––-
Help me out here…..are these verses teaching/referring to a Limited or Unlimited Atonement?
“Salvation is made free to all by the Gospel. It is initiated by God and is accomplished by grace apart from any human works (1). It is the duty of all persons to accept it by personal faith (2). Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Christ as Savior (3). All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are forgiven, regenerated, and justified (4). The perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to them (5). They are given spiritual life which is manifested in their growth in grace (6). True believers are saved forever and can never be lost (7).”
http://www.centralseminary.edu/about-central/foundational-documents/doc…
––––––––––
Does a Limited Atonement make the bolded statements above incorrect/untrue?
[Larry Nelson]“Salvation is made free to all by the Gospel. It is initiated by God and is accomplished by grace apart from any human works (1). It is the duty of all persons to accept it by personal faith (2). Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Christ as Savior (3). All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are forgiven, regenerated, and justified (4). The perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to them (5). They are given spiritual life which is manifested in their growth in grace (6). True believers are saved forever and can never be lost (7).”
http://www.centralseminary.edu/about-central/foundational-documents/doct…
––––––––––
Does a Limited Atonement make the bolded statements above incorrect/untrue?
No!
Everything being equal and the same in the case of Ralph and Lars, the deciding factor is probably that each one considered the decision in light of what each considered to be in his own best interests. Faith and Reason guided each one in his decision. This is consistent with the free will God gave to man and with the capacity God imparted to each. In Isa. 1:18, God says: “Come, now, and let us reason,” says the Lord. Let’s say Ralph admits he is a sinner, that his sinfulness produces guilt, that reason argues that justice will demand a payment, that he can not meet the demands of a just payment, that he is therefore condemned without hope unless the loving God he has heard of is willing to make that payment for him, and that it is a reasonable thought that such a God exists, and that this God loved him so much that he provided His only Son as a Substitute for his sins. Of course, we know that the Holy Spirit is working on Ralph, and Ralph makes a decision of his own free will to believe these Good News.
On the other hand we have Lars. Everything is the same with him, but he rejects the truth which Ralph has heard. Lars does not believe these Gospel facts. He doesn’t believe it is in his interest to stake his future on them. He would rather pursue a life of self-interest, believing that his sins will not be judged. Guided by his own self-deception, he chooses to reject the Gospel and thus take his chances. He perverts the use of his God-given freedom to choose to his own damnation.
It is God who established the way of escape, which is available to both Ralph and Lars, but although each is enlightened by the Spirit with the same facts, each is guided by his own “reality.” One believes and is saved, and the other rejects the gospel.
There is no need to confuse the plain and simple facts regarding the gospel by muddying the water with “one being elected and the other not.” That raises all sorts of issues that have created unnecessary debate and divided the Body of Christ.
[Jim]Larry Nelson wrote:
”Salvation is made free to all by the Gospel. It is initiated by God and is accomplished by grace apart from any human works (1). It is the duty of all persons to accept it by personal faith (2). Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Christ as Savior (3). All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are forgiven, regenerated, and justified (4). The perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to them (5). They are given spiritual life which is manifested in their growth in grace (6). True believers are saved forever and can never be lost (7).”
http://www.centralseminary.edu/about-central/foundational-documents/doct…
––––––––––
Does a Limited Atonement make the bolded statements above incorrect/untrue?
No!
Jim: You can’t use “to all” and then add a limit to it without the offer being suspect. Central’s statement is plain English, and your statement qualifies and limits it.
[Jim]Larry Nelson wrote:
”Salvation is made free to all by the Gospel. It is initiated by God and is accomplished by grace apart from any human works (1). It is the duty of all persons to accept it by personal faith (2). Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Christ as Savior (3). All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are forgiven, regenerated, and justified (4). The perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to them (5). They are given spiritual life which is manifested in their growth in grace (6). True believers are saved forever and can never be lost (7).”
http://www.centralseminary.edu/about-central/foundational-documents/doct…
––––––––––
Does a Limited Atonement make the bolded statements above incorrect/untrue?
No!
As Rolland McCune states here on pages 177 to 178, Fundamentalism has typically been 3 or 4 point Calvinistic:
http://2013.dbts.edu/journals/1996_2/nonissue.pdf
[Note: the section referenced, “Calvinism and Arminianism,” is one of the “Doctrinal Non-Issues in Historic Fundamentalism” addressed in McCune’s article.]
I struggle with “Limited Atonement.”
If it is limited, shouldn’t the first statement I bolded above more accurately read: “Salvation is made free to all the Elect by the Gospel.”?
Or how is the second bolded statement reconciled with a Limited Atonement? If the Atonement is limited, that would certainly supersede “Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Christ as Savior.”
Yes, we are all guilty rebels towards God. What is universal is God’s condemnation. What is universal is the offer of salvation. What is universal is the payment which authenticates the offer. What is limited is the offer to save, which is only available to those who repent and believe the Gospel.
