Reformed Theology Discussion

RickD · Post by **RickD** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:57 pm

Bart, this is from the link you posted:

. Man must believe, repent, confess Christ's deity, and be baptized in order to be saved (click on "Salvation" to read more). Since man is not sinless, God provides the necessary grace whereby obedient man can be saved. However, God's grace is not "grace alone," as the Calvinists contends (see addendum).

I don't mean to throw this off topic, but I couldn't get past the author's "baptismal regeneration" belief. Sorry.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:05 pm

RickD wrote:Bart, this is from the link you posted:
. Man must believe, repent, confess Christ's deity, and be baptized in order to be saved (click on "Salvation" to read more). Since man is not sinless, God provides the necessary grace whereby obedient man can be saved. However, God's grace is not "grace alone," as the Calvinists contends (see addendum).
I don't mean to throw this off topic, but I couldn't get past the author's "baptismal regeneration" belief. Sorry.

Thanks RIck, it wasn't my intent to endorse or even pull on that link for any purpose other than to provide another tied source to the term Horrible Decree as it was used by Calvin. Frankly, it's an oft repeated recognition from both Pro-Calvininst and those opposed to it. R.C. Sproul recognizes and quotes it. It's something that has to be addressed.

With regard to Baptismal Regeneration, there are some Calvinist or Reformed churches that affirm that. There are also other Churches or traditions that practice infant baptism and see it in a covenental context where it's more than just symbolic but it isn't of itself sufficient to give evidence of the person involved as of the elect. Although they are not reformed in the technical form of the word, many of those churches I've referred to as Neo-Calvinist are independent or Baptistic in their tradition and they take a purely symbolic view of Baptism as a public statement of faith for what has already taken place internally.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:21 pm

So to reiterate, the quotes from Calvin (and I recognize that there are quotes from him that also indicate that God is not the author of evil in other spots), remain in my mind irreconcilable. I think there's a greater issue for many who follow him than there was for Calvin Himself.

Unless a professed Calvinist holds to a weak view of Sovereignty or attempts to bounce back and forth from a Strong position to to a Weak Position depending upon which question is being asked, it's an exercise in futility to try and reconcile absolute Divine Determinism with separating God from the taint of evil.

Calvin says in my earlier quotes that God compels the reprobate or the wicked destined for hell to obey His will. So that would lead reasonably to the conclusion that even the evil done by wicked reprobate people (or the elect for that matter, but the elect are being extended grace that God in the Calvinist system simply doesn't extend solely on the basis of his own good will) is foreordained and rendered certain by God. Many Calvinists will attempt to say that Calvinism doesn't say it, but to make that attempt leaves them faced with mounds of evidence and direct quotes that show clearly that it does in it's narrowest context. Calvin certainly argued elsewhere that God is somehow unstained by the evil of these deeds because, most commonly I believe it's argued that God's motives were good while those so sinning were exercising some form of will that is somehow present in the midst of God's predeterminative will so that they tell us, that God's got everything under control and managed to the molecular level but He somehow intended Evil for Good and based upon that intent those who sin with no choice or power to call out to God are guilty on their own as well. All this does is push the question further to what is the origin of these evil motives if not God by the same reasoning?

You can push the question further away through any number of means and explanations and the further you push the question down the pike, the more self-contradicting house of cards are set up all tied to this glaring issue that just doesn't go away. The question is not, do Calvinists as a majority believe God is the author of evil. Again, no. Most practicing Calvinists I dare say would say no such thing and honestly believe no such a thing. The system however and the implications of the teachings don't allow that denial unless you ignore or try to explain away some difficult things. Complicating the issue is par for the course. The more complications that can be raised and inserted, then there's more opportunity to foster doubt and appeal to mystery.

So are there viable options?

There are and we have another thread on Molinism going which I'm finding illuminating as well.

Arminianism, although I don't claim the title, I do have more agreement with many of the elements presented there than I do Calvinism. This is just a personal observation and I may be wrong, but I suspect that more Arminians have read Calvin's Institutes and understand what Calvinist's believe than there are Calvinist's who have read Arminian source materials and can with accuracy say what Arminians generally believe. I say this because, it's almost a mantra coming from the one direction that Arminianism must fall into the category of pelagianism or semi-pelagianism (salvation based upon the efforts or works of man).

I'd suggest that if that's been conditioned into you to where it isn't even thought about that it would be fair to stop and re-examine what it is that Arminians believe as stated by Arminians.

It's not that difficult to grap or understand and Arminianism is indeed a monergistic (God calls and draws people unto Himself unilaterally and not by some combination of efforts) system just as Calvinism is.

Despite what many Calvinists claim, Arminianism doesn't diminish God's Sovereignty or attribute merit to man in the process of Salvation. For the benefit of many who hear the terms and maybe don't know exactly what Arminianism is, I'll give a brief outline.

Classical Arminianism affirms the total depravity of man and man's complete helplessness to even come to God without God providing grace to those who come. It attributes that ability to respond to the gospel with prevenient grace and the work of the Holy Spirit to call people to God through a drawing that instead of being a deterministic formula is a wooing or making people free to choose or reject the saving Grace offered by Christ. This is considerably different than Calvinism and yet it's based on the same verses by and large that Calvinism cites but the key concept of "drawing" is more in the vein of appealing than robotic direction by God to where the sinner so called to the elect has no participation in the process until after God's initial saving work is done. In Arminianism that freedom if seen as tied to the atonement of Christ and in that sense, the atonement is universal and sufficient for all men. Christ paid the price for original sin and to make man able to receive the wooings and persuasions of the Holy Spirit.

Arminianism too affirms divine election, but its sees it as corporate rather than individual. Roman 9 is a core source of high Calvinism. Arminianism too appeals to this passage but the understanding and definition of the words used are, in my opinion, more in keeping with how many early Church Fathers understood this passage. In Arminianism Romans 9 is seen as referring to the service of Israel and gentile believers in the plan of God not their destiny of heaven or hell as individuals. Arminians hold to a form of predestination but they see it in light of Romans 8 as God's foreknowledge of faith and who will exercise it without God making a decree as to who will or will not so respond to the prevenient grace provided. Arminianism completely rejects the idea of reprobation except to the point that it is freely chosen by people who live against the will of God revealed in the law and nature written on men's hearts (which is the point of Rom 1-2).

It's in this context that Arminians then declare that God is indeed good and loving, without the need to try and redefine those words away from what the New Testament and Christ have to say about the love of God. They believe that God truly desires the salvation of all people. They look at I Tim 2:3-4 and read it in its plainest sense that God actually does want all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. They look at II Pet 3:9 as meaning what it says that God wants everyone to come to repentence and not perish.

Arminians then believe that any limitation of God's intent for everyone's salvation (which would include Limited Atonement) implies a slur upon the character of God as loving. Again to clarify this is an assessment of the system and not a belief of mine (or the average Arminian I believe) that Calvinists desire to misrepresent the character of God. Calvinists return the favor to Arminians by claiming that their system fails to recognize God's Sovereignty and they often mock the idea of a significant difference between God's decretive will (that which God declares will happen without fail on the basis of HIs will, authority and intent to make it so come to pass) abd God's permissive will, (that which God knows will come to pass based on His omniscience but which God in no way declare must come to pass.) This however is not all that different from the argument that Calvinists offer with regard to Sin just on a narrower scope and without explaining how complete decretive determinism can allow for that narrow exception. It begs the question as to how consistent Calvinists are in critcizing the suggestion that permissive will protects the character of God as Love instead choosing to apply the argument to protect the Sovereignty of God as if the Scripture tells us that God is first and foremost power and control, instead of telling us that God is Love. (I John 4:8)

In this context then, God's foreknowledge permits or allows the evil of men in situations like Joseph's story or the leading up to the Crucifixion based upon His knowledge of what He is going to bring out of it. This is certain in terms of God's intent and final will but it in no way did God foreordain and render these events certain. Men truly did have choice and that choice did indeed mean that along with the choice to obey came the choice to disobey that led to the original fall and all men idenitifying with Adam in this regard (except Christ.)

