Puritan Lad's Response

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:48 pm

A Response to A Discourse On God's Nature and Character which reveals His will concerning Election's Foreknowledge, Predestination, Calling, Justification, and Glorification as Romans 8:29-30 and 1 Peter 1:2, and Ephesians 1:3-22 and 1 Corinthians 2:7-10 reveals.

The purpose of this thread is to respond to the Free Will Thread, thereby letting B.W. post his thoughts uninterrupted. I would request the same opportunity here.

B.W.,

Thank you for you efforts. There is much in truth in what you have written. However, please oblige me as I address certain areas as we endeavor to learn more about the nature of the God we serve. I will take my time and mull over each line of your posts, in order to give the same effort and thought as you have.

You wrote, “God uses the wicked for his purposes as well as the wicked “answering” to their own wickedness.” To this I would fully agree. I also agree that God does not make man wicked. Man makes himself wicked. However, this is true of all men. I will further add that, this being true, God predestines some of the wicked for destruction (those whom He chooses not to save) to be used for that purpose. I will expound more on this later, as the Scriptures are replete with examples.

You added, “The heart of wickedness is control, to rule like god, to be in charge. When the wicked become instruments of God, God shows all, who is really in charge. The wicked are the ones that quarrel with God over control. [note - Ezekiel 28:17].”

I have to smile a little when a “free-willer” writes something like this, but I'll digress from examining the implications of your quote on the Arminian-Calvinist debate. (You seem to hold at least some belief in human ability regarding salvation, correct me if I'm wrong). I'll simply ask you what this means. How does one quarrel with God over control? I know of many wicked men who have never literally quarreled with God. Your explanation is, “They want to be the potter and command the works of God. Instead it is they that are being used by God and made a public spectacle out of. This the bible teaches in abundance.” Again, this has huge ramifications on the current debate supporting the Calvinist view. It is the Arminian who feels that he just has to be in control of his own destiny.

My first major disagreement is with your assessment of the Potter and the Clay Parable. You state that “The wicked justify their works by saying God made me thus — a king, ruler, important, killer, terrorist, etc… Hence, they quarrel with God over control; God has the last laugh, He is in charge and can make them eat grass if He so wishes. That is what the potter and clay parable reveals.” Your explanation does little justice to the context of Romans 9:10-24. I won't waste precious effort with those who hold the desperate and unbiblical view that this passage refers to “earthly blessings” on “Israel after the flesh”. The parable of the potter and the clay reveals God's sovereignty in election; that God creates vessels of honor and vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, which you originally stated that you are in agreement with. Making someone eat grass is hardly the equivalent to destruction, though God can certainly do that as well. Now raising up Pharoah for the express purpose of destroying him is a much better example. Hating Esau despite the fact that Esau willing sought God with tears is another. This is what the parable of the Potter and the Clay represent. Is this view offensive? Apparently Paul himself figured that it would be. Some would ask, as have many on this board, “Why does He still find fault, for who has resisted His will?” (Romans 9:19) Paul's response was a striking rebuke to anyone who would dare sit in judgment of God. “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" (Romans 9:20). It is then he goes into the parable of the Potter and the Clay. Let us not forget that what originally prompted the Potter and Clay Parable from Paul was the idea that God raised Pharoah for the purpose of destroying him, followed by the clearest passage in Scripture regarding God's Sovereign Grace. “So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Rom 9:18). This is what “free-willers” object to, even to this day. Paul had ample opportunity to explain this in light of Pharoah's alleged “free-will”. The fact that he went in the other direction entirely is most telling.

Your next point was, “remember, we are all vessels of wrath. Jeremiah 18:5-10 explains the potter and clay story. They same lump of clay. Clay that became unrighteous before God because of sin, God can shape based on what?” I'm not in 100% agreement with this, but close enough to where I won't split hairs as we have bigger things to tackle. Up next is where I have my second major disagreement with you.

You have the common objection to total depravity, which assumes that God's commandments demand our ability to obey them. You wrote, “Verse 8 tells us if they repent. How can they repent if they are not told too i.e. notified, called out too? How beautiful are the feet of them that bring good news. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” I must reiterate, as I have many times, that God's commandments to repent do not presume our ability to do so. Scripture is full of examples of this. Back to Pharoah, God told him to “let the people of Israel go out of his land.” (Exodus 7:2). He then proceeded to “harden Pharaoh's heart” (Exodus 7:3), so that, “Pharaoh will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and bring my hosts, my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment” (Exodus 7:4). I must point out that God was actively involved in hardening Pharoah's heart. He didn't just “permit” it to be hardened, but He actually hardened it. This was God's purpose for Pharoah (Romans 9:17). Could Pharoah have overcome God's hardening of His heart and repented? How? “The king's heart is in the hand of Jehovah as the watercourses: He turneth it whithersoever he will.” (Proverbs 21:1). The scriptures are clear. God gave Pharoah a command, but never gave him the ability to obey it.

God told the children of Israel not to commit incest (Leviticus 18:7-8). However, God proclaimed direct responsibility for Absalom's incest, declaring it to be His work (2 Samuel 12:12). Again, it does not say “I will permit it”, but “I will do it”. How then, could Absalom use his “free-will” to avoid this evil? Again, God gave the command, but did not give Absalom the ability to obey it.

The most obvious example of the predestined wickedness in Scripture is the crucifixion of Christ Himself. God predestined not only the act, but the actors. I must now give inspection to Mr. Boyd's comments that “…Herod, Pilot, the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel carried out God's predestined plan, not that they were individually predestined to carry out God's plan. That Jesus was going to be killed was settled ahead of time: who would kill him was not.” This is, being polite, nonsense. God did not predestine His will to be carried out by nameless volunteers, but had Christ “delivered… into the hands of lawless men to death by His determinate counsel and foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23). With due respect to Mr. Boyd, I'll take Peter at his word. "They (the people, not actions) were disobedient to the Word, to which they (the people again) were appointed.” (2 Peter 2:8).

Jesus commands us to Come to Him (Matthew 11:28), but then clearly states that no one can come to Him unless is has been granted to him by the Father (John 6:65). Paul tells us to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phillipians 2:12), and then immediately adds, “for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (Phillipians 2:13). The Scriptures are clear. The ability to repent, obey, and respond to the gospel call is itself a gift from God. Therefore, God's commandments to “Repent” do not presume our ability to do so. The sinner does not need good advice. He needs new life, and only God can give that. This was the basis for St. Augustine's prayer that brought the Pelagian heresy out of the woodwork. “Lord, command what you will, and give what you command.” This is most necessary, for without Him, we can do nothing (John 15:5).

Not let's discuss “foreknowledge”, since I brought it up. This one word is what the Arminian hopes will help him avoid the God who has “declared the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things not yet done, saying “My council will stand, and I will do all my pleasure”. (Isaiah 46:10) You write, “It comes back to God's call based on his deep foreknowing that predestines”. If my understanding of your post is correct, then there are several problems with your statement. First, there is not a single scripture that mentions a “foreknowledge” of “choice” or “actions” (which you seem to imply). The Word “foreknowledge” in the Bible “always” refers to people, never to actions. It is true that God foreknew our choices, because He predestined them. For example, in Romans 8:29-30: "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image, of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called," etc. Weigh well the pronoun that is used here. It is not what He did foreknow, but whom He did. It is not the surrendering of their wills nor the believing of their hearts but the persons themselves, which is here in view. If foreknowledge is simply, knowing beforehand, then Romans 8:29-30 would teach universal salvation. Afterall God, who foreknows everyone, would predestinate everyone to be conformed to the image, of His Son, and would eventually justify everyone.

A correct understanding of the word “foreknowledge” would equate it with fore-loving. This is the view of knowledge in the Biblical sense, which I'm sure you are aware of. Back to Romans 9, what was the difference between Jacob and Esau? Was it their actions? Did God love Jacob over Esau because He foreknew Jacob's righteous choice? The Bible is clear that this is not the case. Romans 9:11 tells us that “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call— she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." That is clear. God's choice had nothing to do with human ability, but rather God's election. Many get floored at the concept that God hated Esau (and I won't argue with the interpretations of “hate”, because it really makes no difference). Such a view is rooted in human pride. It is no wonder that God hated Esau. The amazing part of this passage is that God loved Jacob. In any case, regardless of the interpretation, it is clear that God does not love everybody the same. He loves some more than others. Furthermore, this difference in love has nothing to do with our works, but rather Him who calls, so that God's purpose in election might stand.

You added. “God is engaging something with humanity and demands a response. Humans were designed by God to be able to respond. If not, then faith does not come by hearing but rather by selective election.” I would have to disagree. If humans were designed with the ability to respond, than Our Lord's words in John 6:44 and John 6:65 would be meaningless. He was very clear that no man can respond unless God enables him. Furthermore, if God designed all humans with the ability to respond, then we would have to conclude that His design was fundamentally flawed in the vast majority of people. What is it that separates the believer from the unbeliever? How is it that you were saved? Did you make a better decision then your unsaved neighbor? Were you smarter? Did you make better use of your designed ability to respond? No one would ever suggest such. While it is true that the saved man will respond a certain way, this response itself is a gift from God, as I have already shown. I would again point back to Pharoah, Absalom, Esau, etc.

It is true that faith comes by hearing the Word of God. But the ability to hear the Word comes from God Himself. The Pharisees were one example, where they were not given to understand the things of the Kingdom of God. “He who has ears, let him hear” (Matthew 13:9). Man does not created his own spiritual ears, and it is apparent that not all have these ears. “This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” (Matthew 13:13). While the Apostles received faith by hearing the Word, the same cannot be said for the Pharisees. Is this unfair of God? “So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” (Romans 9:18).