“Soteriology”
“The Bible faculty are committed to teaching a biblically balanced soteriology. We believe in the divine source of salvation, that all of salvation flows from God’s free and unmerited grace. We also affirm the responsibility of all people to repent of their sins and believe the gospel. We recognize that good men have differed throughout church history regarding the difficult questions of election and predestination. While believing that it is essential that every student of the Word work through the numerous passages that touch on these difficult issues, we grant both our faculty and students the liberty to investigate the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man in various ways. We reject theology that denies the responsibility of all people to repent and believe, or the responsibility of all believers to evangelize everyone they can. We do not support positions that attribute the source of evil to God or that limit the extent of Christ’s atonement to the elect. We also reject man-centered theologies that depreciate human depravity, emphasizing free will to the extent that they depend upon methodologies and strategies as the crucial components in evangelism and revival. We uphold the biblical doctrine of eternal security. The Bible faculty believe that carelessly disparaging men as Calvinists or Arminians is unhelpful and intellectually chilling. At Maranatha the great doctrines relating to God’s gracious work are treated with reverence and respect and believers are evaluated according to their obedience and faithfulness to the Word regardless of the labels men ascribe to them. Both scholarship and truth require accuracy and grace when evaluating men and ministries. We believe professors and students ought to be able to interact thoughtfully and respectfully on this issue, bringing all of their theological formulations to the bar of careful biblical exegesis.”
http://www.mbu.edu/about/statement-of-faith/commitment-statements/
[Emphasis mine.]
––––––—
“We do not support positions…..that limit the extent of Christ’s atonement to the elect.”
Jesus Christ:
We believe that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary; that He is One Person possessing two natures and thus is true God and true man; that He lived a sinless life and gave Himself as a perfect substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of all humanity; that He arose bodily from the grave, ascended into Heaven where He is seated on the right hand of God interceding for His people and will return to the earth in keeping with His promises.
Salvation:
We believe that salvation is all of grace through the substitutionary work of Jesus Christ Who paid the full redemptive price and fully satisfied God’s righteous demands by suffering the death penalty for humanity’s guilt, and that He imputes His righteousness, thus reconciling sinners to God; that salvation is made effective only upon the exercise of personal faith in Jesus Christ, which faith is not a meritorious work but possible only by the grace of God. We believe that salvation includes justification, regeneration, adoption in to the family of God, sanctification (positional, progressive, and final) and glorification; that one who is truly born again will be preserved by divine grace, being kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.
http://www.faith.edu/about-faith/position-statements/doctrinal-statement
[Emphasis mine.]
–––––––––––––—
“He…..gave Himself as a perfect substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of all humanity”
“Jesus Christ Who paid the full redemptive price…..for humanity’s guilt”
Not as outright as Maranatha’s statement, but are these not proclaiming an Unlimited Atonement?
I’m not perceiving any limitations on the extent of the Atonement in these statements.
Just FYI, the bolded portion from Central Seminary’s doctrinal statement about how “nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Christ as Savior,” is basically lifted from the 1833 NHCF, which is a Calvinisic document.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
In my post, I wasn’t referring to the intent of the atonement, but to unconditional, single election.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Larry Nelson]Jim wrote:
Larry Nelson wrote:
”Salvation is made free to all by the Gospel. It is initiated by God and is accomplished by grace apart from any human works (1). It is the duty of all persons to accept it by personal faith (2). Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Christ as Savior (3). All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are forgiven, regenerated, and justified (4). The perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to them (5). They are given spiritual life which is manifested in their growth in grace (6). True believers are saved forever and can never be lost (7).”
http://www.centralseminary.edu/about-central/foundational-documents/doct…
––––––––––
Does a Limited Atonement make the bolded statements above incorrect/untrue?
No!
As Rolland McCune states here on pages 177 to 178, Fundamentalism has typically been 3 or 4 point Calvinistic:
http://2013.dbts.edu/journals/1996_2/nonissue.pdf
[Note: the section referenced, “Calvinism and Arminianism,” is one of the “Doctrinal Non-Issues in Historic Fundamentalism” addressed in McCune’s article.]
I struggle with “Limited Atonement.”
If it is limited, shouldn’t the first statement I bolded above more accurately read: “Salvation is made free to
allthe Elect by the Gospel.”?Or how is the second bolded statement reconciled with a Limited Atonement? If the Atonement is limited, that would certainly supersede “Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Christ as Savior.”
- I differentiate between the “how” and the “why” of salvation
- Electric switch illustration: Even a 3 year old can flip the lights on (the “how” of electric lights). But behind the scenes are power cables, switches, transformers, transmission lines, power plants, coal mines, trains that carry the coal, et cetera. The behind the scenes is the why.
- Believers are to preach the gospel to every creature, not knowing who will respond
- The how is John 3:16 and like verses. The why is the selection process
- There is a selection process known only to God
- The elect ultimately respond
- About the selection process: The Father elects, the Son procures, the Spirit regenerates
- That there is an Ordo salutis is clear from Romans 8:29,30, ” For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
- Re: “Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Christ as Savior”. To me this speaks to human responsibility and accountability. I agree with this statement. The saved man declares “Christ died for me” (I Tim 1:15). The lost one ultimately will be judged for his failure to repent and trust Christ as Lord and Savior.
- So far (10 years at 4th) no one has called me a heretic. I’ve been completely transparent about my position (5 pt) which I believe to be a mainstream, historic Baptist position.