Analogies ultimately always fail when pushed further than the intended illustration. Consider a teacher who has a room full of students, and he's determined that He likes some of the students and doesn't like some of them and thus he's decided that those he like should pass and those he doesn't like should fail an upcoming exam upon which the entire school year depends. So, he put those students he wants to pass in one room and those he wants to fail in another and he spends all his time and effort in instructing and preparing those student he wants to pass so that they are prepared and will do fine. The others he tells to occupy their time but they're on their own as far as the test goes. The test is taken, and just as the teacher intended those he chose to pass passed, and those whom he chose to fail failed. When that teacher is then challenged by the parents of those who failed and he responds, that He in no way caused those students to fail, he just held back the required knowledge but it was they themselves who failed. When challenged on that the teacher then says that it was his intent to show what a good teacher he was and that He was the difference in the results and so he was right to make use of those students whom he withheld help from. How would you react? Do you think that teacher would not be called upon in some measure to be morally wrong in what he did?

How different than this is the common arguments by Calvinists that when questioned on things like this appeal to God's Sovereignty and tell us that God doesn't have to answer to us. It's as if those who are condemned for eternity in conscious torment are intended to take comfort in the fact that at least their suffering and torment serve to glorify God.

Something to consider.

I'll pause for a while here before picking back up.

domokunrox · Post by **domokunrox** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:52 am

I really enjoy reading what you had to say.

One thing fat you said that caught my attention was the "devine might makes right" thing. Anyone who reasons like this raises all kinds of red flags for me. Might makes right is a truth hostility claim. It doesn't matter if it comes from a devine source.

God made us in his image and likeness, and God is perfectly logical and does not contradict himself in any way. If we can understand the laws of logic, try to remain logical, it simply isn't consistent.

I am sure I've said it already, but I can't accept that old and incorrect philosophy system.
Complete analytic philosophy or bust

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:29 am

I'm glad it's encouraging to you Dom. I know that addressing these types of issues are difficult to do because of the passions that go with it, both for and against.

I appreciate your thought with regard to Logic but I'm not completely with you that complete analytic philosophy is the answer in every regard. There should certainly be an analysis in this area. I think that at some point in any system, including mine, that there's a breakdown that comes and I think that's because God is bigger than the boxes we try to put Him into. The finite can only grasp the infinite to the limits of their understanding.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:22 pm

Picking back up after a short break, I want to thank the several people who have emailed or pm'd me giving me encouragement for what has been put up thus far. I've been encouraged by them and glad that the information and reasoning thus far has been helpful to help better understand the issues present. I've also had a few expressing concern or disagreement with me and that's fine too.

Just as a reminder, I am being blunt in terms of my writing with why I personally cannot hold a Calvinist or TULIP position. My words are directed to the position and I am not stating that all Calvinists or Reformed people hold the more extreme positions that I'm representing. I am not stating that Reformed people are not genuine Christians and I am not at all stating that Reformed and Calvinist people universally believe that God is the author of Sin and Evil or don't have some important qualifications or nuances to many positions. I'm focused on what I believe are the problems and implications of the position itself and where I believe it departs from Scriptural and Logical norms and not the values or motives of those who either hold these position or those who belong to churches and who haven't really looked at these positions and considered the implications at the level that I'm looking at here. It's a difficult balance I know to hold both in writing and for those who are reading. I'm not able to put this explanation into every comment I make or to qualify every reference I make to Calvinism, TULIP or Reformed and it will be easy for those who who disagree with me or who hold variants of the more extreme positions to take personal offense. I understand this. It's not easy when one's positions are challenged in this manner. I've been on the other side of these exchanges and remember well the emotions that can come when cherished values and doctrines are disagreed with in this manner. My position is not representative of these forums. These are my own personal thoughts and positions. Those who disagree with me are welcome on these forums and this thread and welcome to present their own positions either in a positive response to anything I've said or if they wish to point out the contradictions that my position gives rise to when examined in the same manner. I am not a classic Arminian. I describe myself along the lines of Trinitarian, Post-Evangelical with strong leanings toward Anabaptist which elevates Discipleship over Doctrine.

So to this point I've dwelt primarily on why I believe it is self-contradicting to profess on the one hand Divine Determinism to the point of God decreeing the fall, reprobates going to hell solely based upon the decision of God for those who are not of the "elect" and then on the other hand to attempt to show that God is not responsible for evil or sin, as unthinkable as that might be and indeed is denied vehemently by many Calvinists, although there are those that do indeed hold that position openly and without apology. These comments are mostly directed to those who hold either a "Hyper-Calvinist" position or a High Calvinist position which I define as in accord with the position often called Supralapsarianism, which asserts that God with deliberate intent and an unalterable decree planned the fall of man and along with that asserts double predestination meaning that God makes the decision based upon nothing other than His own good will as to who will be saved (the elect) and who will go to hell (the reprobate.) Both elements are equal in terms of God's involvement and decision. There are other positions within Calvinism that address this issue differently seeking to differentiate between the two to where God's calling of the elect is on one level and damning reprobates is on another level in an effort to make clear that God is not responsible for evil, sin or the damning of any individual. I find it impossible to reconcile many of these positions and while I disagree with Hyper and High Calvinists strongly on these issues, I believe that their positions on these issues are the most intellectually honest and consistent and that those who attempt to explain it away recognize the implied issues and by their actions show that they're aware of the issues implied.

I've also addressed Strong Sovereignty and Weak Sovereignty and touched on the differences between God's Decrative Will (that which solely and actively plans and performs) and God's Permissive Will (that which God allows and knows will happen but in no way decrees as certain). High or Hyper Calvinism allows no room for Permissive will. Other weaker or Low Calvinist positions attempt to appeal to Permissive will only when and where it's necessary to provide for God's separation from Sin and Evil and nowhere else despite the contradictions and internal conflicts that this gives rise to. By definition there is no real position within Calvinism that elevates God's permissive will to a level equal to or greater than His Decrative will.

Determinism doesn't allow for permissive will. Determinism by definition means that every event must happen exactly as it does because of prior conditions or decisions made solely by God. Appealing to Permissive will as a means to absolve God of direct responsibility for evil or sin, begs the question as to where the evil desires or inclinations within the created being so "permitted" to choose come from if not from God as well and so in the end it's no explanation at all.

With that brief summary, I am going to address some other inconsistencies that I see in other areas and following that will spend some time examining the passages of Scripture that are most often appealed to in supporting Calvinism and also passages that are impossible or difficult to reconcile with Calvinism.

Thanks to all for your patience as I move forward in this direction.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:57 pm

In addition to the difficulty reconciling the Strong Sovereignty of God to the origins of Sin and Evil there are other issues that arise on a philosophical level within High Calvinism and it's different variants.

In addition to Strong Sovereignty eliminating the free will or freedom of humanity which leaves God in a position to be responsible for evil, there are some issues as well with the freedom of God which is a very ironic observation because Calvinism more than any other system appears to emphasize the transcendence of God apart and over His creation.

Calvinists in fact argue that Calvinism is the only system or approach that fully protects God from being dependent upon His creation or mankind in any measure. This is a powerfully stated point of most Calvinist proponents both past and present. The concept is tied to Scripture but, as appears common to me, from the Scholasticism point of view this can be tied to traditional philosophical concepts of infinity To simplify the issue, what this is saying is that there is no influence upon God outside of Himself that has any impact upon Him to decide or determine what His will or plan is. Thomas Aquinus, (who is tightly tied to and associated with the Scholasticism movement referred to earlier) referred to this as "actus paras." It means there is no potentiality within God, only actuality. There is nothing that God can become other than what and who He already is would be another way to put it.

How does Calvinism put this concept at risk? Simply by this; Calvinism repeatedly states in many different places and concepts that God acts in the manner he does in order to show or manifest His own glory. In creation and redemption all works together to the Glory of God is a persistent theme. This isn't unique to Calvinism by the way. It's a theme that can be seen in what is called "Classical Christian Theism" and it is something that ties back to the early church and was a continually escalating concept in many of the medieval universities through Catholicism prior to the Reformation.

An example of the type of reasoning that is representative of this comes from Boettner whom I've quoted from earlier.