You add, “Now back too Proverbs 16:2-5. A person's motives are weighed by the Lord — the Lord detest the proud of heart, God declares they will not go unpunished. Therefore, God fashions them for a day of doom, punishment. Why, they quarrel with God and use the, 'you made me do it' argument to justify their crimes, actions, and deeds. God has the last laugh as He is in charge, not they. The wicked are ensnared by the works of their own hands and are held accountable.” It is true that man cannot blame God for His sins. Although God does decree man's evil deeds, and inclines man's heart to wickedness, He does not compel man to sin. Man has enough sin in himself that all God has to do is withhold grace from the wicked. In doing so, God hardens the heart of man (Exodus 7:3), turns him over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28), so that he is led astray by his own lusts and desires (James 1:14). Man sin willingly, as a willful slave, but a slave to sin nonetheless. (Romans 6:17, 20). When man gets to heaven, he has no one to glory in but God. When he goes to Hell, he has no one to blame but himself.

Despite your efforts, and Mr Boyd's, there is no getting around the clear meaning of Proverbs 16:4. “The Lord made (pa'al) the wicked for the Day of Doom.” The word means “to make, do, or ordain (predestine)”. Having it mean “work out” is really no help to your view. The bottom line is that the Lord does it, not man. No, God does not force man to sin, but He does predestine their wickedness and uses it to bring about His own immutable council.

You wrote, “The reason why there is a debate is that we have strayed away from looking at the author and finisher of out faith; Jesus Christ. We fail to look at God and seek him. We do not spend time gazing upon God and seeking Him to understand His Nature and Character — who He is. God desires to make Himself known, He wants us to seek Him and ask questions.” I agree. The purpose of this debate, among other things, is to help is both know more about the God of the Bible. "Acquaint now thyself with Him, and be at peace: thereby good shall come unto thee" (Job 22:21). "Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty glory in his might, let not the rich glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth, and knoweth Me, that I am the Lord" (Jeremiah 9:23-24).

I will repond to Part II of you post as time permits.

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:41 pm

On the Nature of God, you wrote, “God doesn't need angels, creation, or humanity. He is completely self sufficient and needs no one. But yet He created! Why? We may, in this mortal life, never fully understand why God chose to create but thank God He did or we would not be.” I am in complete agreement, though you contradict yourself later in this post. Contrary to the modern gospel of self—esteem, God did create us because He was lonely, or somehow required our existence to fulfill some need of His. Lest we ever think otherwise, we should remember that God existed for eternity past without us and He got along just fine. We add nothing to His glory. He has enough glory in and of Himself. From His vantage point, all the nations to Him are nothing.

You added, “The bible grants clues and glimpses into why He created. If you are wise enough to put the pieces together, you'll gain a brief glimpse of God's eternal Glory! God is a God of the living is a statement Jesus used to reveal God the Father. You can say correctly that God creates life in order to be true to Himself, true to who He is, true to His nature, and thus true to His will.” Perhaps there is some truth to this. I won't go very far into speculation concerning this matter. All we know for certain is that God created us according to the good pleasure of His will. There was no need to create, and nothing that prompted Him to do so.

In addition, you wrote, ”What does the bible reveal about God's character and nature? First, God cannot deny Himself; 2 Timothy 2:11-13. He is true to His word and His Gifts He gives. God is true to Himself.” To this point, I am in full agreement, but cannot come to the next conclusion. “This is a snapshot of insight into why God created. Summed up, God created to simply be true to Himself, true to be who He is, be true to His nature, and character which reveals His will, plans, purposes.” This presumes that there was something about God internally that made Him create. Thus, God is denied the free-will that so many want to bestow upon His creatures. All we know for sure is that God cannot be forced to do anything. His creation was not out of any necessity. Why did God create? I do not know, nor will I assume any meaning obtained through vain speculation. In some areas, we need to be satisfied with the fact that the Bible never gives an answer.

Deuteronomy 29:29
“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”

Now we come down to who the God of the Bible really is. I am well with you when you encourage us to “…look at more of the divine snapshot the Bible gives of God”. Let's do so indeed.

In revealing “God's Nature and Character”, you write “God is sovereign”. I agree, but must ask, “What does that mean?” It means that nothing is left to chance. It means that God not only created the universe, but meticulously governs every aspect of it. God is the ultimate micromanager, working His will among the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth. No one can restrain His hand, or say to Him, “What have you done?” (Daniel 4:35). You even listed Isaiah 46 as your reference. What does this scripture tells us? It clearly shows us a predestining God. Let us hear God's own description of His immutable Decree:

Isaiah 46:9-11
"Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, 'My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,'
Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man who executes My counsel, from a far country.
Indeed I have spoken it;
I will also bring it to pass.
I have purposed it;
I will also do it."

God has already declared the end from the beginning. All things that have ever happened, are currently happening, and ever will happen have been decreed by Him who “who works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11). I can't imagine believing in a God who does anything else. I could not worship a god who is subject to my will. Such a god is not to be feared, but rather pitied. I could not imagine going through any disaster or tragedy in life without knowing that God is in complete control, and has the ability to work it for good to them that love Him. The first big problem facing the Arminian, despite the rhetoric otherwise, is that their God is not sovereign. In their view, God can be sovereign in all areas except the salvation of His people. When it comes to this, however, God dare not interfere with our free will. If He does, well then it is just not fair. Charles Spurgeon rightly observed that, “There is no attribute more comforting to His children than that of God's Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe trials, they believe that Sovereignty has ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all. There is nothing for which the children ought more earnestly to contend than the doctrine of their Master over all creation—the Kingship of God over all the works of His own hands—the Throne of God and His right to sit upon that Throne. On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldings, no truth of which they have made such a football, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on His throne. They will allow Him to be in His workshop to fashion worlds and make stars. They will allow Him to be in His almonry to dispense His alms and bestow His bounties. They will allow Him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends His throne, His creatures then gnash their teeth, and we proclaim an enthroned God, and His right to do as He wills with His own, to dispose of His creatures as He thinks well, without consulting them in the matter; then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on His throne is not the God they love. But it is God upon the throne that we love to preach. It is God upon His throne whom we trust.”

In attempts to reconcile the truth of God's Sovereignty with the imagination of libertarian free-will, they will appeal to God's permission, comparing God to a “gentleman”, who “will not interfere with our wills”. No only is the babbling nonsense, but totally unscriptural. What sayeth the Scriptures?

Psalm 33:10-12
“The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing;
He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect.
The counsel of the LORD stands forever,
The plans of His heart to all generations.
Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,
The people He has chosen as His own inheritance.”

God is not a “gentleman”, not is He subject to our “free-will”.

For the most part, I am in complete agreement with the rest of your list of God's attributes, until we get to your following statement. You wrote that “God can change His mind”. After I offered a brief objection, you clarified in another post, claiming that God does not repent when it comes to oaths, but left open the possibility that He could change His mind in other areas. This is a major disagreement between us.

You correctly observed that “Malachi 3:6-7 and Numbers 23:19 states that the Lord does not change and that God will not change His mind — repent, relent. Yet in Genesis 6:5-8 and Jeremiah 18:9-10 it tells us that God does indeed repent, relent, change His mind. Is this a contradiction? Answer is, No.” It is then you offered your explanation in terms of “God making an oath” using Hebrews 6:13-16-20 as your reference. There is a better explanation for the perceived contradiction, as your is wraught with problems.

First, How does a God who has “declared the end from the beginning” change His mind? If He did so, then He has not declared the end from the beginning. Secondly, on what basis does He change His mind? Let us take care not to deny God's omniscience, having God changing His mind based on human actions, ie. God's gets wiser with time, able to make better decisions then His previous ones as He learns more about His creatures. This would even be true of a “foreknowing without predestining” God, for if God merely foreknew that He would change His mind, He never really changed it.

A.W. Pink gives a better explanation. “God is immutable in His counsel. His will never varies. Perhaps some are ready to object that we ought to read the following: "And it repented the Lord that He had made man" (Gen. 6:6). Our first reply is, Then do the Scriptures contradict themselves? No, that cannot be. Numbers 23:19 is plain enough: "God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent." So also in 1 Samuel 15:19, "The strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for He is not a man, that He should repent." The explanation is very simple. When speaking of Himself. God frequently accommodates His language to our limited capacities. He describes Himself as clothed with bodily members, as eyes, ears, hands, etc. He speaks of Himself as "waking" (Ps. 78:65), as "rising early" (Jer. 7:13); yet He neither slumbers nor sleeps. When He institutes a change in His dealings with men, He describes His course of conduct as "repenting." Pink's explanation is superior because we know that God is “the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17).

You added, “God created in order to demonstrate that He is all these things; How can God verify He 'loves' if none exist to love? How can God be Righteous, Just, Merciful, if there were none to demonstrate this too? How can God prove He is equitable, fair, and exercises justice if none exist for this purpose.” Again, I cannot agree with this, as it is a clear contradiction to your opening remark. I will not presuppose that there was something that necessitated God to create. If so, then that something would be greater than God. God has no need to demonstrate His power, love and righteousness to anyone. He did not do so for eternity past. He is completely self-sufficient. Creating added nothing to God, for “He changes not” (Mal. 3:6). We were created for God's pleasure, not to fulfill some need of His. This is where we vastly disagree. God does not need us. Contrary to the song that was so popular on Christian radio a few years back, heaven is not counting on us. Therefore, when you ask “Can you see the snapshot?” I can only see the snapshot that you are inferring. I must object to your most basic presuppositions concerning the matter of God's Creation.

You added, “That is what the debate of predestination has clearly fostered: confusion and discord. Is this from God or another source? If the answer you have does not honor God as to all that He is, as well as line up with who He is, you'll end up not honoring God but rather honor one man's idea over another at the determent of all”. It is interesting that this seems to be pointed at the Calvinist position, whether you meant it to be or not. However, I must clarify that I do consider Arminians to be my brothers in Christ. I will gladly pray with and Arminian, and know of many Arminians of whom the world is not worthy. Most of my family members are Arminian.

That said, I am not interested in pursuing a false sense of unity at the expense of sound doctrine. This is certainly not the type of unity Jesus prayed for. Rather, He wished for unity through doctrine, not in spite of it. The Bible has much more to say on the subject of sound doctrine than it does unity. In fact, Jesus made it clear in several places that His gospel would be divisive (e.g. Matthew 10:34-36). I agree with J.C. Ryle when he stated that “Divisions and separations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity ...But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching that is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue and not a sin.” "Can two walk together, unless they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3).