- I was ordained 30+ years in a GARBC church as a 5 pointer. The questioning was robust. The council was unanimous. My doctrinal statement is public (signiture line) and has been consistent for the entire time.
- I have graciously cooperated with those who have disagreed with me on issue of limited atonement
I said: About the selection process: The Father elects, the Son procures, the Spirit regenerates
- The Father chose to elect some and not others
- The Son (my view of what I call “particular redemption”): procured the salvation of the elect.
- The Spirit effectually calls and gifts faith to those whom the Father elected and the Son redeemed
Re the position of others (schools, personalities or movements. I greatly respect Faith to the extent that we have financially supported the school (in a small but consistent way) for a number of years. I personally do not claim the label fundamentalist for the reasons in this link.
University Creed:
“I believe in the inspiration of the Bible (both the Old and the New Testaments); the creation of man by the direct act of God; the incarnation and virgin birth of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ; His identification as the Son of God; His vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind by the shedding of His blood on the cross; the resurrection of His body from the tomb; His power to save men from sin; the new birth through the regeneration by the Holy Spirit; and the gift of eternal life by the grace of God.”
http://www.bju.edu/about/what-we-believe/
[Emphasis mine.]
–––––––––––––––-
Does this express a belief in a Limited or an Unlimited Atonement?
“Mankind” is a broad, universal term, which as far as I’ve always known refers to “everyone.”
Merriam Webster seems to support this:
Full Definition of MANKIND
1 \ˈman-ˈkīnd, -ˌkīnd\ : the human race : the totality of human beings
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mankind
So I infer from this that BJU is not expressing a belief in a Limited Atonement. (If they were, why not just declare something like: “His vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind the Elect”?)
I think BJU is using Biblical phraseology along the lines of I Timothy 1:15, “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. “
Of course, we know that the Holy Spirit is working on Ralph, and Ralph makes a decision of his own free will to believe these Good News.
On the other hand we have Lars. Everything is the same with him, but he rejects the truth which Ralph has heard. Lars does not believe these Gospel facts. He doesn’t believe it is in his interest to stake his future on them. He would rather pursue a life of self-interest, believing that his sins will not be judged. Guided by his own self-deception, he chooses to reject the Gospel and thus take his chances. He perverts the use of his God-given freedom to choose to his own damnation.
It is God who established the way of escape, which is available to both Ralph and Lars, but although each is enlightened by the Spirit with the same facts, each is guided by his own “reality.” One believes and is saved, and the other rejects the gospel.
You seem to have restated the result but still not identified the cause. Why does one reject and one not reject? You describe them thinking differently about what they’ve heard, but why do they think differently?
I asserted earlier that the answers all boil down to two options:
a. Either God does something different to the one who believes, or
b. There is something different already in the one who chooses to believe.
Should I take your answer to be “b”?
…
Also wanted to point out that in “Calvinism,” everybody who rejects the gospel or accepts the gospel does exactly and only what they want to do at that that moment. At times you seem to put it as though the views are either that a person who uses “free will” to choose or a person is forced. But this is not what “irresistible grace” means.
Those who believe are actually freer than those who do not because the latter are constrained by their nature to only desire rebellion against God. But those who are drawn are liberated from that and see the truth for what it is. The choice to believe is “irresistible” a that point because there is no longer anything in us to motivate resistance. We no longer want to resist… and freely choose.
So… to come full circle, results have causes. Always. And our choices are constrained by our nature. We choose according to what we are. The natural man irresistibly and freely (as in, not constrained from outside himself) rejects, and the one who believes, irresistibly and freely (as in, not constrained from outside himself) accepts.
Of course, there are “Calvinists” who overstate the dynamic, but I think they are not doing well by Calvin, or Augustine either… who is really the one most of this should probably be named after.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
To comment on your analogy, the electric circuits behind the scene are the resource, but they are useless to produce an effect without the child flipping the switch (free will).
The “selection process” of John 3:16 is “whosoever believes.”
You are saying that “the elect will respond.” Here is where you have introduced the Calvinistic idea that the elect will eventually respond because God chose them. The Scripture, however, makes election “according to foreknowledge,” which means “God knew before they responded that they would respond, not that He decided they should or would necessarily respond.”
It’s interesting that in order to maintain your sequence of events related to salvation, which you quote from Romans 8, you conveniently leave out any mention of a person’s choice because it doesn’t blatantly appear in the text. That choice is implied, however, in “foreknew” (foreknowledge indicating God knew beforehand whether a person would receive Christ or not), and on that basis He “predestinated,” and in sequence of time, He called, justified, and glorified the foreknown one, etc.)
Consider: it is not only the saved man who declares “Christ died for me.” Before one is saved, one must believe this also, or he wouldn’t call on the Lord to be saved” in the first place.
I will not call you a “heretic;” that’s pretty strong language. In my opinion you are probably not in the mainstream of N.T. theology, having ignored that part of the Gospel which requires human participation. It seems to me that you have under-emphasized the words “whosoever believes,” and turned human will into a robotic-type action. The fact that this view has been tolerated at 4th for 10 years says more about 4th than it does about the validity of your position.