Sin ... is permitted in order that the mercy of God may be shown in its forgiveness and that His justice may be shown in its punishment. Its entrance is the result of a settled design which God formed in eternity, and through which He purposed to reveal Himself to His rational creatures as complete and full-orbed in all conceivable perfections (Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 234)

This isn't so much a strong theme in Calvin that I've been able to see. There are some hints of it in places but this appears to be something that's developed more over the years following Calvin by his followers and it may well be, as my friend August suggested earlier that at least in this instance Calvin wasn't so much directly impacted by Scholasticism as it was introduced into the system following. This is something that comes out pretty strongly for example, from Jonathan Edwards and not surprisingly as he models himself as a disciple of sorts of Edwards, John Piper makes strong emphasis on this type of representation of God's purposes in allowing sin and evil for the higher purpose of revealing God's Glory.

Apparently, based on this logic this is something God needs from His creation to meet some element of potentiality within Him that somehow is not actualized within Him already.

The question is, could God as He's described here have refrained from doing this? It's hard to see that in the continued justification of God's creating (or permitting as these Strong Sovereignty supporters offer in the exclusive case of moral contradiction where the conclusions demand that the system be stacked differently to avoid what comes from being consistent.) In addition, it contradicts the premises upon how Grace is viewed as the underlying foundation for the creation and redemption because if it becomes necessary to meet a potential need in God that is not yet actual then it cannot be Grace at all.

This, in my opinion, is where a lot of Calvinism distorts God. By making Sovereignty, Power and Determinism the guiding principles by which God's actions are measured it diminishes what I believe is a better more Christlike answer and that is Love. I believe God's creation and plan of redemption are an extension of his character and nature to love, not his need to add to His glory at the expense of those that he then determines some will be saved and some perish with specificity. God didn't create us because he needs us to love. He created us because it is His nature to love and it models the mystery of community and relationship that exist within Himself in the 3 persons of the Trinity. Love to be mutual must be able to be returned without compulsion or it is not by definition "love."

There are problems that can be constructed from that "model" as well if one employs Philosophy, Logic and Scholasticism as well. The difference is that in the case of some of these elements within Calvinism it's in effect being hoisted by its own petard and the same methods that contribute from the Scholasticism venue serve to deconstruct it at the same time and lay clear the internal contradictions.

Given a choice from what I understand Scripturally and of the Character and Nature of God, I find it an easier and more consistent task to explain why God is "too loving" in the estimate of some, than to address the issues that arise from making Sovereignty the effective sum of who God is.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:39 pm

So to summarize the last point while moving on, the idea of God having to create and/or allow sin and evil, redeem the elect and reject the reprobate in order to fulfill the potential of His own self-glorification raises questions as to whether there exists within God any potential increase of His glory being actualized more than it already is. Accepting that to be a true statement raises serious questions when Calvinism as a system appeals to this line of reasoning because what that in effect does is the exact opposite of what many Calvinsts claim to be a strength of their approach, namely that God is all powerful, transcendant, actualized with no potentiality, and more disturbingly it contradicts the orthodox belief that God doesn't need His creation including man to meet any need or further develop anything within Him. If we explore the implications of these contrary suggestions it leads us down a path that suggests God Himself is not free and must do as He did without a full measure of Freedom on his part. God's Glory in this regard then makes God focused upon Himself and meeting some kind of need within Him which undermines much of what is ascribed to Him in the area of Love and Grace.

This brings us to look at another implication.

Apart for the suggestion that God must necessarily be the author of Sin and Evil which is outright embraced by the more extreme minority of Calvinism, even in that case there will be some form of argument that despite God's deliberate intent in decreeing sin and evil as an unalterable decree on His part, the element of responsibility for man's sin and evil despite this authorship and certain rendering by God is most often strongly asserted by Calvinism to still be the exclusive responsibility of man. Mainstream Calvinism to my understanding is near unanimous in asserting that God is not responsible for sin and evil even though He foreordains and renders them certain and that creatures are responsible even though they could not do otherwise than they do or be in the state that they are in.

Calvin states this in the Institutes

God's providence does not exculpate our wickedness. (Calvin, Institutes 1.17.5)

Calvin also recognizes the question that this reasoning begs and summarily rejects it by saying of any who would infer that God has responsibility for sin and evil.

Away ... with this doglike impudence, which can indeed bark at God's justice afar off but cannot touch it. (ibid)

Calvin's explanation, (or in my opinion his assertion without an adequate explanation) is that even though people indeed couldn't do otherwise than what God declared and willed they do them motivated (again ... where did the motive come from?) by their own evil inclinations and intend them for evil. God, however, (and here's where the black hat that is called both white and black comes in) indeed willed evil and sin but God's motives are ultimately good so man is responsible solely for sin and none of it taints God in the slightest. In other words, the person who does evil that they cannot avoid doing (because they're compelled by an evil motive and ultimately by God) is the only guilty party.

Think too what it means if in the context of Calvinism salvation can come only solely from God initiating by regeneration before faith because man is totally depraved (as Calvinism defines it) yet in the same system it's attributed to man at least in man's representative Adam in the fall that original sin despite being equally initiated and determined by God . Is there a contradiction there? I think there is and this contradiction doesn't go away simply because those holding to the system recognize the contradiction and summarily deny it by asserting without supporting reasoning. There are of course attempts to provide some form of explanation that shifts total responsibility to man. I can't exhaustively lay out all the variants that there are, so let me simply suggest that when examining and evaluating these explanations ask yourself what element of man the explanation is shifting responsibility to (like man's motives) and then ask yourself, in the context of absolute determinism where does that motive actually come from? Isn't there some form of concession to Arminianism if it's then argued that man acts independently of God to the degree necessary to make him wholly responsible?

By way of analogy, imagine you're in a jury and you became convinced by evidence in a case that the person who committed a crime had no power to avoid committing it because another party constructed circumstances so that that person could not do otherwise. Would you then find that person guilty or would you acquit the one who actually committed the crime and turn around and hold the orchestrator responsible? I'd suggest that common sense and any sense of justice would render that result. There's holes that can be picked in this analogy as there is any analogy because in the end the analogy is not the thing itself so I can imagine any number of objections that could be raised to try and complicate and make such a judgement unclear. I've looked at many in the case of the explanation offered by different elements of Calvinism and I've not met one yet that stood up to asking where that element that is raised in defence came from if not God. I've seen appeals to mystery and I again cannot accept that moral contradiction is mystery.

Am I questioning God's holiness by pointing this out? No, I'm not a proponent of Calvinism so I don't accept this reasoning. I don't believe God bears responsibility for sin as it exists as a necessary consequence when by His Sovereignty He chooses to exercise permissive will. You cannot choose right by definition if there is not at least one wrong choice that could be made that you decide to forego. In that sense "evil" is not an thing in and of itself so much as it is the absence of good. To suggest otherwise is to create a self-contradictory assertion that God is on the one hand the author of everything and bears responsibility for everything .... except evil because that is too horrible to even think. Am I saying that Calvinists believe and rejoice in the belief that God is not only the author but bears responsibility for sin and evil? No, I don't believe for a moment that most (again there are some far out there hyper-calvinists who might be exceptions) who espouse Calvinism believe that and I know that they outright deny it and are horrified that such a suggestion could be made from the system they've constructed or adopted. What I am saying is that I don't see any way to avoid that conclusion without somehow creating an exception within that context and that context only to somehow get God "off the hook." I've not seen a satisfactory answer for that element that doesn't beg the question after that what is attributed outside of God as the reason doesn't have it's origins in God as well. Removing the answer by any number of degrees away from God, in a determinist system may serve to create complication and confusion that then can be in some way attributable to "mystery" but only if you suspend the overall system declared in the first place and ignore the moral implications which cannot coexist with one another. So my concern isn't at all with the motives of those attempting to reconcile this or even with the fact that they recognize the concern and do the best that they can to answer it. My concern is that at the heart of it, I don't believe it can be reconciled without a serious dismantling of several bedrock assertions and foundations of the system. If renovation of that level is necessary, then there's good reason to reject the system and start over with another foundation in terms of the interpretation of Scripture and the epistemological framework supporting the approach, in my opinion.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:17 pm

Having spent some time pointing out the problems I see with Calvinism by critiquing the elements of Divine Determinism, let me take some time here to speak positively for what I believe to be a more reasonable solution, namely accepting that God exercises divine self-limitation. This is a further building upon the idea I introduced earlier of "Weak Sovereignty."