I am in full agreement with Spurgeon and His position between the Arminians and their doctrines. First he stated concerning the Arminians that "I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven." However, concerning their doctrines, he boldly says, "I do not serve the god of the Arminians at all; I have nothing to do with him, and I do not bow down before the Baal they have set up; he is not my God, nor shall he ever be; I fear him not, nor tremble at his presence... The God that saith today and denieth tomorrow, that justifieth today and condemns the next...is no relation to my God in the least degree. He may be a relation of Ashtaroth or Baal, but Jehovah never was or can be his name."

To answer your question, “can the doctrine you …hold concerning predestination, election, God's choosing, measure up to the standards of God Himself without any contradictions and contorted scripture weaving?”. Yes. If it were otherwise, I would not hold these doctrines. God Word is the standard, and the Doctrines of predestination and election are clearly taught, as I have shown throughout this debate.

One side of the debate states that God is sovereign and since this is fact, God selects this one for Hell and another for Heaven, and thus fashions them so. God is made out to a nice sovereign bully damning people to hell for the sin He created in the devil and permitted to spread to humanity. Galatians 6:9, according to this view should read, “What God sows, man will reap, so shut the blank up and how dare you question God's sovereignty you potted clay basket case!”

It is this very attitude that creates strife. I would say the Holy Spirit of God in many Christians is grieved and insulted by this attitude which the attackers fortify with misunderstood scripture quotes to back such a claim. How can you answer it?

Need to be careful here, B.W. I would respond with Romans 9:19-24.

I also would point out that the Arminian view of God is not immune to similar criticism. Afterall, the Arminian God "foreknows" those who will reject Him and go to Hell, and yet still creates them anyway. Why? How is this any less repugnant? We have Jesus own words that it is better for such a man to never have been born! Please explain how this view is any less offensive.

If you point out all the scriptures that speak of God letting man choose this day whom they'll serve, and empathize with the ability to think and reason without constraint that suggest that the human agent is a free moral instrument designed by God you are accused of having an 'ugly self will' rising up and not fit to be listened too.

B.W., there are NO “scriptures that speak of God letting man choose this day whom they'll serve”. That is precisely what this debate is about. The command to choose does not necessitate our ability to do so. Jesus was clear that unless one is born of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3).

You can add you pet scriptures to back your claims to debate me. I may not answer directly your challenges but your challenges will be addressed as we explore who God is, how and why He does all things according to nature and character, which by the way, reveals His will. This way, you'll discover the answer on your own and we can stay on track and not chase rabbits down every doctrinal hole.

B.W. I applaud you on wanting to resolve this debate. I wish you well. However, we disagree right from the outset on God's purpose for creation. We need to get to a consensus on that first, or we will be off the mark as we explore who God is.

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:50 am

I ask forgiveness for the times I repeat myself here from the other thread. It is helpful to get my arguments into a single place, and some of the points B.W. has posted were addressed in some way in the other thread.

Psalm 65:4
“Blessed is the man You choose, And cause to approach You, That he may dwell in Your courts…”

B.W. You chose a great starting point concerning the attributes of God. Indeed He is sovereign. That is what makes God God. You wrote, “Let's look at God's sovereignty.…All these things the bible boldly teaches about God's sovereign nature; Scriptures to numerous to permit doubt about this.” I am in full agreement with this. When you write that, “The majority of Christians agree with this”, I would agree from a rhetorical standpoint, but have shown that the majority of Christians today will object to God's Sovereignty when it comes to the salvation of His people. The “sovereignty” of the Arminian God is selectively and arbitrarily applied. According to the Scriptures. God is absolutely sovereign, even over the sinful acts of men. The Scriptures are full of examples. I have already mentioned a few. Here is a partial list. I'm interested in seeing how you respond to these.

* God was at work in the jealousy, kidnapping and lies of Joseph's brothers (Genesis 45:5)
* God was working in Pharoah's rebellion to bring about His purpose and show His power (Romans 9:17)
* God was working in Satan and the Scythians in their plunder of Job's health, property and family (Job 12:9)
* God declared Absalom's incest to be His work (2 Samuel 12:12).
* And of course the crucifixion of our Lord, an act which God Himself performed, not just permitted (Isaiah 53:10)

I'm sure we can come up with a number of other examples, but these should suffice. Were the sinners in the above examples free to choose any other course of action? No. They chose what was set before them, according to their own wicked hearts, just as God had decreed. Yet it was their “choice”, and they were fully responsible for those choices, and were judged accordingly. You go on to ask, “How then does He govern?” Also, “He created beings with intelligence and wisdom to reason on their own. How can he be all powerful if he cannot control free minded beings?” The answer to the first part of your question was answered above. Though I do not totally disagree with the rest of your statement, I do have two objections. First, If God “controls” free-minded beings, then they are, by definition, not free minded beings, or at least not in the sense of the Arminians and Pelagians. Free-will, in this sense, is assumed, because it cannot be support by scripture. The debate itself does not center on whether or not man acts according to his will. The debate centers around whether or not man is free to enact any profitable righteousness, or even to come to Jesus Christ. Man is free only in the sense that he does not sin out of compulsion, but rather willingly, as you correctly observed. “The wicked are ensnared by the works of their own hands. Free minded beings, angels and human beings, create sin.” As Calvin put it, man is a willing slave, but a slave to sin none the less. This is the problem for all mankind. A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit (Luke 6:43).

You, as many do, attempt to reconcile God's clear sovereignty with man's “free-will”. The problem is that the Bible makes no mention of such a will. It must be presumed to exist before the scriptures are opened, and then the scriptures are interpreted in light of this presumption.

How does God govern? The simple answer is found in Psalm 115:3.

“But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.”

If you want a good starting point in finding out the nature of God, the above verse is His job description.

You added, “Now ponder this, God still remains in control; proving his divine nature and character through all this. Wow, that is truly absolutely all powerfully sovereign! God has a divine plan. Hint: it takes heat to remove dross.” I agree. God is in full control of the wicked as he is with the righteous, as I have already shown through numerous examples in scripture. Our disagreement isn't whether or not the wicked sin willfully. It concerns whether or not they can “willfully” do otherwise. I believe, in the end, you must acknowledge that God predestines the actions of wicked men. A more important question will consider man's salvation. Can man act of his own free-will to be saved? If so, why does he need to Holy Spirit?

Second, as I'm sure we all can agree, intelligence and wisdom are no cures for the sinful nature. The Greek philosophers believed that wisdom would cure our moral ills. Today's pagans believe it will be “education”. The problem with these views is that it ignores man's total depravity. Sin has corrupted both our intelligence and our wisdom. And even if we obtain enough wisdom to identify our sins, we are still slaves to them. I can't even begin to count the many sins that have I committed in which I knew better. They were "unreasonable", yet I still did them. The problem wasn't my lack of reason or possession of a will. The problem was that I was a slave to sin. Man's will is not free until the Son makes it free.

Before we go any further, I want to address your attempt to try and reconcile this debate. While your efforts and intentions are most admirable, I would like for you to answer a question posed by Stephen Charnock.

"But what if the foreknowledge of God, and the liberty of the will cannot be reconciled by man? Shall we therefore deny a perfection in God to support a liberty in ourselves? Shall we rather fasten ignorance upon God, and accuse Him of blindness to maintain our liberty?"

I must add, B.W., do we avoid addressing these questions in order to just get along with everyone? Must one adopt some “middle ground” in order to promote unity, assuming such a middle ground exists, of which I am most doubtful? I have noticed that those who claim that “doctrine isn't important” are the ones most easily offended by it.

You brought up an interesting point in the mention of angels. You wrote, “This demonstrates how truly awesome God is — designing us in a manner that proves He is all powerfully sovereign way beyond what we can even imagine! He permits, by his divine design, for us and even the angels, the ability to think and morally reason independently and then still is able to reach His desired goal. That is sovereignty! Think on this for awhile.”

In actuality, I have thought a lot about this subject, and I do want to give you ample opportunity to explain your position. I believe that it is no coincidence that the saved “angels” are referred to as “elect” (1 Timothy 5:21), whilst Hell is prepared for the Devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41). If anything in scripture is clear, it is that the final estate of angels are predestined. Yet, you correctly acknowledge that “even the angels [have] the ability to think and morally reason independently”. This is the perfect illustration. Hell was created specifically for the wicked angels. Yet, the substance of what guides their actions does not cease to be “will”. Therefore, with angels, we see a prime example of beings that have a “will”, yet their wills are not free. Elect Angels cannot be damned, nor can wicked ones be saved. Most Christians have no problem with God predestining angels, but get most offended at the idea that God could do this with people.

You clarified your position regarding salvation by stating that “This does not mean that we can chose God on our own, or earn our own way to heaven and God's favor by earning points for good behavior. The initiative resides with God alone to save. His initiative does not violate his design that he graciously granted us.” However, I must also add that not only does God initiate our salvation, He completes it. He is not only the author of our faith, but the finisher as well.

You added, “God still remains in control of all things. God displays His initiative by engaging us with a call, a test. We were designed to respond gratis to God's call, test. This proves God is right and fair and just, etc.” Again, I disagree with your basic premise regarding our creation. The Scriptures tell us over and over that this is not the case.

“The natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14). Man, by nature, is not able to respond. This is the first major disagreement we have. He must be born again first.

You object to a predestining God on the basis that “Responsibility teaches consequences. How else can we learn that we are really accountable for our acts as the bible plainly teaches. What a man sows, that He will also reap. This is right, just, fair, perfectly demonstrating a love and mercy profound.” This is based on bad assumptions. No Calvinist would suggest that man isn't responsible for his sins. In fact, it is the libertarian free-willer that would remove one's responsibility for sin. For example, if someone would commit, say, an act of murder using his libertarian free-will, acting totally independent of any stimulus or motive, then such would not even be competent to stand trail. This person would get off on an insanity plea. In guilty verdicts, the wills of murderers are affected by many things, drugs, greed, lust, anger, etc. Yet that which they do they choose to do, making them fully responsible for their actions. Pharoah, Absalom, Judas, and the Pharisees were all held responsible for their actions, despite the fact that their actions were decreed by God from the foundation of the world.