Yes, my answer would be “b.” The something “different” in the one who chooses to believe is his response to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. The one who chooses not to believe closes his heart to the work of the Holy Spirit.
I think I stated that the “cause” of rejection is that the one sinner does not accept that it is in his best interest to believe, and the other does. This is where free will allows the sinner to make that decision. Both are convicted by the Spirit; both decide what is in their best interest. The rejecting sinner thinks ONLY of himself; the believing sinner relates what is best for him to how undeserving he is and how grateful to God he is for loving, forgiving, and accepting him.
Yes, Calvinism says everyone does what he wants to do. But Calvinism goes on to admit that, in the case of the elected one, it is God who has made him want to do what he wants to do. Like the old song: “He didn’t make them go against their will; He just made them willing to go.” That’s just another way of denying the use of one’s free will.
Your explanation of “irresistible grace” which you say prepares a sinner to accept salvation, either depicts God as being a respecter of persons for choosing one and damning another, or it depicts God as being capable of convincing one and not the other, or it shows God as desiring one and not the other, or it portrays one sinner being more depraved than another. I can admit that the basis of such a choice of one and not another may be unexplainable to the human mind and not have anything to do with any reasons that we are presently able to understand. If so, then the whole discussion is nothing more than academic, and we may all be shown to be ignorant when God shows us His wise scheme.
I do agree with you that Calvinism should be aptly named Augustinianism, for that is where it began, and owing to the many errors of its founder, makes it even more suspect as a Bible doctrine.
Just because I can, I’ll share a graphic I made for our church’s discipleship lesson on God’s calling to salvation:
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I believe in free will, I don’t believe in libertarian free will. We make the choices we make because of who we are. We are responsible for these choices. God will judge each person accordingly with a righteous judgment.
Is there tension? Absolutely. We hold in tension our belief in God’s sovereignty, determining who we are, when we live, where we will live, who our parents will be, our DNA, etc. and human responsibility. While this might seem uncomfortable, I believe that it is not only the best biblical option, but the only philosophical option outside outside of fatalism
[jimcarwest] The Scripture, however, makes election “according to foreknowledge,” which means “God knew before they responded that they would respond, not that He decided they should or would necessarily respond.”It’s interesting that in order to maintain your sequence of events related to salvation, which you quote from Romans 8, you conveniently leave out any mention of a person’s choice because it doesn’t blatantly appear in the text. That choice is implied, however, in “foreknew” (foreknowledge indicating God knew beforehand whether a person would receive Christ or not), and on that basis He “predestinated,” and in sequence of time, He called, justified, and glorified the foreknown one, etc.)
You misunderstand foreknowledge and you underestimate the deadness of the human condition.
Learn from the great AW Pink on foreknowledge!
What is meant by “foreknowledge?” “To know beforehand,” is the ready reply of many. But we must not jump at conclusions, nor must we turn to Webster’s dictionary as the final court of appeal, for it is not a matter of the etymology of the term employed. What is needed is to find out how the word is used in Scripture. The Holy Spirit’s usage of an expression always defines its meaning and scope. It is failure to apply this simple, rule which is responsible for so much confusion and error. So many people assume they already know the signification of a certain word used in Scripture, and then they are too dilatory to test their assumptions by means of a concordance. Let us amplify this point.
If you disagree with a position, it is always helpful to actually read about that position so you actually understand it. For example, I completely disagree with Arminian soteriology, especially prevenient grace, and I’ve read what they have to say on this issue. I have Roger Olson’s book, I have Thomas Odom’s book on grace, I’ve read H. Orton Wiley’s systematic, and I’ve read some of Wesley’s sermons. I’m certainly not an expert, but I have a reasonably accurate idea of where they’re coming from and why.
In this thread, there have been a number of misrepresentations about Calvinist soteriology. If anyone still reading this thread would like to see what the other side has to say, I would recommend the following:
- The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner (0.99 - Kindle)
- The Five Points of Calvinism: A Study Guide by Edwin Palmer (0.99 - Kindle)
You may not ever agree, but that’s not the point. We should at least want to understand the other side.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Let me get this straight, Tyler. According to Calvinistic doctrine, “nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner EXCEPT HIS OWN VOLUNTARY REFUSAL to accept Christ as Savior, but then the sinner’s salvation rest solely upon his having been chosen by God before he accepts the gospel. Thus the exercise of his will to be lost is his own responsibility, BUT the exercise of his will in salvation is only in consequence of having been prior elected. I can’t understand that this is biblical.
[jimcarwest]Let me get this straight, Tyler. According to Calvinistic doctrine, “nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner EXCEPT HIS OWN VOLUNTARY REFUSAL to accept Christ as Savior, but then the sinner’s salvation rest solely upon his having been chosen by God before he accepts the gospel. Thus the exercise of his will to be lost is his own responsibility, BUT the exercise of his will in salvation is only in consequence of having been prior elected. I can’t understand that this is biblical.