As is common in both the Scholasticism influenced systems of Calvinism and Arminianism there is a tendency through the use of Artistotilean Logic to approach things from a perspective of things being all or nothing. So to avoid that it should be clear that in advocating that there are areas where God chooses as an act of His Divine Sovereignty not to act or not to render future events certain that that doesn't limit God from choosing to act in other areas to bring about his will of make things certain. What God never does however is cause evil either as the author or the responsible party. God certainly can bring about events as He desires and weave through his Foreknowledge certain outcomes that includes a reckoning on His part as to what evil or sin people do, but He doesn't necessarily do so in all instances.

This seems to be the case for example in Jesus' Crucifixion, but even then, it was not that God tempted or manipulated those involved to sin. Rather God knew which events would ultimately result in the crucifixion such as the triumphal entry.

What cannot, in my opinion, be said however is that God willed, planned and made certain the fall of mankind or the individual destinies of specific individuals to hell.

Why not? First, we know God's character as revealed through Jesus Christ. The incarnation means that God's character is fully revealed in Christ and therefore any interpretation of Scripture (emphasis on interpretation) of any passages in Scripture that contradicts the character of God as revealed through Jesus Christ cannot be accepted as valid. What Jesus says and does is what God says and does.

This is where I believe the doctine of High Calvinism and it's emphasis upon Strong Sovereignty, confuses the foreknowledge of God or omniscience with God's omnipotence to where they are one and the same thing parts paths with Scripture particularly in many passages that reveal to us that "God is Love." (I John 4:8), that God takes not pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek 18:32), wants all to be saved (Ezek 18:32, I Tim 2:4, II Peter 3:9) and never tempts anyone in order to entice or decree that they must sin (James 1:13). Of course, there are rebuttals offered by Calvinists in some places that are very clever to try and explain away these and other passages. Collectively they stretch things to a point that leaves me at times shaking my head. Often times they appeal to the complexity of God and transcendence of Him (an appeal to mystery) but that ignores that the Scriptures are given to us to reveal God and support and point us toward Jesus Christ. Making appeals to the complexity to where God contradicts Himself, particularly in a moral context is not an appeal to complexity but rather a portrayal of double-mindedness.

So that leaves us with the question as to how we deal with sin and evil in God's world without placing undue limits upon God's power and sovereignty? I believe Scripture indicates that God limits himself in the area of moral freedom which He provides as a gift to man whom He created. Said clearly, I believe there is more Scriptural evidence that God loves humans and desires a relationship (not from need but as an extension of His loving nature) with man and there can be no such love where man cannot choose otherwise, by definition no matter how much those who disagree try to redefine love to fit their model.

This means that just as there is God's Decretive Will (God's decree that is unchanging) and God's Permissive Will that then within God's Permissive Will there is God's Perfect Will (What he would will to take place if He hadn't chosen to give man freedom in this area) and God's consequent will, meaning that when Man sins and evil is introduced (either in the large context of the fall or the narrow context of specific instances) that God has a consequent will as to how He will redeem that situation. Those who perish choose to do so by rejecting God's provision and they are responsible for their own end. God is reluctant to see this result and has in no way manipulated things to where man had no other alternative. Man truly had a choice (given by God Himself) and could have chosen to do otherwise.

God by His own choice and decision for His own purposes had chosen for a season to limit His sovereignty in terms of His exercise of it while at the same time surrendering nothing of His nature and ability to take it back up at any such time as He chooses that is consistent with His nature, plans and purposes.

This is why in 2 Cor 4:4 Satan can be described as the "God of this age" and here it seems clear to me that world is referring to this present evil age and God will defeat Him in the coming age to take back again that which God has set aside for the present. This by the way ties into the picture of the atonement that is often referred to as "Christus Victor" which many, including myself, believe to be a view of the atonement that is older and particularly representative of much of the early church's view than Penal Substitutionary Atonement which dominated Calvinism and also much of American Evangelicalism. This seems clear and consistent with, for one example, with I Cor 15 which speaks overall in it's entirety of a coming victory and in particular makes it clear in I Cor 15:28 that God will at that time take back that which He has set aside temporally and re-assert in actuality that which He positionally by right has always been, the "all in all.

Calvinists traditionally challenge this scenario because Calvinism tends to confuse God's position as Sovereign as meaning that God cannot do other than exercise that Sovereignty or if it's unexercised in a direct manner then God isn't truly Sovereign. This denies or ignores God's ability to choose to limit Himself while losing nothing of his omnipotence. God certainly could choose to control everything and everyone if He so desired. For the sake of expressing the relationship that God has within the Godhead between Father, Son and Holy Spirit to created beings who have the choice to do otherwise, God acts in this manner as an extension of His character and love.

This form of limiting is by the way nothing new in terms of the Second Member of the Trinity. Jesus Christ through the incarnation chose we're told in Philippians 2:5-11 to set aside or empty Himself of things that He had the unquestioned right to hold for our sake in redeeming us according to God's redemptive plan. While that passage in no way specifically seems to refer to God the Father, there is here a legitimate mystery tied to the Trinity that can be appealed to that Jesus could not have done such a thing as fully God (which Christ is) without it being in God's nature to act in this manner. If Christ could and did act in that manner that demonstrates clearly that God could act in a similar manner in other contexts without being untrue to His nature as is sometimes appealed to by High Calvinists.

In short, when I read the Gospel Narrative in Scripture I do not see an exercise that presents a God who operates within the constraints of the TULIP to eliminate any and all choice. I see a gospel that is pervasively infused with a sense that the brokenness of this world is the result of rebellion against God which God permitted and in no way caused and a Savior who genuinely comes to save this creation, and redeem it not as a lesson in how God can create an interesting scenario to provide Glory to Himself that He doesn't lack in the first place, but rather that which extends out from His Love and the fulness of His Grace to us.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:54 am

I'm winding down.

I know this has been a lot and many who read it will no doubt wonder what all the fuss is.

I've focused on the philosophy and logical issues that arise for me although I have made references to Scripture along the way. In part, that's because I believe that that is the ground upon which many of these issues spawn. To address the underlying premises of these forms of extreme Calvinism (which again are not the whole of Calvinism) you have to dig down and explore what is being said and what the assumptions that drive it are.

Scripture often times, interestingly enough seems to say in many cases what we come to it believing it should say. I want to now look at some of the underlying Scriptures as they are used in supporting some of these beliefs. I confess up fron that I have my own biases and no doubt some of those are easy to see in what I've said thus far.

What about some of these passages that are repeated continually in support of the Strong Sovereignty of God? I've mentioned several of them earlier. Perhaps the lynchpin of most of it is found in Romans 9.

Romans 9 when read from a certain perspective and with some presumptions as to what is being talked about does indeed when read at face value in the context of individuals seem to be indicating the idea of election as the TULIP asserts it. In particular it seems very strong when it says that God chose Jacob over Esau and more than that, loved Jacob and hated Esau and what is more did so before either was born. It appears in places to be saying clearly that God chooses who He will have mercy upon and who He will not. It speaks of God as a Potter making pots (us) for different purposes and who are we to question these things? (Divine might makes right.) So what of it. For all the "blustering" I've done if the TULIP and Calvinism come straight from the Scripture and particularly a passage like Romans 9 which isn't the usual selective use of short verses. It appears here in Romans 9 that the whole concept is laid out and if so then all these other appeals to logic and philosophy have no relevance in the face of Scripture. Scripture trumps all. Let God be true and every man a liar.

I understand this and what is more I agree with the general view and sentiment that Scripture in this regard is to be taken as authoritative and if Scripture says something clearly in this manner then it is to be accepted, no matter how difficult it might seem to me to reconcile with all these different disconnects that come with it.