The fact is that our wills are slaves to sin, and we will pursue such unless God gives us a new heart. If He does not do so, we will be forever bound by sin, yet totally responsible for it.

At this point, I would have to ask you, “How are infants saved?” I would be interested in your response to that question. If you take the modern day “age of accountability” approach, I would ask you to support this with scripture. Vain pleas about the necessary innocence of newborns will fall on my deaf ears without scripture.

You ask, “This ability we were designed with is a gift from God but from the clay of Adam we became corrupted by sin. God therefore shapes and molds the clay from this same lump. How does He do so and why?” The answers must be taken from scripture. God shapes some vessels by giving them ears to hear Him. He then gives them eternal life, so that they will never perish. He seeks and He saves. He also shapes others by hiding the truth, for they are, by nature, children of wrath. He just turns them over to their reprobate minds, to be led astray by their own lusts and desires.

As far as why, the only answer we have is that “so the purpose of God according to election might stand”. On what basis does God elect? He never tells us.

To summarize so far, I disagree with your following presumptions.

1.) God needed to create in order to show how He “can be Righteous, Just, Merciful, and to “prove He is equitable, fair, and exercises justice”.
2.) God can change His mind.
3.) Man has a natural ability to respond (in a positive way to the gospel).
4.) God lets man choose this day whom they'll serve
5.) Man is a “free minded being” in a presumed libertarian sense.

Will continue to respond to your posts in order. I look forward to how you address my objections, but please complete your current line of thought first. I want to exhaust this as much as possible, leaving no stone unturned.

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:42 pm

B.W.,

Up next. You wish to look at the plan of redemption in Genesis 1-3. Let's do so. You wrote, “Genesis chapters 1-3 reveal so much that you rightly can say the entire plan of redemption is laid out within these three chapters. That is why I chose to look at these. Also from these chapters, we can spring into other parts of the bible to verify context and the themes under discussion.” This sounds good to me. I couldn't help but notice that you referred to redemption as a “plan” rather than a “possibility”. Most Arminians also do this. The question is, “do they really believe it?” Redemption is the Bible is certainly a plan, not a possibility. We will discuss this in more detail as we “spring into other parts of the bible to verify context and the themes under discussion”.

Next, you outline two possible schools of thought. You state, “For example, some teach that God is basically a micromanager. According to this view they envision God doing and causing everything, like God made you sneeze today; or made the evil person attack the innocent. Or even that God caused you and I to go to the restroom at the most inconvenient times. Sounds silly, but that is what many believe.” "Silly" as this may sound, I truly believe this, and will place to burden on you to show otherwise. The Scriptures will agree. Again, I cannot conceive of a universe governed by undersigned chance or blind fate. God made the evil Scythians attack the innocent Job, as Job plainly stated that the hand of the Lord had done it. He does make us go to the bathroom as well, “for in Him we live and move and have our being…” (Acts 17:28) To suggest otherwise is to deny God's Sovereignty. It makes God an outside observer in many areas of our lives. How does God govern the affairs of men? What sayeth the Scriptures?

Daniel 4:35
“He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, “What have You done?”

Ephesians 1:11
He “...works all things according to the counsel of His will…” (Yes, including our bowel movements).

You address the opposite view by stating that “Others teach that God is asleep at the wheel. Creation is on auto-pilot and before it all crashes, God awakes to save the day.” Obviously, this is ridiculous, as you have correctly observed. Such is the view of Deism, not Orthodox Christianity.

However, you add “Both these points of view miss how God governs the universe. They both do not line up with God's nature and character.” I disagree. It is here that you seem to put an unnecessary amount of effort in a desperate attempt to reach a common ground between the two views. I have stated earlier that I see no such need. There is no middle ground. Either God governs sovereignly over every aspect of His creation, or He does not. It is one or the other. You added, “You can even find scriptures that seem to support both perspectives.” Again, I disagree. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that God puts “creation on autopilot”. The test of sound doctrine is not how people feel about it, nor can such be resolved in vain speculations about why God created. The test is in Scripture and Scripture alone. The Scriptures are clear on how God governs, as I have shown above. Now let's get to the text.

You comment that “Genesis 1:1-31 reveals much about God's nature, character, and will. All I suggest is for you to focus on the 'How' God creates and not so much on the 'why' God created. As to why God created, I mentioned before that God created in order to demonstrate that He is all that He is to none other than Himself for whatever purposes, plans, and reasons only known to him. I do not know any better answer than that.” As I stated earlier, your answer is simply speculation. While it is true that God does demonstrate His glory in Creation, it is a huge jump to assume that God needed to create in order to do this. Nothing necessitated God to create. He could have chosen to create or not create. This is important in order to put man in his proper place. Many churches today over-emphasize the importance of man, going so far as to suggest that God created because He was lonely, and just had to have us around to keep Him company. This is nonsense. God created for one reason and one reason only. It pleased Him to do so. Creation, in fact, reveals the absolute sovereignty of God. "whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did He in heaven, and in the earth, in the seas, and all deep places" (Psalm 135:6).

You added, “God creating out of nothing reveals that he is all powerful. It tells us God was wisdom and intelligence far above all. None can compare with God! He is the alpha and omega. He sees all, knows all, He is God. From the first chapter of Genesis, we can see he had a specific design and plan in mind when creating the heavens and the earth. This demonstrates God is all wise and all knowing.” I will add “Amen!”

However, I must object to your next line of thinking. It is totally unscriptural, and heads toward blank deism. First, you accurately state that “Hebrews 1:3 tells us the Lord upholds the universe by the word of His power.” Then, you turn around and state, “Even now, higher mathematics and physics can measure and analyze how … God sets in motion the natural laws that keep the universe together.” Well, which is it? Does God uphold the universe by the Word of His power, or did He merely “set in motion the natural laws that keep the universe together?” I hold to the former, because it is based on scripture. A Deist holds to the latter. You, in an attempt to reconcile Calvinism and Arminianism, have tried to hold to both. (See what I mean by no middle ground. It is either one or the other.) Yes, God created the laws that govern our universe. He also manages them and upholds them, and if he pleases, violates them by making an axe-head float.

You continue with this line of thinking by stating, “His words set in motion events, laws of nature, give order to creation in multiplied symbiotic fashions; they establish life and set it all in motion. His words have left a lasting finger print from God which reveals that he created it all for himself for his good pleasure.” As I have shown, scripture tells us just the opposite.

I had hoped that this line of thinking would have improved as I read on, but unfortunately, is didn't. This is apparent from your exegesis of “Psalm 104:1-35”, which you claim “reveals so much about how God governs rightly, fairly, justly, perfectly revealing who He is.” Had you stopped there, I would have no disagreement, but the balancing act from Christianity to Deism continued. You asked, “At first reading you may be tempted to think God is micromanaging everything but is this really the case or is it uncovering something else about God?” By emphasizing the work “wisdom” in verse 24, you explained, “From this statement I hope you can see that He governs by a profound wisdom. In other words, he sets in motion creation to go a certain direction and intervenes often.” Again. I disagree, and leave the burden of proof to you. God upholds the universe by the Word of His power (and HIS wisdom). He doesn't just “set in motion creation to go a certain direction and intervene often”, as we shall see below.

You give some examples of how you suppose this works. “When God feeds the animals this does not imply that God places food directly in the animal's mouth.” While I would agree to a point, the animal could not put food into his own mouth without the sovereign hand of God willing it to be so.

Matthew 6:26
“Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them.”

Yes, B.W. Even the seeds in the pigeons mouth, or the mouse in the eagles talons, are a direct work of the Living God. He doesn't just permit them to be fed, but actually feeds them. You added, “He designs the animal to perform some function. A frog eats flies. Flies provide cleansing up of decaying things. God will send a fly to the frog to eat so there will not be an over abundance of flies. God designed the frog to catch and eat flies. It is left up to the frog to catch the fly that God sends. If the frog misses the fly, was it a micromanaged event by God for the frog to miss the fly? Or was the Frog learning how to catch flies proficiently as God designed?” The frog cannot catch the fly if God does not will it, anymore than a lion could eat Daniel without His will.

You continue to operate in this mindset of God setting things in motion. If you truly believe this, I would have to applaud you for getting out of bed in the morning. If you actually have the wherewithal to get in your car and get on the highway, you deserve bonus points. Who know when God's laws that He set in motion might bring a mac truck across the road and take your life (if God chooses not to intervene)? Yes, God cooks my breakfast (by my wife's hand, for she could not breathe another breath without Him, much less cook). God feeds the animals (not just puts them in motion to be fed.) God's wisdom does not take away from His sovereign throne, but rather adds to it. You may continue to state that “God …sets in motion certain things and oversees the outcomes…and when needed, directly intervenes”, but such a view is unscriptural as Daniel 4:35 clearly states. You may repeat that “How you live, is up to you”, but the Bible disagrees, as Romans 9 10:24 and Phillipians 2:13 show. Over and over, you may tell is that “What you do with the gift of life will be judged”, but we have no life of any eternal value unless He alone gives it to us.

Ephesians 2:8
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God".

You concluded that “The direction and course was set”. I will agree and add that it cannot be altered.

Let me now expound on the “Plan” of Redemption. As Ephesians 2:8 clearly points out, it is not of ourselves. We have no claim upon God whatsoever for Salvation. That is the definition of a “gift”. What does the term “plan” mean? This exposes a fundamental difference in the two sides of this debate. The Arminian believes that Christ died to make salvation a possibility for everyone (or more accurately for no one in particular). The Calvinist holds that Christ died to make salvation a sure thing for His people (an actual "plan"). Where can there be a middle ground here? What will we do with Isaiah 53:11-12? He saw the labor of His soul and was satisfied, but that could not be if He died to save everybody. Instead of being satisfied, He should be most disappointed. He justified many (not all). He bore the sins of many. His work is finished. Do you really think that Christ died for souls that are currently in Hell? Think on that (with Hebrews 9:12 in mind), as well as Daniel 4:35 in terms of God's Sovereign rule.