Correctly represented:
- All have sinned & deserve death
- The Gospel is to preached to all
- All invited
- Without God, none would respond
- Elect respond in faith
- The ones who do not are accountable for their failure to repent
- God is not blamed / nor the author of sin
- Some things our finite minds cannot fathom
I suggest that some may overestimate the effects of the “deadness of the human condition.” We understand that all who are outside of Christ are spiritually dead. This is characterized by their being depraved, and we generally quantify this depravity with the adjective “total.” But in Scripture this does not mean deadness as in “unable to respond to God in any way.” It means a lack of ability to produce the rigteousness that God requires for a relationship with Him. And in this man is totally incapable. It does not imply, however, an inability to communicate with God in this spiritually depraved state. There are instances in Scripture where God did speak with the depraved, did command them to do things, did hold them accountable without their first being made alive spiritually. This belief by Calvinists has led to the false belief that regeneration must precede justification, holding that a sinner cannot repent and believe unless he is first made spiritually alive. However, the order of salvation, as stated in Scripture makes becoming a son of God contingent on first receiving Christ by believing on His name (John 1:12-13).
As for Pink’s comment that rejects the use of a dictionary for understanding the word “foreknowledge.” Well, how about the customary practice of arriving at the understanding of a word by viewing its other uses in Scripture. The common use in the NT of the word “foreknowledge,” according to well-recognized W.E. Vine”s Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words is: A. Verb. “proginosko — to know before is used of (a) Divine knowledge, concerning (1) Christ 1 Pet. 1:20, R.V. “FOREKNOWN” (A.V. foreordained); 2) Israel as God’s earthly people, Rom. 11:2; (3) believers, Rom. 8:29; the foreknowledge of God is the basis of His foreordaining counsels; (b) of human knowledge (1) persons, Acts 26:5; (2) of faccs, 2 Pet. 3:17. B. Noun. proginosis, a foreknowledge (akin to A.) is used, only of Divine foreknowledge, Acts 2:23; 1 Pet. 1:2. Foreknowledge is one aspect of omniscience; it is implied in God’s warnings, promises and predictions. See Acts 15:18. God’s foreknowledge involves His electing grace, but this does not preclude human will. He foreknows the exercise of faith which brings salvation. The Apostle Paul stresses especially the actual purposes of God rather than the ground of the purposes, see, e.g. Gal. 1:16; Eph. 1:5,11. The Divine counsels will ever be unthwartable.
I don’t find anything Vine says the word contains to be inconsistent with the viewpoint I have espoused in this post. I also do not find some of the theological interpretations some have advanced here to be consistent with the meaning of the word foreknowledge. That is, I don’t find the word advances the idea that God’s election overrules the choice of man, but is simply the Divine awareness and prior knowledge of man’s choice, which God requires man to exercise.
I do find this Calvinistic “double talk” interesting. Man cannot be saved unless God chooses and elects him, but if he is not saved, it is not due to God’s not electing him, but rather it is man himself who is at fault because he does not believe and repent, which is unable to do because he is depraved beyond even being able to respond to God when the Spirit convicts him. The logic of that view is really difficult to justify. But I suppose if one starts out with a premise, and the end result is not consistent with the premise, it is a favorite tactic to just relegate the inconsistency to the realm of the unknown or a mystery or something that will be explained one day. God invites us in Isa. 1:18 to come and reason with Him, and then, according to this view, He promptly informs us that what He says to us does not have to make sense.
[jimcarwest]Yes, my answer would be “b.” The something “different” in the one who chooses to believe is his response to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. The one who chooses not to believe closes his heart to the work of the Holy Spirit.
I think I stated that the “cause” of rejection is that the one sinner does not accept that it is in his best interest to believe, and the other does. This is where free will allows the sinner to make that decision. Both are convicted by the Spirit; both decide what is in their best interest. The rejecting sinner thinks ONLY of himself; the believing sinner relates what is best for him to how undeserving he is and how grateful to God he is for loving, forgiving, and accepting him.
Second paragraph first. Why does the rejecting sinner think differently than the other guy?
First paragraph: the two options were (a) Ralph believes because God did something to him that He did not do to Lars or (b) Ralph was already different from Lars.
As it happens, both explanations are a problem for popular “free will” views.
- Identifying the cause of Ralph’s believing as something God did is pretty much what most of the variants of “free will” views object to. If God even nudges him a little bit toward faith and doesn’t nudge the other guy in exactly the same way, it’s seen as unfair, or “being respecter of persons” (though it’s the opposite of that) etc.
- Identifying the cause of Ralph’s believing as something in himself is, however, even worse for most “free will” views I’ve heard. For one, it means that Ralph got saved because he was wiser than Lars. He is now a Christian because he was a better man, less blinded by sin, less deluded by sin’s lies, less hostile toward the truth. If God did not make him better than the other guy, how did he get that way? He must have, by his own efforts, improved himself.
So now, instead of salvation by grace through faith, we have salvation by the faith that results from being a better human being…. I think most readers probably don’t need me to explain why that is incompatible with the gospel.
At times your assertions seem to require (as with most free-willers I’ve explored this with) that “free will” means a choice that is somehow uncaused. But it should be clear that we have to reject that idea a priori. There is only one Uncaused Causer. All else is contingent.
Sometimes I use a variant of Ralph and Lars, but another metaphor might help.