I also believe some things within this some of which I've mentioned and some of which I'll bring out here. I believe Scripture doesn't disagree with itself and so if a particular interpretation of a passage puts it in diametric opposition to other portions of Scripture then it behooves me and indeed anyone to ask what it is in my interpretation between these passages that is leading to this disconnect. In doing that I have a few choices. I can pick one passage and make that the one that I "anchor" too and when others come with the verses and passages that seem contrary I can appeal to the "master" passage and leave the "mystery" of these conflicting issues without reconciliation. I can try to reconcile them all together and recognize that there are contextual issues present in one or more of the passages that have to be understood. A biblical passage isolated and taken out of context can become a pretext for all sorts of belief systems that appear to tie to the Bible but at their heart they are not Biblical when they read something in rather than drawing things out. Sometimes this is called the difference between eisogesis (reading into the text) and exegesis (drawing out from the text.)

This is what I believe is taking place in Romans 9 in the context of the entire book of Romans which has to be looked at carefully.

I think Romans 9 is saying almost the exact opposite of what Calvinism says when they read the passage with a sense of Determinism as applied to individuals. I think the primary theme of Romans in fact sets the stage for what Paul says here and that Romans 9 must be read with the things Paul has said in the first 8 chapters. I also think there are broad themes within the Scripture that have to be incorporated into our approach to it.

What are the themes present then that I'm speaking of here?

1. The Centrality of Christ and the Universal Nature of God's Love

Jesus is the center of the Bible and it is in Jesus that all Scripture ties together. In other words Jesus is whom the Scriptures all work together to point toward and Jesus too is the lens by which all Scripture must ultimately be understood. Jesus supercedes all previous revelations in Scripture and Jesus is in no way superceded by anything else. Jesus is the one and only Word of God (Jn 1:1), the image of God (Col 1:15) and the perfect expression of God’s essence (Heb 1:3). God didn't hold anything back in Christ. There is no "hidden" or "secret" side or element of God that isn't seen in Christ. This is why Jesus could say that when people see Him they see the Father (John 14:8-11).

Adopting a deterministic mindset in viewing and interpretting Romans 9 is in conflict with that first and foremost as a broad theme throughout all of Scripture. Jesus Christ dying upon the cross for His enemies is a clear revelation of who God is and God's heart. This is in direct conflict and tension with a God who simply creates people in order to use them as pawns to express His satisifaction with Himself. In order to believe that God is this way, you have to look at Calvary and instead of seeing it as the pinnacle and ultimate expression of God's love and provision, you have to believe that God was hiding something in the cross and Jesus that somehow couldn't be seen at that time.

I can't reconcile that with a deterministic God so at the very least this immediately makes me suspect of any interpretation that would suggest that God is otherwise than Christ presents Him.

2. Individual or Corporate?

To read Romans 9 and come out with a TULIP you have to read it with a mindframe that this is being presented and speaking about God's dealings with individuals. This is a very subtle thing that most readers would not think about or recognize without some very close examination. The culture at the time of Paul had a mindframe that focused more upon corporate identity than individual identity. However, Calvin was rooted in His time too. What was taking place then? The Reformation and the Renaissance (which still characterize our culture in many ways today) were moving the focus from the Corporate toward the Individual. Being aware of that should alert us to be very careful and look hard at this passage to see if that influence is being read into it. Indications that that might be the case can be found when we look at the History of how the Church has used and understood these passages in the times before the Reformation. Obviously I can't address something of that scope here. If you're interested, do some googling and look at what the Patristic Fathers had to say collectively about Romans 9 and how they used it. I suspect you'll find it looks nothing like TULIP. If that's the case, why interpret it that way now?

More to the immediate point, what is there within Romans 9 itself that might give us a clue that Jesus is speaking of something corporate rather than individual salvation? Paul is often called the "Apostle to the Gentiles." Paul more than anyone else as a predominant theme of his writing addressed the burning issue of the early church as to what it meant that Christ was presented not just to the Jews but also to the Gentiles. For the Jews, prior to this time their identity was rooted in 2 primary things; their position as God's Chosen People and their keeping of the Law. Now a gospel was being presented in Christ that set both of these things aside and said God Loves all people (Gentiles included) and that the means to enter into relationship with God through Christ is not on the basis of the Law but on Faith and God's Grace. So to make it clear the Jews and Jewish Christians were definitely struggling with coming to terms with this. This theme comes up and up again, all through the New Testament and especially with Paul. The question being asked is if God has broken covenant with the Jews as His chosen people. (Can you see where this heading already?)

This is the question that Paul is addressing in Romans 9. In fact this is the only way you can see it when you read Roman 1 - 8 and see how Paul is building things to this point and then how Paul continues in 10 and 11. The Jews are asking, "How is what was at the core of how we identify corporately, namely God's Covenant with Israel and the keeping of the Law delivered to the Jews, now working against us? Has the world turned upside down?

Is there indication of this in the passage? Yes there is. Rom 9:31-32 brings this into focus (roll your mouse over the scripture verses and you'll see a window pop-up with this passage). Paul is summing up here what he's been addressing earlier in the Chapter, NOT individual Salvation but the corporate "election" if you will that existed in the past with Israel as God's chosen people. I'll repeat it for emphasis, Romans 9 has absolutely nothing to do with individual salvation and is not addressing that issue. To use the passage in this manner is misguided and reading things into the text that have nothing to do with what Paul is saying here.

3. If not Election to Salvation then Election to what?

There is "election" in Romans 9, but if it's not talking about Salvation then of what is it speaking? Paul is reassuring the Jews and Jewish followers of Christ that God has not failed in His promised to them as found in the Covenent. What they need to understand is that God's plan for them was not ultimately based in their identity as a set apart people and their keeping of the Law. The promise to Abraham was not just to the Jews but the blessing was going to come to "All People."

In the past, God chose on the larger scale corporate level a people on the basis of His own good will and plan to fulfill His promise to all people through Jesus Christ. So when God chose to extend that line ultimately to Christ He chose Jacob and not Esau and this was not a moral choice tied to salvation, it was indeed a choice that God made simply based upon His Sovereignty in terms of covenant. Jacob's or Esau's choices or personal worthiness had nothing to do with His selection in terms of which people ground to be in covenant with and this is in no way an assessment of the individual obedience and actions of either one. If anything, if you know your Old Testament, from that perspective although both are far from "Saints" Jacob is probably the lesser sympathetic figure between the two, at least from what we know.

Paul is saying to the Jews, look at how you were chosen in the past, with no tie to merit simply by God's Good will and don't be surprised now that God is reaching out in the same way to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Far from indicating that God is narrowing his selection of "elect" Paul is saying, just as God needed no reason to you as to why He chose you, why are you imagining He needs a reason now to choose everyone including the Gentiles? Paul is talking about the expansion of God's "tent" if you will to those he chooses and wants to come to Him. Jews and Gentiles ... that covers all of Humanity doesn't it? This isn't speaking of salvation so again it would be a misunderstanding if we were to look at this and assume Universalism in terms of Salvation to all. It's not saying that here. It's speaking of God making his chosen people or "elect" in this context, the Gentiles in addition to the Jews.

Far from being a change, God had always intended to do this using the Jewish Nation as the means by which He brought it. (e.g. Gen 12:2-3; 18:18; 22:18; Ps 67:1-2; Isa 2:2-4; 55:5; 61:9-11; 66:19-20; Jer 3:17; Rom 4:12-18). This was not about Israel's election to salvation in exclusion of the Gentiles. No! This was about Israel's election to the vocation of bringing God's plan to the whole world through preparing the way and setting the scene for Christ!!

(to be continued)

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:55 am

Continuing on the examination of Romans 9 from the previous post:

3. If not Election to Salvation then Election to what? (cont.)

Romans 9 again is addressing things very different than how determinists read it. In addition to what is included above from the Old Testament reasserting God's Plan to bless the whole world through Israel role in bringing Christ it's evident from within Romans 9 and the following 2 chapters that this theme is at the heart of what Paul is saying as well. This can be seen directly in these 3 chapters in these portions. (Rom 9:25-26, Rom 9:33; Rom 10:10-21; Rom 11:11-12). Paul insisited that God was still going to obtain His goal despite Israel's blindness in rejecting their Messiah only now He was going to use their blindness itself to accomplish His goal. This is the vast majority of Rom 11:11-32.