I didn't address the two following posts word for word, because they are built upon the presumptions that I have already dealt with. Here are a few morsels from them…

This is my point:

Never build your theology on only one facet of how God governs. If one only seeks and reads the bible scriptures that only focus on God's direct intervention, you might end up fatalistic — living in the never-never land of what ever will be will be. Thinking God made you sneeze or go to the restroom at the worst possible time. Never realizing that He designed the human body to run and function as it was designed. Dust or pollen gets in the nose; the body is designed to expel it with a sneeze. God did not make you sneeze — how he designed the body is what did.

Again, I totally disagree. How did the dust and pollen get into your nose? Was it God or chance? My theology is built on the clear Word of God, however offensive it may be to others.

Are you catching on to how God governs? And how each of the ways God governs, overseeing, testing, watching, showing, guiding, prompting, and when needed, directly intervening, how these all line up with God's nature and character? Scriptural truth is overwhelming backing up what I am saying.

Sorry B.W. I would like to see the scriptures that back up what you are saying. I haven't seen them yet.

If you see this, then God's foreknowing and predestination will begin to make sense and you'll discover that God is more sovereign than you first thought or ever imagined.

It doesn't seem to be that way. I know that you've gone through a lot of work to try and resolve the debate, so I hate to tear it apart like this. However, I am after the truth, as I'm sure that you are. What you have successfully accomplished is to strengthen my beliefs in those Doctrines of Sovereign Grace (Calvinism). The foundation that you have laid here fails the Scripture test.

I do not deny that God created man with “wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and splendor”. I do deny that these things have any merit whatsoever in terms of salvation. I have shown that these attributes of man are no cure whatsoever for the sinful nature. What you seem to misunderstand is the depths of the fall of man. God created man as flesh, and what does that profit man?

John 6:63
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing…”

We must be born of the Spirit before we can even see the kingdom of God, let alone choose it.

To summarize so far, I disagree with your following presumptions. (And if I have misunderstood your position on any of these, please clarify)

1.) God needed to create in order to show how He “can be righteous, just, merciful, and to “prove He is equitable, fair, and exercises justice”.
2.) God can change His mind.
3.) Man has a natural ability to respond (in a positive way to the gospel).
4.) God lets man choose this day whom they'll serve
5.) Man is a “free minded being” in a presumed libertarian sense.
6.) God sets in motion creation to go a certain direction and intervenes often.
7.) Man's “wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and splendor” equals Human Ability in terms of Salvation.

In contrast I hold that…

1.) God had no need to create, and did so only because is pleased Him to do so.
2.) God cannot change His mind, for He has already declared the end from the beginning and from ancient time things not yet done, and He cannot lie, even to himself, nor can He improve upon His previous decisions.
3.) No man can come to Jesus unless the father enables Him.
4.) See #3.
5.) Man is a willing slave to sin, but a slave nonethless.
6.) God works (not permits) ALL things according to the council of His will.
7.) Man's “wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and splendor” in and of his flesh profit nothing in any eternal sense.

At least I'm all caught up with your posts so far. Looking forward to your responses.

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:20 pm

In mulling over this thread and thinking about it, I felt a need to clarify one of my points of disagreement.

puritan lad wrote:God lets man choose this day whom they'll serve.

I hold this to be true only for the unredeemed. The saved man, however, is the one whom God causes to approach Him (Psalm 65:4).

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:21 am

B.W.,

I have quite a few disagreements about you in the area of Biblical “Dominion”, but nothing really relevant to this particular debate, and expounding upon this would lead us into the area of eschatology rather than soteriology. Perhaps, when we have completed this one, we can start something along these lines in the “End Times” forum. However, I must point out and disagree with several presumptions that you have made (without any scriptural support) in your June 27th post under the heading “Is it all Hopeless?”

First, you wrote, “God foresaw the need to redeem humanity in an extremely just and fair manner that honors whom he created as well as how they were designed as independent minded beings. This independence will be challenged and provoked to return to God freely or permitted to reject God and thus continue to live in ones-own image of dominion. How fair is fair?”

There are several problems here, as you have clearly taken the Arminian position of human ability here. First, there is no scriptural support anywhere to suggest that man was designed to “return to God freely or permitted to reject God”. In fact, the scriptures tell us just the opposite (Psalm 65:4; John 1:13; John 6:37; John 6:44; John 6:65; Romans 3:10-12; Romans 9:16; 1 Cor. 2:14). Second, this is built on the false premise that man lets God choose whom He will serve, which I have already addressed. Third, it attempts to build doctrines on feelings as opposed to the clear Word of God. “How fair is fair?” The answer, God alone decides what is fair. If God were fair and nothing more, then no one could ever be saved. A fair and just God would in fact send everyone to Hell. That is what we deserve. The very definition of mercy is that God does not deal with the Redeemed “fairly”. By definition, the saved do not get what they deserve. Fourth, it denies God's Sovereignty. It is God who has the “free will” to accept or reject us. “Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills, He hardens” (Romans 9:18)

Next, you claim that “God foresaw the need to call out to lost humanity so they can return. For those he foreknew would hear, he predestined, those he predestined he called so they could hear. In this God proves himself God. He knows all things before they ever be and shapes us according to what he foreknows about us.”

While you claim to desire a resolution in the Calvinism-Arminianism debate, the position that you have taken is clearly the Arminian position. This is apparent from your view of human ability and foreknowledge. I couldn't help notice a lack of scripture references in this section. I challenge any Arminian to show me one single scripture that supports the idea that “…he predestined… those he foreknew would hear”. There aren't any. You attempt to use circular reasoning in this statement, first stating that “For those he foreknew would hear, he predestined…”, and then stating that “those he predestined he called so they could hear.” In the end, you would have to conclude that God predestined that those who would hear could hear. That is the Arminian Doctrine of Human Ability, given natural man abilities specifically denied by the Bible, and makes the Holy Spirit a bystander and the Son a cheerleader in the area of man's salvation. In contrast, I believe in a Savior who actually saves. He does the seeking and the saving. Man does neither. Again, B.W., there is no middle ground. Either Jesus saves completely, or He gives us the ability to save ourselves. It is either monogerism or synergism. It cannot be both. Which one is it?

I will state yet again that there are no scriptures anywhere that speak of a “foreknowledge” of choice, actions, or a will to hear. Again, the scriptures tell us just the opposite (Romans 3:10-12; Romans 9:10-13). Foreknowledge in Scripture always refers to persons, never to actions. Over and over again, it is WHOM He did foreknow, not WHAT He did foreknow. Furthermore, foreknowledge is not simply “knowing a person beforehand”, for God “knows” everyone beforehand as He created them. Foreknowing a person means loving them with a redemptive love beforehand, the kind of love that God had for Jacob and not for Esau. When Jesus says to the wicked in the Day of Judgment, “I never KNEW you” (Matthew 7:23), He is not saying “I don't know who you are”, or, “I didn't know you existed”, or “I didn't know what choices you would make”. He is saying, “I have never loved in any redemptive way. You are not mine, and you shall not be mine”. Therefore, “Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness”.

This, B.W., is the Biblical view of foreknowledge. If you continue to push the “foreknowledge…for those who would hear”, etc., I should request that you give some scriptural support. .

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:38 pm

B.W.,

I'm looking forward to your discussion of Pharaoh, especially after the direction your previous posts have taken you.

However, I must address some other parts of your Friday, Jun 30 post and point out the inconsistencies. First you correctly acknowledge that “The heart is truly hubris and desperately twisted. All human hearts have become hard through sin. There are none righteous but God. All have sinned.” This is absolutely correct, but what does this mean in terms of human ability? You added, “The human heart needs to be engaged and changed. Some hearts, according to God's nature of justice and fairness will remain hard no matter what. Others will change only after God engages it through His call. He foreknows all things knowing who will remain hard and who will not before time began. He tests the heart fairly, righteously, mercifully above what our humanness would ever allow. His ways are way above our own.” Herein lies the root of our disagreement. While you correctly observed that “the human heart needs to be engaged and changed”, I would have to ask, “By Whom?” Apparently the person or being that you rely on for this task is subordinate to us stubborn humans, seeing as how you believe that “some hearts… will remain hard no matter what”. I must ask which direction are you headed here? By this statement, it seems as if you are either serving a God who is incapable of changing some hearts, or a God who predestines. You go on to say that “Others will change only after God engages it through His call”, as if God merely “engages" our hearts and leaves it up to us to change them.

This reminds me a sermon I once heard on Ezekiel 36:26, in which the preacher was quite Arminian.

“I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.”

After a wonderful expository message about the need for a new heart, the speaker concluded with an altar call while stating, “God wants to give you a new heart, if you'll only let Him”. In all honesty, does this statement bear any resemblance to the Scripture text whatsoever? According to this text, God does not merely “engage” our hearts, but actually changes them. Spurgeon explains, "When you say, "Can God make me become a Christian?" I tell you yes, for herein rests the power of the gospel. It does not ask your consent; but it gets it. It does not say, "Will you have it?" but it makes you willing in the day of God's power....The gospel wants not your consent, it gets it. It knocks the enmity out of your heart. You say, I do not want to be saved; Christ says you shall be. He makes our will turn round, and then you cry,"'Lord save, or I perish!""

The Scriptures are clear. God is fully in control of our hearts.

Proverbs 21:1
”The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.”

I'll be all the more interested in your Pharoah thesis in light of the above Scripture.

The next part of your post is only a half-truth. You wrote, “God test the heart to see what we will do with this free gift of dominion. God does not make someone a child molester or a serial killer. God does make one evil, so he can toss them into hell. People make themselves so by how they use their dominance. God foresees everything, leaving the sin to be the creatures own, not his doing.” First, wicked men do NOT have any “free gift of dominion”, for they “are like the chaff which the wind drives away” Psalm 1:4. Second, I have clearly shown that, while God does not force people to sin, He does predestine their wicked actions and uses them to bring about His own immutable decree. I have given no less than a half-dozen clear examples from scripture, which you have yet to address (though, as I said, I am looking forward to how you handle pharaoh). Third, I agree that “God does not make someone a child molester or a serial killer.” He doesn't have to. Man has enough wickedness in himself that all God has to do is withhold grace from the sinner. It is not God who forces man to become a child molester or a serial killer. Rather, it is by the grace of God alone that we all aren't child molesters or serial killers.