Suppose a sinner, let’s stick with Ralph, is standing on a knife edge ridge on top of a mountain, perfectly balanced between faith and unbelief. This is where the most common “free will” views I’ve heard require him to be. Every sinner has to be equally absolutely neutral toward the gospel so that he is entirely able to choose faith.
So there he is perfectly balanced. But eventually he will either believe or reject. He tips one way or the other. How did it happen? Was it something in him or something outside him? The instinct of most free-willers seems to be that it must be something inside him, but this destroys grace. If it is something outside him… this destroys their idea of “free.”
But at least two insurmountable problems confront this view of free will:
- The Bible does not depict natural man as neutral toward God and the truth of the gospel. It clearly depicts them as dead in trespasses and sins, blinded by the god of this age, hostile toward God. People are not balanced perfectly between life and death equally able to choose either one. They are sunk in the miry clay unable to escape unless someone sets them on a rock.
- There is no reason to insist that “free” must mean uncaused or able. By this definition, man must be freer than God. God is not free to do evil, desire evil, think evil—because His nature limits His ability. Yet this popular free will theology insists that natural man is somehow not constrained by his nature.
The Bible doesn’t even use the term “free” in reference to natural man at all (which is interesting, no?) But it certainly nowhere defines “free will” as “ability to make choices that transcend your nature, yet without any special divine intervention.” This idea of “free” is an entirely humanly devised concept.
No, the only freedom any being has—if he has freedom at all—is freedom from external constraint. Nobody is free from the boundaries of his nature.
One more note in conclusion. I find it endlessly fascinating to listen to people share their testimonies of conversion, for multiple reasons. Each story is unique and yet, in broad outline, they are all quite similar. Even among the most passionate “free will” champions, believers speak of God sending someone to share the truth with them, God arranging circumstances to change their attitudes, God using a tragedy or a blessing, God using the example of another believer, God… God.. God.
They are absolutely right.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Fundamentalism historically has held, and continues to hold, true believers who differ on the extent of the Atonement.
R.V. Clearwaters was the pastor of Fourth Baptist Church & the President of Fourth Baptist Christian School while I attended (from 1972-1981). I recall him being known for saying something to the effect of “All means all–that’s all all means.” (Whether that was original to him or not, I have no idea.)
––––––––––––––––––—
Looking at the Statement of Faith of the FBFI, I find this: “We believe the Lord Jesus Christ died as a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of all men according to the Scriptures, and all who receive Him are justified on the grounds of His shed blood (2 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 3:21-26; Heb. 2:9; 1 Jn. 2:2).” -
––––––––––––––––––—
Prominent in the FBFI is Dr. Mark Minnick. He preached a 3-part sermon last year arguing for an Unlimited Atonement:
http://pastoroesterwind.com/2014/09/06/universal-propitiation/
––––––––––––––––––—
Online, one finds lengthy papers arguing for an Unlimited Atonement. Example:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atonement.html
––––––––––––––––––-
Meanwhile, others are convinced that the Atonement is limited to the Elect. So be it.
“Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” (Romans 14:5b ESV)
Larry, a few quick comments:
This thread has shifted from election, to effectual calling, to limited atonement and back again many times. These are each related, but separate issues.
You mentioned that, in fundamentalism, the matter of limited atonement is a non-issue. Well, maybe, maybe not! This really depends on what area of theology is of primary importance to somebody. For example:
- If ecclesiology is your issue, then being a “Baptist” can cover a multitude of sins!
- Likewise, if one’s philosophy to ministry (e.g. “I’m a fundamentalist!”) is of primary importance, then you’ll be willing to tolerate a wide variety of theological opinions as long as you’re together for the Gospel and the need to fight together against theological liberalism within Christianity (similar to the “big-tent” approach during the original fundamentalist-modernist controversies)
- If soteriology is your burning issue, then you’ll be very critical of folks who are fuzzy on the details of something you feel is really important.
That’s why I don’t think you can really make that kind of sweeping statement. Some fundamentalists are big on being Baptist, others are more inclusive and focus on having a fundamentalist philosophy to ministry, and still others feel that the sovereignty of God in salvation is of primary importance.
For many fundamentalists, the whole issue of predestination, effectual calling and the intent of the atonement are not peripheral issues at all.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
jimcarwest wrote and my replies are underlined:
(Is this the first paragraph to which you refer below?) Yes, my answer would be “b.” The something “different” in the one who chooses to believe is his response to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. The one who chooses not to believe closes his heart to the work of the Holy Spirit.
(Is this the second paragraph?)
I think I stated that the “cause” of rejection is that the one sinner does not accept that it is in his best interest to believe, and the other does. This is where free will allows the sinner to make that decision. Both are convicted by the Spirit; both decide what is in their best interest. The rejecting sinner thinks ONLY of himself; the believing sinner relates what is best for him to how undeserving he is and how grateful to God he is for loving, forgiving, and accepting him.
Second paragraph first. Why does the rejecting sinner think differently than the other guy?
First paragraph: the two options were (a) Ralph believes because God did something to him that He did not do to Lars (I didn’t choose this one.) (or (b) Ralph was already different from Lars. (I didn’t choose this one either.)
As it happens, both explanations are a problem for popular “free will” views. (So neither of them is a problem for me, right?)