Paul isn't speaking in Romans 9 of any individual being damned. Neither Ishmael nor Esau. He uses these particular individuals in his reasoning because his Jewish audience identified whole people groups with particular key ancestors. This is true of "Israel." We forget that Israel, before it was used of the Nation was the name given to Jacob by God associated with his promise. Esau's descendents were Edom and they were not elected by God, not to salvation but rather to the role and vocation of bringing the Messiah to all Nations. This has nothing to do with the idea that all Edomites or all Ishmaelites are damned by God in terms of their salvation.

So what does this do to the oft quoted passage of Rom 9:13 by those Calvinists who stand on this to show us how God "loves" his elect and "hates" his reprobate? It completely blows that concept out of the water. He isn't speaking of individual eternal destinies. He's speaking of the nations contained within them who came and that God chose Israel instead of them for His purposes and plans. Romans 9:13 is a quote from the Old Testament of Malachi 1:2-3. The use of the words "Love" and "Hate" in the Hebrew language and culture carried nuances that are not completely captured in English. These two words and concepts in Hebrew are often used in a form called "Hyperbole." The expression is not stating that God "hates" that thing so much as he prefers the one over the other in such a way that his preference for the one makes the other appear like hate.

It would be one thing to point this out in these two passages if that's the only place it's present in the New Testament. It's the same thing that is at work for example in some of the direct sayings of Christ, such as “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple” (Lk 14:26). Now, is Jesus contradicting the many scriptures in the Old Testament that command that fathers and mothers are to be respected and honored? Not at all. Jesus is saying that our love for Christ should be such that in comparison even our love for family seems like hate by comparison. It's not saying declaratively that we're to hate our families. Even most Neo, Hyper or High Calvinists recognize this and provide this very well accepted explanation. But for some reason it's forgotten in Romans 9 where there it's cited as evidence that God "hates" people He created and imbued with His image.

If you were to take the viewpoint that so many Calvinists quote Romans 9 you'd have to ignore this basic hermeneutic in order to come to that conclusion too. Then you'd have to go back to all the other passages that contradict it and come up with some sort of explanation as to why those passages in the Old Testament don't mean what they plainly say. Isn't it wonderful that the explanation is there in that one passage and the context provides the meaning so clearly? This is just one example of many (and not just for the Calvinist use of many verses) as to the danger in jumping all over Scripture using a Systematic Approach such as Calvinism does which again in my opinion uses the methodologies of Scholasticism. Verses that are quoted in this manner without carefully looking at the broader passages of Scripture can lead to all sorts of misunderstanding and poor teaching. It can even lead to people being asked to believe that God hates people based on a whim and on that whim damns them to hell when that has absolutely nothing to do with that passage when read in it's immediate context. Does that sound harsh? What's more harsh? Pointing out this error and the slander that it throws at the character of God or promoting that slander in the first place? Call me harsh. I'll accept it gladly given the impact and importance of what is being said here even if I believe those teaching this view of the nature and character of God are sincere in their belief. They're sincerely wrong.

4. There's a Summary and it mentions Free Will

Paul was an excellent writer and those qualities did not disappear because he was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Paul had a habit in his writing that helps us in many places. After he presented a major theme or argument he would briefly restate what he had already said as a summary before moving on to his next point. Wouldn't it be great if he did that in Romans 9 so that we had some confirmation of what he was trying to say?

Great news then; that's exactly what Paul did.

Let's look closer at Romans 9:30-32. There's a lot of complexity and difficulty present in this passage (at least for us reading it 2000 years later with cultural issues at work and translation ... I think it was much easier and clearer in Paul's mind and the minds of those reading this back then.) So if all of this material in Romans 9 before it was about individual salvation and these verses are that summary that Paul so commonly gives we should expect it to say something like "God is Sovereign and has decided who the elect are and who are not, and who are we to question it?"

Does it say that?

Here's what it says.

Romans 9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Is it speaking of individuals? No? It's speaking of the division between Jews and Gentiles (a primary theme of Paul in all his writings but especially in Romans and this was what Paul was building in Chapters 1 - 8. To believe that Paul was addressing individual Salvation and election and reprobation and determinism you'd have to believe that Paul almost on a whim changed gears and with little connection just launched into this discourse. But, it's clear from his summary here, that he didn't do that. As an "added bonus" (at least as I see it) Paul also makes it clear that he's speaking of the blessing that has come to the Gentiles and how the Jews (again collectively, there's obviously individual Jews of whom this is not true) have missed the blessing because of what they persued, namely but works instead of faith. That sounds remarkably like a choice to me and not an irrevocable decree by God.

This is extremely significant. Paul explains everything he’s been talking about throughout Romans 9 by appealing to the morally responsible choices of the Israelites and Gentiles because of their unbelief. The one thing God has always looked for in people is faith. The Jews did not “strive” by faith, though they should have (Rom 10:3). They rather chose to trust in their own works. The Gentiles, however, simply believed that God would justify them by faith. This theme recurs throughout chapters 9 through 11. As a nation, Paul says, the Jews “were broken off because of their unbelief…” (Rom 11:20). This is why they have been hardened (Rom. 11:7, 25) while the Gentiles, who sought God by faith, have been “grafted in” (Rom 11:23). This isn't speaking of apostacy or losing one's salvation at the individual level either. This is speaking at the higher level of corporate identification in terms of Jews and Gentiles.

We see that God’s process of hardening some and having mercy on others is not arbitrary: God expresses “severity toward those who have fallen [the nation of Israel] but kindness toward you [Genitle believers collectively] provided you continue in his kindness” (Rom 11:22). God has mercy on people and hardens people in response to their belief or unbelief. And he is willing to change his mind about both the hardening and the mercy, if people change. If Gentiles become arrogant and cease walking by faith alone, they will once again be “cut off.” And if the Jews who are now hardened will not “persist in their unbelief,” God will “graft them in again” (Rom. 11:22-23).

If you read the preceding verses in Romans 9 before this summary (and there is most definitely a shift when chapter 10 continues) as determinism suggests then this summary makes absolutely no sense and Paul might as well be writing a different letter. Hopefully this is clear. Even apart from the other issues here, this by itself is convincing to me.

5. He is the Potter, We are the Clay

Looking at Romans 9:19-21 is a metaphor that is used powerfully when determinism is assumed and read into the passage. It seems like a clincher to many. Again however, the context dictates the understanding and it must be kept in the context of the rest of the chapter that hopefully by now we're seeing has to do with Jews and Gentiles collecfctively and not saints and sinners individually,

Rom 9:19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

I wonder if there's something here that Paul is thinking of or referring to in the Old Testament that would help to make this clear in addition to the immediate context?

I think there is:

Jer 18: 1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2 “Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message.” 3 So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me. 6 He said, “Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

This again is saying exactly the opposite of what determinism appeals to in this similar analogy in Romans 9. This is showing a picture of God's dealing with the Nation of Israel (not individuals) and how God as a potter works with the clay of Israel. It's not saying that God declares what the pot is and then that's what it is. It's saying in fact that God is flexible and can adjust His plan contingent upon what the clay presents. If God declares that judgement is coming and then Israel repents then God "changes His mind" if you will or adjusts. If Gentiles who have come by faith collectively down the road depart from their faith and pursue the works like Isreal is doing then Gentiles just like Israel can be cast aside.

God will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy is speaking not of God just flipping a coin or appealing to whatever secret quality we want to attribute to Him that somehow was not revealed in Christ. God will have mercy on those who are in faith and he will reject those who are not in faith. The Jews in general have moved from faith to works so collectively His plan now has adjusted concerning them. The Gentiles in general are coming in faith and being accepted and God has changed His plan to accept them and bring them in where before they were outside of His plan.

God is Sovereign and He can decide to operate in this manner and the same question can be asked of hard-core Calvinists, Who are you to question God in this regard? Is your appeal to determinism and Strong Sovereignty such that you should declare that God plans evil and sends people to hell based on nothing other than His power, because He can do it? Who are you to say God cannot choose to limit His power in a form of weak sovereignty.