Yes, the people in Zechariah 7 hardened their own hearts, just like Pharoah. Futhermore, they did so according to their wills. This is not our disagreement. The question is, “Could any of these have overcome God's hardening of their hearts and done any profitable righteousness”? The answer is “no”, unless man's will is superior to God's.

Before you get to Pharoah, I just wanted to remind you that no Orthodox Calvinist believes that God is the author of sin in a person's life. The problem is that we are ALL sinners, by nature children of wrath. You correctly stated earlier that “All human hearts have become hard through sin.” However, the idea that any heart “will remain hard no matter what” is a direct challenge to the power of God, and for that matter, the gospel itself. (This is why I suggest that it is actually the Arminian who believes in “Limited Atonement”. For in their view, the atonement is absolutely worthless to the vast majority of those for which it was intended). The reality is that Pharoah's heart was no more hopelessly unchangeable than Paul's, who was the “chief of sinners”. The difference between the two was not the nature of their hearts, but rather the Sovereign Grace of God. God had a purpose for both vessels (Romans 9:17; Acts 9:15), and they both served their purpose.

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:38 pm

B.W.,

As I have already shown, the presumptions that you have made about Creation and Human Ability are fundamentally flawed, and thus is the theology that you attempt to build from this foundation. You write, “What about Pharaoh then — did not God harden him is a question posed by many. If you only focus on a single scripture theme, that is only what you will see. Focus on God's anger, wrath, and that is all you'll know. Only focus on God hardening Pharaohs heart, you'll miss how and why God hardens a heart, Romans 9:13-23.”

I don't think you have to worry too much about the modern church “focus[ing] on God's anger, wrath, etc…” This fundamental fact is the most ignored truth in modern Christendom, and has led to the weak, superficial, and theologically inept religion that is known as 20th Century evangelicalism. Gary North laments, “Is it any wonder that the doctrine of eternal damnation is de-emphasized in preaching today? Is it any wonder that God is spoken of mostly as a God of love, and seldom as the God of indescribable eternal wrath? D. L. Moody, the turn-of-the-century American evangelist, set the pattern by refusing to preach about hell. He made the preposterous statement that "Terror never brought a man in yet." That a major evangelist could make such a theologically unsupported statement and expect anyone to take him seriously testifies to the theologically debased state of modern evangelicalism. It has gotten no better since he said it.”

Yes, God is love. But we need to remember that the important aspect of His love is redemptive. I've already shown that God does not love everybody the same. There is nothing that the modern evangelical loves more than to hear that “God loves you just the way you are”. How about some scripture that will be a theological bombshell to many who will read it?

Psalm 5:5-6
“The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity. You shall destroy those who speak falsehood; The LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.”

Wow B.W.! The Lord “hates” and “abhors” the wicked. (I'll guarantee you that few if any preachers today have ever done an expository sermon on this passage.) God is love, but God's love is not promiscuous. While we certainly should never ignore God's love, we also cannot ignore the fact that God is ANGRY. In fact, “God is angry with the wicked every day.” (Psalm 7:11). “A fire is kindled in My anger” (Jeremiah 15:14). The Scriptures have more to say about God's wrath than they do about His love. Therefore, the church should at least give equal attention to it. Proper, biblical evangelism requires, even demands that we bring the unregenerate sinner to the sobering reality that he is in terrible danger. With due respect to Moody's ridiculous comment, we can take our theology of evangelism from the greatest evangelist the world has ever known. The Apostle Paul made no apologies whatsoever for God's fury, nor did he shy away from it in his evangelism. “Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men…” (2 Corinthians 5:11).

B.W., I have to honestly suggest to you that the real problem you (and many others) have with Romans 9 isn't that we Calvinist are focused “on a single scripture theme.” I believe that the real problem many have with this passage is that they do not like what it has to say. (See Spurgeon's comments on God's Sovereignty in my second post in this thread).

Your explanation of Pharoah's heart ends up going nowhere. You wrote, “Remember that through the very fall of humanity in the Garden of Eden all hearts are hard. This concept is important to recall regarding Pharaoh's heart. All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God, or have you forgotten this?” No one is arguing this. The problem is that you attempt to stretch this into some sort of human ability. You explain that “Pharaoh's heart was hard before God said he harden it in the Exodus account. God made cement into granite”. It is true that Pharoah's heart was already hardened. So was Paul's. So was mine? So was yours? This isn't what we are debating. The question is, “what made the difference?” Why did God harden Pharaoh's heart, but not that of Saul of Tarsus, who was the chief of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). He gives the clear answer in Romans 9:18. The problem is, as I stated earlier, we rebellious humans just don't like it. This is precisely why you state that “Romans Chapter Nine cannot stand on its own. It must match all other scriptures on the same themes it proposes. Only by examining all scriptures of the same theme can you be sure of what it is really saying.” Sorry B.W. We know what the scripture is really saying, because all we have to do is read it. Paul left no ambiguity in the meaning of this passage. He didn't intend to. In fact, he addressed the very objections that we Calvinists hear to this day (Romans 9:14, 19), objections which you view certainly would not provoke. You added, “It must hold with all scriptures that tell that people harden their own hearts without coercion, and in doing so, you will discover how and why God can harden hearts too.” I must ask, which scriptures teach “that people harden their own hearts without coercion”. I must have missed this one.

Proverbs 21:1
"The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.” (Note: This is pretty clear as well).

With regard to the next portion of your post, I have already described how God decrees and predestines the sinful acts of man without being the author of their wickedness. I have given you no less than a half dozen scriptural examples. Therefore, I won't bother to quote it, as I have already addressed it many times. You explanation like that of most Arminians, falls woefully short. You wrote, “Romans 9:10-33 is describing something different than what many propose. Without God's call, Jacob would not have become Israel and Jesus never made manifest to humanity. Through Abraham all nations will be blest.” Nice try, but I'm not sure what your explanation has to do with Pharoah's destruction (his “purpose-driven life”), or the vessels of wrath prepared (by the potter - God) for destruction.

You ask, “How shall I say it so it is clear to you?” B.W., you already have. I admire the sincerity in your posts, though I adamantly disagree. You are a true brother in Christ who honestly seeks to resolve the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism. However, despite your best efforts, your “resolution” is really no resolution at all, but rather a clear and complete rejection of the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace in favor of Arminianism. It is pretty obvious where you stand (despite the lack of Scripture references in the following statements):

1.) Concerning human ability, you write, “God is engaging something with humanity and demands a response. Humans were designed by God to be able to respond”.
2.) Concerning Election, you wrote, “God foreknows who will hear this call of mercy and who will reject it…”
3.) Concerning the Atonement, you wrote, it “is a gift from God he will not recall…What you do with the gift of life will be judged…”
4.) Concerning God's grace, you wrote, “You can reject God's mercy or accept it.”

You didn't say much concerning the final Perseverance of the Saints, but we can dismiss the delusion that you are somewhere in the middle concerning the viewpoints. The above is undeniable Arminianism. Like many Arminians, you may reject the label. However, after you finish your thesis, and respond to my previous challenges and objections, I would request that you attempt you explain how your views are any different from the positions presented by the Remonstrance at the Synod of Dort. In the meantime, I'll continue to address your posts, but only if they include something that I have yet to address.

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:48 am

B.W.,

I've already dealt with most of the subject matter your "Mercy Displayed" post. In regard to Acts 13:48, you suggest that Calvinists "take the easy path and declare, “don't ask questions, shut-up, you are damned if you are and you ain't if you ain't”". In reality, similar to Proverbs 16:4 and Romans 9:10-23, we just take it for what it says. How many scriptures must one explain away with "searching for deeper meaning" before we come to conclusion that, perhaps, these verses are much clearer then we think? Perhaps, it isn't the scripture that is the problem, but our own hearts. Perhaps we are all too willing to "re-interpret" scripture based on how we want God to be, as opposed to who He really is. You attempt to explain Acts 13:48 by using the proper "scripture interprets scripture" technique, and thus using Acts 2:47 and Romans 10:8-17. Then, somehow, you come to the miraculous conclusion that God appoints the saints in Acts 14:48 on the basis that "God foresees, foreknows, who will repent and who will not because He is God." B.W., there is absolutely nothing in any of the verses that you used that could lead anybody to that conclusion (or for that matter, the entire Bible). You may continue to espouse the view that Calvinism removes human responsibility for sin, but no one who honestly reads my response so far will buy it.

You write, “God calls all, not a few but all.” Actually, He calls “many”, not “all”. There are no less than a multitude of souls who have died having never heard the good news. There may have been a limited “outward call” through natural revelation, but nothing that could foster any saving grace, unless God himself performed the supernatural work of regeneration without preaching. I won't presume a guess as to whether or not this still happens, nor how often. In any case, “Many are called, but few are __________” (Matthew 22:14). I'll let the reader fill in the blank, as those ugly Calvinist words keep popping up everywhere.

You write, “It is out of the 'all' God searches the hearts of 'all' and seeks them that are lost.” I agree. However, God not only “seeks” the lost, but also “saves” them (Luke 19:10). I would ask, “Does God succeed or fail in this task?”.

You asked, “How can anyone honestly repent if never offered this choice by God?” The answer: They can't unless God grants then the ability to do so (John 6:65). I'll repeat once more; God's commands to “choose” and “repent” do not presume our ability to do so. If anything, they exhibit our inability. Why did God bother to tell Pharaoh to let His people go, yet hardened his heart so that he would not obey? In relation to this, I would have to ask you about the necessity and purpose of the new birth. If man was created with the ability that you say he has, then why does he need to be born of the Spirit? What is the role of the Holy Spirit in Salvation? Here is the root of the debate between us. You do not comprehend the affects of the fall. In your view, the flesh profits something. The fact that we were created with “wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and splendor”, according to you, is sufficient for us to “respond to the gospel” and obtain salvation. Taking this to its logical end, the new birth becomes unnecessary, or at best, a good thing that happens to us after we exercise our own self-generated faith. Thus, your view is unbiblical to the core.

According to Jesus, that which is born of the flesh is flesh (John 3:6), and the flesh profits nothing (John 6:63), and that one must be born of the Spirit before he can see the kingdom of God (John 3:3). I'm sure, deep down, you agree. But how does your view of the new birth compare with your soteriology? Your view seriously downplays the affects of man's sinful nature. Without the new birth, we are deceitful and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), drink iniquity like water (Job 15:16), do not understand and will not seek God (Romans 3:11), love darkness and hate the light (John 3:19-20), are dead in trespasses (Ephesians 2:1), cannot understand things that are Spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14), are slaves to sin (John 8:34), are at enmity against God (Romans 8:7), and can no more choose good than a leopard can change his spots (Jeremiah 13:23). This is what man's “wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and splendor” profit him. Nothing. Man's will is “free” to do what he WANTS to do. It is not ”free” to do what He SHOULD do in order to obtain salvation. Regeneration, (the new birth) is a supernatural miracle. It is something most necessary in order to see the kingdom of God (John 3:3), yet something that man is totally incapable of performing (Psalm 33:12; John 1:13; John 6:44; John 6:65; Romans 9:16).

This is the root of our disagreement. You have built an entire theology of salvation on your view of the creation of man (and a questionable view at best), while ignoring the affects of the fall. In order to be saved, the list of man's attributes from creation are not enough. He must become a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17), and this he is incapable of doing.

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:12 pm

Pharaoh: The Arminian Theological Dilemma

You wrote, “Pharaoh hardened his own heart because it was already hard. Harden through sin, through the very fall of humanity in the Garden of Eden. It was hard to begin with. All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God, or have you forgotten this?” Certainly not. But again, this is irrelevant. What you have said of Pharaoh is true of all of us. If having a hard heart is what causes God to harden it further, then why did God save Saul of Tarsus? What was the difference between the two? And please don't say that God “foreknew” Paul's righteous choice unless you can show it from Scripture, which you have yet to do.

You added, “God foresaw Pharaoh would harden is already hard heart as Exodus 8:32 reveals.” Exodus 8:32 reveals no such thing. All it says is that Pharaoh hardened his heart, not that God foresaw it and hardened it further. You then issue another direct challenge to the power of God, suggesting that “God foreknew old Pharaoh would never respond to God's mercy know matter if God physically appeared and tapped danced on Pharaoh's forehead. Pharaoh would remain hard.” In other words, you imply that it is impossible for God to have saved Pharaoh. So much for having mercy on whom He will have mercy. If having a hard heart made it impossible for God to save, then no one would ever see the light of the Holy City. Thankfully, we Calvinists believe that God CAN save anyone including Pharaoh. He just chose not to do so, but hardened his heart it instead.

Matthew 19:26
"But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”"

I have already addressed the Biblical view of foreknowledge several times, so I won't continue to repeat myself on that front. I'll await your reply to that one.

You wrote, “God was judiciously fair and just turning Pharaohs heart hard because it was hard to begin with, as evidenced by Pharaoh refusing to listen to God's voice, as well as from the result of the fall of humanity in the Garden of Eden.” Again, no one is disputing that Pharoah, like Paul, was already a sinner. The question is, “What made the difference between the two (or for that matter, Jacob and Esau)?”

Concerning what you perceive to be an attack on God's character, you wrote, “How dare we instruct God and say he damns to hell because he desires it according to his will! This line of thought violates God's own sovereign nature, moral law, and character. If this were the case then God has violated what Exodus 20:1-17 reveals by causing, predestining people to break his own laws. This is not righteous, or just, nor a true reflection of all who God is." Again, you repeat the very objection addressed by Paul himself in Romans 9:14, 19. I've already shown you that God does predestine the sinful actions of wicked men. I've given many scriptural examples, and have explained how this works with God not being the author is sin, leaving man fully responsible. Your object here is emotional, not scriptural. Scripture shows that God has predestined jealousy, kidnapping, incest, and murder, among other things. Therefore, I'll await your scriptural response while ignoring this one.

I'll now deal with Pharaoh from a Scriptural basis. What do we know about Pharaoh given in Scripture? Could Pharaoh have repented despite God hardening his heart?

Paul was the chief of sinners. Why was he saved and not Pharaoh? (You still haven't answered this, and I will reject any answer that mentions a “foreknowledge of repentance” as the basis for that repentance.) Why did God not harden Paul's heart like He did Pharaoh's? (I would argue that Paul's sin was much worse than Pharaoh's.) The answer: “Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." (Romans 9:18). This is your delimma B.W. If your explanation of Pharaoh's heart had any merit, then Saul of Tarsus should have been condemned as well. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that Saul, the chief of sinners, the murderous persecuter of the saints, had something meritorious in himself that allowed him to "choose Jesus", whereas Pharaoh lacked this quality. Therefore, Paul could have boasted being better, smarter, or more resourceful in his use of God's grace. Charles Spurgeon illustrated this beautifully in his Arminian Prayer, exerpted from his sermon Free Will- A Slave. I would suggest everyone read the entire sermon.

"Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not-that is the difference between me and them."

Surely no Christian would ever utter such nonsense. Yet if an Arminian were consistent in his theology, this would be a valid prayer.

The Scriptures plainly state that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that He could lay His hand on (judge) Egypt.

Exodus 7:3-4
“And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh will not heed you, so that I may lay My hand on Egypt and bring My armies and My people, the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.”

It does not say that God “allowed” Pharaoh's heart to be hardened. It does not say that God hardened Pharoah's heart because it was already hard. It says absolutely nothing about "God foreknowing old Pharaoh would never respond to God's mercy, etc." It says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart (and it says it on several occasions). Yet, Pharaoh was responsible for his wickedness. The Scriptures tell us that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. But that doesn't answer the most important question. Could Pharaoh have repented and overcome God's hardening of His heart? How?

Proverbs 21:1
“The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.”

The text, once again, is not ambiguous, but very clear. If Pharaoh had repented, then Pharaoh, not God, would have received credit to the freedom of Israel from bondage. This is why God raised Pharaoh, for this very purpose.

Romans 9:17-18
“For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.”

This is not hard to understand, just hard for many Christians to accept. They love the concept of “free-will” salvation more than the Word of God. God created Pharaoh so that He could destroy him and show His power in the deliverance of His people. In support, I'll repeat the following, much maligned passage.

Proverbs 16:4
“The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.”

As John Newton used to say, “…the Lord must have loved me before I was born, or else He would not have seen anything in me to love afterwards.”

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:44 pm

B.W.,

As I stated before, the root of your creation doctrine is fundamentally flawed, and so necessarily is the doctrines built from this. As we move further and further away from your creation doctrine (which by the way, is quite a bit more Reformed than that of the average Arminian, so I'll give you some credit for that), you get further and further away from the scriptural truth, even to the point where your exegesis begins to say exactly opposite of what the scripture tells us. In no place is this any more apparent than your dealing with Romans 9. In your explanation of God's hatred for Esau, you write, “Please note, that when God hates something or someone there is a reason for this. It is not a blind selection, nor is it a reflection of human-centric notions of hate. It is a hate, despising, detestation that comes from foreknowing the end result of Esau and his descendents before the final outcome has been realized.” How can anyone read Romans 9:10-13 and arrive at that conclusion? We are told quite clearly that God's hatred for Esau was the result of “the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls”. Where do you come to the conclusion that it “comes from foreknowing the end result of Esau and his descendents before the final outcome has been realized?” You certainly could not hafve arrived at this conclusion from either Malachi or Paul. Rather, it is mere wishful thinking on the part of the interpreter, not from a clear reading of the passage.

You write that, “it takes a long time before it boils over into a stage of hot punishment.” While it is true that God is slow to anger and rich in love, we should never presume that God's wrath takes a long time to boil over into punishment. There is no guarantee of another second of life on this earth. The wicked need to realize that their very next breath could be a scream from the winepress of God's wrath as his blood is splashed on the garments of the Most High. Offensive? How about true? If we truly love the sinner, we will never hesitate to point out such danger. Ignoring this is truly a hateful act.

Up next, you exhibit how your faulty creation theology has skewed your soteriology. You write, “God's mercy slows God's hate from taking unjust vengeance so that people are given a fair, even handed, just, righteous, chance to repent and return to the Lord.” You assume that “a fair, even handed, just, righteous” God will give everyone a "chance to repent and return to the Lord.” This is the main problem with Arminianism. It has an inflated view of mankind, even to the point of holding God in judgment by our own depraved standards. The fact of the matter is that “a fair, even handed, just, righteous” God would give NO ONE a “chance to repent and return to the Lord.” Hell is what we deserve. Mercy is not accompanied by justice, but is in fact the opposite, and God's mercy will be on whomever He sees fit to bestow it, independent of our wills. Man-centered Arminianism always seems to ask, “If God is love, why doesn't He save everybody?” The question that no one ever seems to ask is, “If God is just, why does he bother to save anybody?” When you can bring yourself to ask the second question, you are well on the way to holding a correct view of both God and man.

In dealing with Esau, you continue along this false theology, stating that, “The choice is still the creatures own even when God already knows the answer.” You say this in spite of the clear teaching otherwise. Keep in mind that Esau sought God with tears but was rejected (Hebrews 12:17).

Up next, you continue to use scripture to state a line of though totally contrary to what the scriptures say. You write, “Look at Romans 9:11, Romans 9:15-16, Romans 9:18, Romans 9:22-26. These very verses back up what I am revealing. It is to our common shame that these verses have been misapplied so often throughout church history.” You didn't expound any of the scriptures to back up what you were revealing, probably for good reason. In the one time where you did so, you stated that “Romans 9:16 sums it up nicely: “…but of God who shows mercy.” NKJV”. You didn't, for obvious reasons, quote the entire verse, which tells us, “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy”. In addition you completely ignored verses 15 and 18, which clearly shows that God does not show mercy to everyone. Yes, God shows mercy, but only on those to whom He wills, and whom He wills, he hardens.

I've already dealt, several times with your view that, “It is not an arbitrary selection but rather a foreknowing selection”, so I'll await your reply to that one.

To update my objections so far…

To summarize so far, I disagree with your following presumptions. (And if I have misunderstood your position on any of these, please clarify)

1.) God needed to create in order to show how He “can be righteous, just, merciful, and to “prove He is equitable, fair, and exercises justice”.
2.) God can change His mind.
3.) Man has a natural ability to respond (in a positive way to the gospel).
4.) God lets man choose this day whom they'll serve
5.) Man is a “free minded being” in a presumed libertarian sense.
6.) God sets in motion creation to go a certain direction and intervenes often.
7.) Man's “wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and splendor” equals Human Ability in terms of Salvation.
8.) God test the heart to see what we will do with this free gift of dominion.
9.) The difference between Saul of Tarsus and Pharaoh was that Pharaoh's heart was already hard, (Implied).
10.) God calls all, and out of the 'all' God searches the hearts of 'all' and seeks them that are lost:
11,) God's hatred for Esau was…a hate, despising, detestation that comes from foreknowing the end result of Esau and his descendents before the final outcome has been realized.

In contrast I hold that…

1.) God had no need to create, and did so only because is pleased Him to do so.
2.) God cannot change His mind, for He has already declared the end from the beginning and from ancient time things not yet done, and He cannot lie, even to himself, nor can He improve upon His previous decisions.
3.) No man can come to Jesus unless the father enables Him.
4.) See #3.
5.) Man is a willing slave to sin, but a slave nonethless.
6.) God works (not permits) ALL things according to the council of His will.
7.) Man's “wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and splendor” in and of his flesh profit nothing in any eternal sense.
8.) God controls the heart, and deprives the wicked of any hope of dominion.
9.) The difference between Saul of Tarsus and Pharaoh is that Saul was a recipient of God's mercy and Pharaoh was not.
10.) God calls many, and chooses few.
11.) God's hatred for Esau was based on nothing foreknown to be inherent in Esau…” for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls.

In My next posts, I'll will summarize each of my objections clearly with the Scriptures, as well as the importance and ramifications of these doctrines.

God Bless,

PL.

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:16 am

B.W.,

It is now time to summarize and examine the many assumed positions that you have taken in light of the Scriptures. If I have misrepresented your position in any way, please explain further, as I have drawn my conclusions solely from the words you have posted. I will continue to respond to future posts, but the purpose of the list below is to show how shaky the basic foundations of your theology are when compared to Scripture.

1.) God needed to create in order to show how He “can be righteous, just, merciful, and to “prove He is equitable, fair, and exercises justice”.

“All the nations are as nothing before Him; they are regarded by Him as less than nothing and meaningless.” (Isaiah 40:17).

“All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing;” (Daniel 4:35).

“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things. (Acts 17:24-25).

2.) God can change His mind.

“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world,” (Acts 15:18).

“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, swing, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure,” (Isaiah 46:10).

“As I have purposed, so shall it stand,” (Isaiah 14:24).

“The counsel of the LORD stands for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations,” (Psalms 33:11).

“I am the LORD, I change not,” (Malachi 3:6).

“For the LORD of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?” (Isaiah 14:27).

“But He is unique, and who can make Him change? And whatever His soul desires, that He does.” (Job 23:13).

“Forever, O LORD, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.” (Psalm 119:89).

“God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Numbers 23:19)

God is “"the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17).

3.) Man has a natural ability to respond (in a positive way to the gospel).
4.) God lets man choose this day whom they'll serve
7.) Man's “wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and splendor” equals Human Ability in terms of Salvation.

“A man can receive nothing, unless it be given him from heaven” (John 3:27).

“Cursed be the man that trusts in man, and makes flesh his arm.” (Jeremiah 17:5).

“I will give them an heart to know me” (Jeremiah 24:7).

“In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not” (John 1:4-5).

The redeemed are “born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13).

“Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”” (John 3:3).

“And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17).

“Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ to believe on him,” (Philippians 1:29).

“No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him” (John 6:44).

“No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:65).

“Of ourselves we can do nothing,” (John 15:5).

“So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” (Romans 9:16).

“The wisdom of the world is a kind of veil by which the mind is prevented from beholding God”. (1 Corinthians 2:9).

“The natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14).

“We are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves,” (2 Corinthians 3:5).

“We are by nature the children of wrath, dead in trespasses and sins,” (Ephesians 2:1-3).

“Faith is not of ourselves: it is the gift of God,” (Ephesians 2:8).

“No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost” (1 Corinthians 12:3).

“Who makes thee to differ from another? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive, why dost thou glory as if thou had not received?” (1 Corinthians 4:7).

5.) Man is a “free minded being” in a presumed libertarian sense.

“God works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure,” (Philippians 2:13).

“The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD,” (Proverbs 16:1).

“The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, like the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will,” (Proverbs 21:1).

“Thou hast wrought all our works in us,” (Isaiah 26:12).

“He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, “What have You done?”” (Daniel 4:35).

6.) God sets in motion creation to go a certain direction and intervenes often.

“In him we live, and move, and have our being,” (Acts 17:28).

“He upholds all things by the word of his power,” (Hebrews 1:3).

“Our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased,” (Psalms 115:3).

“I will do all my pleasure.” (Isaiah 46:10).

“I have purposed, I will also do it,” (Isaiah 46:11).

“My Father works hitherto,” (John 5:17).

He “works all things according to the counsel of His will,” (Ephesians 1:11).

“God works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure,” (Philippians 2:13).

8.) God tests the heart to see what we will do with this free gift of dominion.

“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world,” (Acts 15:18).

“I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” (Ezekiel 36:26).

“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, swing, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure,” (Isaiah 46:10).

“The ungodly are not so, But are like the chaff which the wind drives away.” (Psalm 1:4).

9.) The difference between Saul of Tarsus and Pharaoh was that Pharaoh's heart was already hard, (Implied).

“The heart (including Saul's) is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9)

“For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.” (Romans 9:17-18).

“But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he (Saul of Tarsus) is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.” (Acts 9:15).

10.) God calls all, and out of the 'all' God searches the hearts of 'all' and seeks them that are lost:

“I will give them a heart to know me” (Jeremiah 24:7).

“For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matthew 22:14)

“Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.” (Romans 9:18)

“for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” (Luke 19:10)

“Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:11-12).

11.) God's hatred for Esau was…a hate, despising, detestation that comes from foreknowing the end result of Esau and his descendents before the final outcome has been realized.

(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. (Romans 9:11-13).

“lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright. For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears” (Hebrews 12:16-17).

12.) Predestination is based on “foreknowledge of those who would hear”.

“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calls," (Romans 9:11).

“The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his,” (2 Timothy 2:19).

“Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” (Romans 8:19-30).

“He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy (Not “because He foreknew we would be holy”),” (Ephesians 1:4).

“predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,” (Ephesians 1:11)

13.) You can reject God's mercy or accept it.

"We are born again not by man's will, but God's" (John 1:12-13).

"The Son quickens whom he will" (John 5:21).

"All the Father gives shall come" (John 6:37)

"So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." (Romans 9:18).

God's word accomplishes what he pleases (Isaiah 55:11).

This is a good summary so far. B.W. I await your refutation and defense of the positions that you have stated above. Many of the scriptures that refute your views I have listed above (and this is by no means an exhaustive list). This should keep you busy for a while.

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:27 am

B.W.,

I have already shown very clearly how the stubble of your last post has been burnt by the fire of God's Word. You write, "From this knowledge, God can conceive and plan from a vast reservoir of free minded beings so that He can prove who he is". This nonsense, otherwise known as the Arminian view of foreknowledge, can only work one of two ways. Either God predestines based on some inherent goodness in mankind that He was previously ignorant of, or else God predestines based on some accidental goodness that He was not the author of. Which position would you try to defend in an attempt to remove God from His throne and replace it what John Owen refers to as the idol of free-will and his goddess contingency? The logical end of your statement suggests that God must delay His plans until He first gets enough knowledge of mankind. Once He actually learns something about us, He can then "conceive and plan" His decrees (or even change them). Thus, God is robbed of both His omniscience and His omnipotence. I'll ask you the same question that Owen asked his readers concerning free-will. On what estate will you have this idol placed?

When you write that "God does indeed test the heart", what is the aim of this test? Do you really think that God needs to test anything from a scientific perspective? Is there anything that God needs to learn about the heart that He doesn't already know? When God tests the heart, it is for the benefit of the person being tested, not God. God already knows the heart. The test, for God, is most unnecessary.

B.W. I look forward to your response to my objections. You have painted yourself into a corner of Semi-Pelagianism that, whether you intended it or not, robs God of His glory in Salvation. Salvation is a supernatural event, one that mankind has no ability to perform whatsoever.

Again, I pray that you love the truth as much as I, and that these rebukes on my part either quicken your heart to acknowledge that man depends on God for everything, or that you could defend your position better with scripture, and thus quicken my own theology.

God Bless,

PL.

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:23 am

B.W.,

A hearty "Amen" to your last post. However, like most Arminians and free-willers, you are inconsistent.

Where does the free-will come in? You correctly state that "To be born again implies God's Spirit being re-blown within you. God's Spirit will enable you to effectively repent, change your life, and amend your ways. John 16:7-15". However, you have just spent nearly a month telling us that man, via the way he was created, through his natural born wisdom, reason, splendor, etc., has the ability to accept or reject the gospel. Which is it? Is the new birth necessary for true repentance or not? As I pointed out, free-will salvation, if taken to it's logical end, makes the new birth unnecessary.

Salvation is all of God and none of man. He alone gets 100% of the glory. We get 0%.

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:47 am

B.W. wrote:I'll be finishing this up soon. Before I do - any questions?

I've presented quite a few questions/challenges here. Looking forward to your response.

B.W. wrote:Am I against doctrine? No - we need doctrine. It is for us to obey the bible, hold fast to what is good, test all things, even doctrine. We need to test whatever doctrine we adhere too against who God is. In this you'll discover true doctrine and the path to life: Jesus Christ.

B.W.,

It isn't a choice between one or the other, Jesus or Doctrine. We need to have both right. True worshippers worship in Spirit AND Truth.

God Bless,

PL