Identifying the cause of Ralph’s believing as something God did is pretty much what most of the variants of “free will” views object to. If God even nudges him a little bit toward faith and doesn’t nudge the other guy in exactly the same way, it’s seen as unfair, or “being respecter of persons” (though it’s the opposite of that) etc. (Rom. 2:4-6. God shows His forbearance, goodness, and longsuffering for the purpose of leading all to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9), even to those who harden their hearts and treasure up wrath against the day of wrath and judgment of God.” Those who have not the law of God in tablet form are still accountable because God has written His law upon their hearts (consciences) which bear witness, and their thoughts accuse or excuse them on that basis. When it comes to salvation, God is no respecter of persons. (Rom. 2:12-16). I believe it is clear that He does not treat anyone to their hurt. Rather, he reveals enough about Himself to make salvation possible. The Calvinist view would be that those whom God intends to save, He treats differently. He gives them more light. He generates in them a desire that enables them to be saved, and in others He simply relegates them to judgment because He never intended to save them anyway. He passes over them, and the determining factor in their eternal judgment is that God never wanted to save them. Somehow this is supposed to reveal God’s sovereignty, and anything less is said to challenge God’s authority. I cannot see the whole tenor of Scripture teaches that.
Identifying the cause of Ralph’s believing as something in himself is, however, even worse for most “free will” views I’ve heard. For one, it means that Ralph got saved because he was wiser than Lars. (Maybe Ralph, after using the powers of reason that God gave him, responds to the convicting power of the Spirit by accepting God’s love and offer of salvation. Lars, using the same gift of reason, does not respond to the conviction of the Holy Spirit because he does not believe it makes any sense to him; he doesn’t see it is in his best interest to repent and believe. God would save him, but he will not submit to God’s desires. This is what seems to make Lar responsible for his own condemnation and at the same time allows Ralph to accept salvation, while showing God to be loving to both. In either case, it is God who has established the rules, and He who makes the rules controls the game. God ends up being both Sovereign and at the same time generous to both the saved and the lost. He is now a Christian because he was a better man, less blinded by sin, less deluded by sin’s lies, less hostile toward the truth. Not true. All of those statements can as easily be said about both Ralph and Lars. In the interim that leads to salvation, both have contributed to their own damnation or salvation by their response to the light. If God did not make him better than the other guy, how did he get that way? He must have, by his own efforts, improved himself. Those who believe in free will do not believe that man can make improve himself to qualify for salvation. But one’s response to the light conditions on to receive more light just as rejection of the light cuts one off from more light. The light is the same; it is the response to the light that conditions one be more open to the Gospel.
So now, instead of salvation by grace through faith, we have salvation by the faith that results from being a better human being…. I think most readers probably don’t need me to explain why that is incompatible with the gospel. That is a Pelagian viewpoint, and I certainly would not accept that.
At times your assertions seem to require (as with most free-willers I’ve explored this with) that “free will” means a choice that is somehow uncaused. But it should be clear that we have to reject that idea a priori. There is only one Uncaused Causer. All else is contingent. You are wrong, my brother. I agree that God is the First Cause, but that does not negate that, as the “Causer,” He gave to that one created in His image, the capacity to make choices. When man makes a choice of salvation, he is not acting on his own; he is acting in concert with the freedom God gave him. This is true of those who exercise the will to be saved and those who exercise it deliberately or by neglect to be lost. In the end both are acting with the same free will that God granted.
Sometimes I use a variant of Ralph and Lars, but another metaphor might help.
Suppose a sinner, let’s stick with Ralph, is standing on a knife edge ridge on top of a mountain, perfectly balanced between faith and unbelief. This is where the most common “free will” views I’ve heard require him to be. Every sinner has to be equally absolutely neutral toward the gospel so that he is entirely able to choose faith.
So there he is perfectly balanced. But eventually he will either believe or reject. He tips one way or the other. How did it happen? Was it something in him or something outside him? The instinct of most free-willers seems to be that it must be something inside him, but this destroys grace. If it is something outside him… this destroys their idea of “free.”
But at least two insurmountable problems confront this view of free will:
The Bible does not depict natural man as neutral toward God and the truth of the gospel. It clearly depicts them as dead in trespasses and sins, blinded by the god of this age, hostile toward God. People are not balanced perfectly between life and death equally able to choose either one. They are sunk in the miry clay unable to escape unless someone sets them on a rock. This all true, but to follow your analogy of the miry clay, while both are equally in danger, one has the choice to keep struggling until he has no more strength and then just sink, or one may give up his own efforts and take hold of the rope that a savior has thrown to him. The one is saved because he accepts the offer of salvation; the other is lost because he will not.