6. Raw Power or God's Wisdom displayed through Christ?

When Paul responds to the charge of injustice by asking, “who… are you, a human being, to argue with God?” (Rom 9:20), he is not appealing to the sheer power of the potter over the clay. He is appealing to the sovereign wisdom of the potter in refashioning clay in a manner that fits the kind of clay he has to work with. When “clay” yields to his influence and has faith, he fashions a vessel of honor. When “clay” becomes “spoiled” (Jere 18:4) and resists his will, he fashions a “vessel of ordinary use” that is being prepared for destruction.

Again, this fashioning looks arbitrary to Jews who believed that they were the “vessel of honor” by virtue of their national identity or good works – Jews who did not “strive for [God’s righteousness] on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works” (Rom 9:32). It is to these people, expressing this sentiment, that Paul sarcastically asks, “Who are you…?” In truth, God’s fashioning is not arbitrary at all. It is based on whether or not one is willing “to seek” after the righteousness of God that comes by faith, not works (Rom 9:30–32; Rom 10:3–5, 12–13; Rom 11:22–23).

That's all I have to say on this, but I felt this passage more than any other needed this type of attention because it's the bedrock of what Calvinistic Determinism appeals to more than any other passage I've observed. I'll address in shorter fashion a few other passages and then conclude.

So you know too, in an effort to be helpful, I'll end with a positive look at what I think is good with Calvinism and how to examine this issue more if you want to understand or wrestle with it more.

jlay · Post by **jlay** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:49 pm

Bart,

i think a lot of what you touch on is great. Perhaps we should have a thread on Christus Victor (CV)vs. Penal Sustitution (PS). Ahtough maybe versus is incorrect. Personally I find flaws (especially if one gravitates towards the poles) and truth in both. I too have noticed that PS in places seems very legalistic, and pits God as the angry judge. On the other hand I see tendencies in CV to overlook things in the sense that sin is more of an outside condition infecting us, as opposed to our own sinful ways infecting the world. Or that Christ's is a judge who will have His enemies made a footstool under His feet. There is a tension in the Gospel that we often fail to grasp, especially is systems such as PS. In my own salvation experience I realized the personal condition of my sin against a Holy God. But also, the mercy and grace that the Father arranged to reconcile me to Himself.

I think a good topic of discussion.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:59 pm

That might be good. I believe PSA is biblical and an aspect that is in scripture. It's somewhat late compared to others but I've seen a good case that shows elements of it as early as Athanasius.

Maybe we can start a thread and take a look at it with anyone else who is interested.

I think all major views of the atonement have some merit. They are metaphors and analogies and help to see it from different directions and different characteristics of God. None of them by themselves are the whole of the atonement.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:50 pm

OK Picking back up, having looked at Romans 9 in particular and showing how Romans 9 - 11 ties together to demonstrate that the typical Calvinist claim that Romans 9 demonstrates God's election of individuals (and corresponding reprobation of those irrevocably created for an eternity in hell) is simply unteneble given the themes of Romans and showing positively that when we read that passage with the understanding of the elect in the context of God's plan as exercised in the context of the Jews and Gentiles, the next pillar of Calvinism is Ephesians 1.

Remember what we said about the difference in viewpoint between Christians in the early church to whom Paul's epistles were addressed, as being that there was more of a sense of corporate identity than individual identity? This doesn't change when we go to Ephesians 1. Ephesians 1, like many passages of Scripture takes on a different sense of meaning when we speak of it in a corporate vs an individual context. Calvin's era of the renewal of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law during the Reformation and Renaissance reads Ephesians 1 in what is then the emerging emphasis upon the individual and in so doing the meaning of the text is radically different than those 1st Century Christians in Asia Minor who were the original audience of this message would have understood it. Which meaning ought we to seek to capture? I say our need is to put ourselves in the position of the original hearers and seek to understand it as Paul intended it and those original Ephesians heard it.

Not surprisingly, a similar dynamic is at work in Ephesians 1 as to what we see in Romans 9 - 11. Given that Paul wrote both passages it would be unlikely that he would radically differ in this basic dynamic from one passage to the next. If anything, there's a far greater burden upon anyone suggesting that Paul is not consistent in this understanding than there is the one assuming that Paul is coming from the same perspective between his two epistles.

The language of this passage, not surprisingly, then is corporate and plural, not individual and singular. Greek is much more precise than English in several ways, not the least of which it doesn't have the confusion that comes in English from both the singular and plural forms of "you" being the same word. There's no question in the Greek here as to which is intended. It's clearly plural here.

Just as Romans 9 is looking at the "elect" or "predestined" in the context of Pauls demonstration of God's wisdom in using Israel as God's chosen people to usher in the choosing of the Gentiles corporately and not down to individual salvation, Ephesisans 1 is looking at the church, of which those in Ephesus are a part.

Think of it in this manner, imagine that you decide at the last moment to come to a party that I've spent 6 months planning and putting all the details together. The party isn't any different in terms of it's overall planning and preparation for your coming in the manner you have because the planning and preparation is the same whether you come or not. The planning relates to the party as a whole, and it's been done, planned and prepared for regardless of whether one more comes or not.

The first historical mention of this idea of predestination at the individual level doesn't show up in Church literature and the first hint at this possibility came in with Augustine. You'll stretch very hard to try and find it in the first 300 years of the church fathers and writings and this is to a large extent what the reformers pick up on along with some of the scholasticism type influences that have been referenced earlier.

He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will…. (Eph. 1:4–5)

I won't go into the deep exegesis of this but how we read the phrases in this passage in relationship to one another is important and there's clear ties in the original language as to how they relate together. To take individual predestination from this passage you have to read in as meaning that "He chose us to be in Christ before the foundation of the world" in that strong sovereignty sense that we've seen is the theme of the reformed approach. That's not what is being said however. The "chose us" is not tied to "in Christ" as an object of what God is choosing. What God "chose us" collectively to as a church and not individually as single believers is not whether we'll be in Christ or not, but rather that we are to be "holy and blameless before him in love." God indeed has chosen that those in Christ collectively in the Church will be just this and he's prepared things through Jesus Christ that it will be precisely this way. All have been invited but not all will choose to come. (Sounds much like a parallel of one of Jesus' parables, doesn't it? Matt 14:1-22 and Jesus there too seems to clearly be speaking of a shift from the Jews to the Gentiles) Just as Paul spoke in the passage in Romans 9 of the contrast between Israel and Gentiles in terms of Israel's overall vocational role in God's plan, God has chosen that those who are collectively the church will be this way.

So too, from the foundation of the world God predestined that whoever is in Christ would become holy and blameless in his sight. But he didn’t predestine certain individuals — as opposed to other unfortunate individuals — to be in Christ. This is left up to our choice which God has chosen to give us. Now that you’ve chosen to be in Christ, what was predestined for the group becomes predestined for you. You, with Paul, can say “In Christ WE (who have chosen to believe) were predestined to be holy and blameless…”

When we approach this passage with our own culture and individual focuse it's easy to miss these nuances. They're vital however as is clear here.

With this in mind then it's not so difficult to see what is at work in vs 11.

Eph 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,

In Christ WE have obtained an inheritance. Paul had at his disposal a very easy means to make this individual in focus but he doesn't. We collectively as the Church have been predestined in this manner for an inheritance. That's a very different thing than being predestined to be in the church itself. If there's any remaining confusion it's completely dispelled as the passage continues and says in verse 13 and 14 which complete the thought.

Eph 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

If the Calvinist sense of Predestination in a Strong Sovereignty, deterministic manner were at work here, it wouldn't say that this took place "When you believed", it would say "When God predetermined" or some other such thing. The inheritance was predestined collectively in God's plan. The individual inclusion in that inheritance is predicated on our belief. Scholastic, predetermined thought that is most concerned with seeing God assert His power rather than His love type thought screams at this and argues that even the act of belief and placement of faith is a "work" and therefore negates grace and makes salvation of our effort rather than God's work. You have to start however with the thought of Strong Sovereignty and circle that thought back upon itself to make that claim. Scripture here certainly isn't assuming that. If God decides and determines that He is going to limit Himself and confer real choice then that is no less of God in terms of His plan than it would be if He chose another method. Calvinism here has to presuppose it's own conclusion in order to read things in this manner. In effect, Calvinism is daring in a manner of speaking of telling God that if He doesn't do things in the way that their belief in God's Sovereignty requires then God is somehow being inconsistent. To be fair, that argument can be reversed and said of what I'm pointing out as well if Calvinistic Strong Sovereignty is indeed how God chose to do things. The key however isn't what God "must" do because of who He is (which Calvism assumes and by doing it assumes that God must be controlled and held to a single possible path); the key is what in fact has God decided to do in terms of how individual destiny is established. It seems pretty clear even here in the midst of a "pillar" of reformed theology that when the whole passage is read that choice is right there and election is corporate, not individual. Far from being a difficult passage for what I've put forward as to Weak Sovereignty, this fits in better than what Calvinism asserts. I love this passage and hold fast to the hope it gives us in Christ.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:22 pm

A few quick vignettes that address other passages and show some things that have been meaningful to me in coming to understand some things in this same arena.

II John 1:1,13 is a beautiful, short but powerful example of how election is corporate. John refers to the "Lady chosen by God and her chidren" and "the children of your sister who is chosen by God send their greetings" and in both instances the "Lady" is a body of believers.

An often quoted verse that speaks of God "drawing" people unto himself is John 6:44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. " It is often quoted as evidence of Irresistable Grace and it seems to make sense, especially if you have that thought in your mind before you go to the passage. I've had a few occassions where those appealing to this verse are adamant that the word "draws" (the greek word that it's translated from), can only mean "draws" in the sense that God compels. This however is not true. The word also means to woo or persuade. The same word however is used in John 12:32 "And I, when I am lifted up[ from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” I have yet to find a Calvinist who interprets the word the same way in both passages, because, of course, if it's used the same way in 12:32 that is claimed in 6:44 then the impression given is one of universalism or Salvation for everyone by God's will independent of anything else. What is universal is the love of God and the call to Christ. All may respond to that overture, but they must do so by placing their trust in Christ. Since God draws all via the cross it is not God's will that determines the individuals who precisely will find salvation. Certainly God knows who they will be and who will not, but that knowledge is a product of His foreknowledge, not his decretive will. What God has decreed is that Christ came to die for all and anyone may come to Him but it has to be on God's terms. The terms are what God has decreed and the terms are repentance and belief. God has predestined collectively those who repent and believe in Christ to a glorious future but as an equal act of God's will He has limited Himself so that God's grace can indeed be resisted although God is grieved and takes no pleasure in what is predestined for those who choose otherwise.

Sayings of Christ that refute elements of Neo, Hyper and High Calvinism

Matt 23:37-30 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."

Nobody knows the Father better than Jesus. He who has seen Jesus has seen the Father. Jesus here is indicating that Jerusalem could and did resist the will of the Father. If the dynamics of the TULIP were what Jesus knew, then His lament should be over God's actions, not the resistance of the children of Jerusalem.

Matt 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

If God is orchestrating everything according to his Strong Sovereign Decretive Will, what does this have to do with anything? If Jesus understood Calvinism in its strongest form as true, he would have nothing to say about what was "harder" or "easier" with regard to the person so elected and regenerated by God because they have nothing to do with the process.

Luke 6:35 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

The twists of logic to qualify this when contrasted against the claim that God "hates" the reprobate requires mental and definitional gymnastics which effectively render this passage meaningless.

What I've done here is hardly exhaustive. There's much more that can be said and there's many other passages that can be examined. In general however, what I encourage people to do is to realize that it's a very powerful thing when somebody puts forward an idea and then quotes verses to support it. When doing that, the idea that has already been asserted can be read into the proof-texts because we're already thinking along those lines. This is often why verses that are appealed to by Calvinists (and this is not unique to Calvinists certainly but it's very relevant here) seem to fit so well.

Words from the Psalmists, just as one example in the Old Testament which are poetic and prone to hyperbole (a legitimate Hebrew Poetic Literary technique) are effusive and high in terms of God's power and sovereignty and so they serve well to suggest strong sovereignty and are regularly quoted to "prove" what is already being assumed. The fact is, if you step back for a moment and discipline yourself to try to remove from your mind the suggestion you've already been given and read the passage with an effort to let it speak for itself, there is nothing in the passage that demands "Strong Sovereignty" or that implies that God's sovereignty as expressed precludes God self-limiting or acting (or not acting) in the context of "Weak Sovereignty."

These are issues that have perplexed many Christians for ages. Calvinists have strong opinions and express them and so do I and I express them without apology because I think they're important and things that related to the Character of God are worth exploring and defending. That's the motive of many good Calvinist people and as I'll reiterate here as I'm closing down.

When I started this thread I said I was going to show,

1. Calvinism is not the only, and not the best way to understand and interpret Scripture. It is a possible way of looking at things, but it tends to isolate texts and construct arguments that are not always consistent with the whole counsel of Scripture.

This has been demonstrated by taking passages commonly quoted and considered "bedrock" passages and demonstrating contextually that the ideas read into the text are not consistent with the passages cited themselves.

2. Calvinism stands apart from several deeply rooted tenets of Historical Christianity.

This has been demonstrated by examining some of the history of beliefs in the early church and touching on the rise of Scholasticism as to where some of these thoughts came in terms of the whole system of Calvinism. The elevation of God's Power over His love stands in stark contrast to not only Scripture but also the early church which didn't even begin to entertain some of the concepts that eventually coalesced into Calvin over a long period of time. Early Christians tended to look at things in more of a corporate sense than an individual sense, particularly in the concepts of election and God's calling of groups of people to vocational roles. Calvinism arose in large part due to the influence in the Reformation and Renaissance with it's rediscovery of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law which were brought about to focus on the individual. Passages understood in that light often radically change the meanings from how they've been historically understood.

3. Calvinism falls into contradictions that cannot be internally reconciled. There is room for mystery in all forms of Christian faith. Calvinism, however, tends to take things as logically far as they can be taken and then appeals to mystery when things cannot be reconciled. Chief among these is the necessary concept that God is the author of sin and evil. Many Calvinists deny that their belief system necessitates this conclusion. It is however, a necessary consequence and conclusion of the the whole of the belief system, I believe this in spite those who deny it. Sheer contradiction of this nature is a clear sign of error in my opinion. Contradiction of this degree is not "mystery."

This has been examined in several perspectives with a focus upon the differences of Strong Sovereignty and Weak Soveriignty and a strong examination of how Hard Determinism cannot be reconciled with the Love of God and necessarily implies God's authorship and Moral Responsibility for Sin and Evil.

I will make one final post in my presentation here and then I am done with this. I'll still interact with any who come and ask questions or who wish to challenge some of these issues. For my part, while I have no control over what others will do or say, but I'm content with recognizing where differences exist and then when those are clear then agreeing to disagree and move on.

My final post is going to be to speak positively of Calvinists (I'll try with the system but as I don't agree with it, I'm not going to pretend to respect the positions even though I love and respect many Calvinists and Reformed people).

Thanks again for all who asked and those who have followed and encouraged or participated in the thread or pm'd or emailed me. I've not done something like this very often in my time here in this community and this took some time and effort to organize and put up. I reserve the right to grow in grace and wisdom, to learn and change my mind in part, but this has been the summing of a great deal of thought and self-reflection as someone who has been in reformed settings although I'll confess, I don't think I ever fully accepted some of the things that were presented because I knew there was something in my heart that told me that something was wrong and didn't add up. This is the best representation I can give right now for what I'm thinking and where I am at.

So one last post and then back to our regularly scheduled programming, at least as far as I am concerned.

Blessings,

Bart

Evidence for God from Science

Reformed Theology Discussion

Re: Reformed Theology Discussion

Re: Reformed Theology Discussion

Re: Reformed Theology Discussion

Re: Reformed Theology Discussion

Re: Reformed Theology Discussion

Re: Reformed Theology Discussion

Re: Reformed Theology Discussion

Re: Reformed Theology Discussion

Re: Reformed Theology Discussion

Re: Reformed Theology Discussion

Re: Reformed Theology Discussion

Re: Reformed Theology Discussion

Re: Reformed Theology Discussion

Re: Reformed Theology Discussion

Re: Reformed Theology Discussion