There is no reason to insist that “free” must mean uncaused or able. By this definition, man must be freer than God. God is not free to do evil, desire evil, think evil—because His nature limits His ability. Yet this popular free will theology insists that natural man is somehow not constrained by his nature. There is no Scriptural reason not to believe that every sinner may be lost, nor that every sinner may be saved. Certainly, the Scripture affirms that “God will have all men to be saved.” And yes, man can only be as free as God has willed to make him
The Bible doesn’t even use the term “free” in reference to natural man at all (which is interesting, no?) But it certainly nowhere defines “free will” as “ability to make choices that transcend your nature, yet without any special divine intervention.” This idea of “free” is an entirely humanly devised concept. The question is not whether man can make a choice that transcends his nature. Left to himself, he can only expect eternal damnation. The question is, whether God leaves the salvation of sinners subject only to the use of their will, and He does not. The question is whether God determines to take either those sinners and help one to salvation while ignoring the other. And the Scriptures reveal the God who loves every sinner without being a Respecter of persons and desires their salvation, while allowing man to choose to receive Christ or reject Him and to suffer/enjoy the consequences of his own choices.
No, the only freedom any being has—if he has freedom at all—is freedom from external constraint. Nobody is free from the boundaries of his nature. No one is questioning whether a person’s choices influence his nature, which is corrupt through and through. But if all men are equally totally depraved, how do you explain that some are more vile than others. Both share the same degree of depravity. Are you saying that God helps some sinners to be better than other sinners, and that environment, nature, and human choice are of no consequence?
One more note in conclusion. I find it endlessly fascinating to listen to people share their testimonies of conversion, for multiple reasons. Each story is unique and yet, in broad outline, they are all quite similar. Even among the most passionate “free will” champions, believers speak of God sending someone to share the truth with them, God arranging circumstances to change their attitudes, God using a tragedy or a blessing, God using the example of another believer, God… God.. God. And why wouldn’t they. To Him alone belongs the honor and the glory for everyone’s salvation. I don’t see how your statement here has any consequence beyond my reaction to it.
They are absolutely right. On this, we both find agreement.
If Calvinists were satisfied with those two statements, Jim, there wouldn’t be such disputing of viewpoints. No, Calvinists have to go about qualifying plain Scriptures in order to agree with some Roman priest from the 4th century and another French theologian from the 16th.
Consider that the Scriptures say that repentance is granted by Jesus:
- Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
I’d like somebody to correct me if they disagree with this. I translated it myself, and I don’t see any way around this:
- “He [Jesus] has God exalted as Captain and Savior to His right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.”
- The infinitive δοῦναι is being used to give the grounds or reason why God has exalted Jesus Christ - so Christ can give both repentance and forgiveness
- We do have to repent and believe, but Peter says the ultimate cause of our repentance is Jesus Christ, Who sent the Spirit to convict us in the first place!
Food for thought …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Som if it is Jesus who causes the repentance and faith, the sinner has nothing to do with it but to respond because he is under another’s control.. You can’t have it both ways: either the sinner does something, because God has made a human response necessary for salvation, (and this destroys your premise), or Jesus does it all, and the sinner bears no responsibility. I can’t see that your exegesis of the verse is correct. Yes, because God exalted Jesus to be a Prince and a Savior, there is ground for Israel to repent and believe. If the resurrection had not occurred, no amount of the sinner’s repentance would have produced the result of salvation. Paul said it: “If Christ be not raised from the dead, ye are yet in your sins.”
Please explain what Acts 5:31 means. The intent of the infinitive δοῦναι, in this instance, is to explain the reason why God has exalted Jesus Christ. The reason is supplied in the second half of the verse - so that Jesus could grant both (1) repentance and (2) forgiveness.
This verse has nothing to do with the grounds for repentance. It has to do with Jesus giving both (1) repentance and (2) forgiveness. God exalted Him so that He would give both to sinners. This verse clearly attributes the ultimate source of a sinner’s repentance to Jesus. Once all the layers are stripped away, the only reason why people repent and believe is because they’ve been granted repentance by the Holy Spirit, who is sent by Christ.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
This is a very weak verse to prove your argument. The context is Peter’s words to the Jewish Council (Israel). It is an indictment on the leaders of Israel who demanded Jesus’ crucifixion. After they killed Jesus, He was buried (2nd element of the gospel), thinking that they were finished with Him. God overruled their evil deed. He raised Him up to be Israel’s Prince and Savior, and through him to grant repentance and forgiveness (to Israel). Though God grants repentance to Israel, He also does to all those who obey Him. Though it is God who gives repentance and faith, the rest of Scripture is consistent in laying down the conditions of both — human response of contrition and believing faith. The capacity for both is granted by God, but He does so without partiality or being a Respecter of persons. His will is that “all should come to repentance.” He desires all men to be saved. He thus makes it possible for all to be saved in that Christ gave Himself a ransom for all.
That was a good try, but it went beyond the general tenor of Scripture. I wish people would stop trying to limit salvation to only a few, when God says He wants it to be available to all the world, and to prove the sincerity of the offer, He commanded His disciples to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, i.e., to make the offer available to all without exception.
Help me here. You wrote:
Though it is God who gives repentance and faith, the rest of Scripture is consistent in laying down the conditions of both — human response of contrition and believing faith. The capacity for both is granted by God, but He does so without partiality or being a Respecter of persons.
According to Acts 5:31:
- Do you believe Jesus Christ gives repentance to everybody, or only certain people?
- Are you saying that “human response and believing faith” is a pre-requisite to the granting of repentance and faith? That’s what you seem to be saying.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion