« Cleaning The Closet: Contemplating the Future for SBC Tomorrow | Main | The Great Commission Resurgence: Biblical Mandate or Baptist Movement?: Part I »

2008.06.18

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Chris Johnson

Brother Peter,

Thanks for writing this series …it has been fun to read!

On this last post,…I might go even further to state the importance of God’s unquestionable sincerity as you have posed the objection to the Calvinist in the crowd……

“From my standpoint, this is an entirely unconvincing view of sincerity. How can warning be sincerely offered to someone incapable of hearing the warning?
Again, Calvinistic assumptions must be brought out since they are many times unstated. Based on Calvinist assumptions, warnings are completely hollow because the persons hearing them are thoroughly, absolutely, completely, utterly dead. According to the Calvinist, dead men cannot hear. If this is so, how is it that a warning is sincere?”

The reality is that the warning is heard, written, shouted, etc. and men are without excuse according to God…..and the dead man’s continuance of culpability adds to his already hellish demise. Thank God for the remedy and an amazing mercy.

Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, (19) because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. (20) For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

It seems God knew these types of objections would occur and Paul then responds with God’s reassurance of His faithfulness….

Romans 3:3-6 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? (4) May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED." (5) But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) (6) May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world?

Thanks again for the articles….you always bring out interesting thoughts!

Blessings,
Chris

Chris

Peter
With pleasure and intrigue I have read this series. To me your thoughts represent those of one who is constantly refining his understanding of the God he loves so he can display the God who loves. Continually you display that God is still mystery to us finite beings and every turn in the road for a seeking pilgrim is rewarded with a new “ah ha” moment to those who would concede we can’t figure it all out. Your quest for truth, for your self and your readers is commendable. I for one appreciate your careful land analytical penchant at getting to the core of the apple (tulip in this case). This study has enriched my life, and even the comments have opened my eyes in greater ways. Thank you for not shying away from the difficult. Your keen mind and gifts from God has surely sliced off pieces of meat close to the bone, which duller instruments couldn’t get. And this has served us, the readers well, even one’s who don’t like there steak rare!

Baptist Theologue

Peter, this discussion on election is very interesting. By the way, I am neither a five-point Calvinist nor an Amyraldian. You made a key point with the following statement: “It is far from established that inscrutable foreknowledge of a future event causally determines the event.” Your statement is huge for those who errantly hold to Open Theism, but it is also huge in discussions between orthodox evangelicals. In my discussions with five-point Calvinists, many of them hold a somewhat converse statement to also be true: “God’s election/sovereign plan makes possible His knowledge of all future events.” In other words, many five-point Calvinists say that God can only know about future events if He has first decreed that they would happen. God’s knowledge of counterfactuals, however, shows that God can know with certainty about the outcome of an imagined future event without decreeing that event to happen. God knows what choices various people would make in the future under both real and imagined circumstances.

I’ll try to explain my point about counterfactuals by using 1 Samuel 23. David rescued Keilah from the Philistines after God told him that he would defeat the Philistines (verses 4-5). David then discovered that Saul was planning to trap him in Keilah (verse 8-9). David asked God whether Saul would come to Keilah and whether the people of Keilah would surrender him to Saul. God, utilizing His knowledge of counterfactuals, answered him with certainty, even though He knew that David would not stay in Keilah (verses 11-12). After receiving God’s answer, David departed from Keilah (verse 13).

My belief system differs from classic Molinism in that I do not see a logical order of (1) knowledge of possibilities – what could happen in imagined worlds, (2) middle knowledge – what definitely would happen in imagined worlds, and (3) knowledge of the actual future in the created universe. Classic Molinism fits in well with the classic Arminian position that God’s foreknowledge precedes His election in logical order (conditional election). Of course, this classic Arminian position conflicts with the position held by many five-point Calvinists that God’s election precedes His foreknowledge in logical order (unconditional election). My belief system entails that neither election nor foreknowledge precedes the other in logical order. Election and foreknowledge are simply “in accordance with” one another. I think this is the best interpretation of the preposition “kata” in 1 Peter 1:1-2 (“chosen according to the foreknowledge” – NASB). My position could be seen as endorsing a type of unconditional election, because in my system nothing precedes election in logical order. I also believe in libertarian free will rather than the type of freedom endorsed by Jonathan Edwards. If I am allowed to define terms, I endorse three of the five points (TUP) but not two of them (LI). My three-point Calminian position is thus similar to that held by two other men who advocate(d) a TUP system: E. Y. Mullins and Paige Patterson. My position also fits well with the BF&M which states that election “is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end.”

Chris Johnson

Brother BP,

I think the BF&M comment on election is sufficiently broad....don't you think?

Blessings,
Chris

Baptist Theologue

Yes.

peter

Chris J.

Thanks again. Note though: "The reality is that the warning is heard, written, shouted, etc." So, spiritually dead men can hear warnings of judgment to come but they cannot hear good news of faith to save? That, my brother Chris, is one strange corpse ;^)

Chris G.,

I am humbled, Chris and am glad these thoughts are taken as I intended: where I am, what I honestly think presently, how I read others' views through my own biblical lens, even if hard to write and definitively not personally vindictive...

BT,

Your thoughts, brother BT, are much appreciated. And, we are very, very close in our understanding of free moral agency, foreknowledge and perhaps how our Calvinist brothers' "weak link" is, while sincerely and with integrity embraced, is nevertheless mistaken.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

Chris Johnson

Brother Peter,

“So, spiritually dead men can hear warnings of judgment to come but they cannot hear good news of faith to save? That, my brother Chris, is one strange corpse ;^)”

It never really does boil down to the “strange” dead fellow….it does seem to only matter from whom the dead are “called” to life (Jude 1:24-25). Scripture seems to be precise in that those dead (Adam related) folks hear “warnings of judgment” and “good news” of faith. Only those that believe confess Jesus as Lord by the Spirit through faith.

Galatians 3:2 "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?"

Thanks again for the post….. I, like some of the others that have commented do appreciate your ability to expose the debate and to cut into the more salient views. I think it is helpful to all.

Blessings,
Chris

Average Joe

Peter thanks for your willingness to engage Welty's paper. I was begining to think no one would!

You say in quotation with my response following:

"In the Calvinist's system, one cannot think in terms of 'choosing' and 'not choosing' in the same sense that we normally think of such."

I do not think this is true. By “normally think” of choosing, I take it you mean that we can choose X iff we have the ability to choose X and our refusal to choose X is owed to our own lack of desire for or capacity to choose X. In other words, I can eat BBQ for lunch but I choose not to because I do not have the desire for it, but I have the ability to do so (if I so desired).
But the Calvinist says the non-believer refuses God because they don’t want to believe: They lack desire not ability. The non-believer doesn’t choose to believe in God because he lacks sufficient desires, just as I have insufficient desires for BBQ such that I would choose to eat it for lunch. I can eat it (that is, I have the physical ability to eat it, have teeth to eat, ability to swallow, etc). Just as well, the non-believer possesses the mental capacity to believe in God, to stop sinning, and follow Christ. His mind is capable of believe providing his mind is capable of other kinds of beliefs and actions. The adulterer can stop committing adultery but they don’t want to stop! Until they have sufficient desire to love God and follow Him, they will remain in their sin and unbelief. The Calvinist says God must give the unbeliever holy desires for Him, apart from which these desires will not come from the unregenerate heart. Not that they cannot, but they will not. The unregenerate heart does not seek God. Paul already tells us in Romans 1 that the unbeliever has knowledge of God but suppresses that knowledge in unbelief. The issue is desire, and the Calvinist says that God must give a new heart with new desires otherwise no one will want to come to Christ…they could, but they do not desire to repent and believe.

"When a Non-Calvinist asserts a person must choose Christ or there is no salvation, the assumption is, there is nothing prohibiting that person from choosing Jesus except their own stubborn, willful decision to do so."

Yes, this is exactly what the Calvinist would also assert as well. See Bondage of the Will!

"They can choose Christ but they don't choose Christ. They refuse Christ. And, if that refusal continues, they will burn in hell as a result."

For both the Calvinist and non-Calvinist the issue is the desire to love God and follow His Son Jesus Christ.

"On the other hand, when the Calvinist asserts a person must choose Christ or there is no salvation, while that is technically so--they surely are not deceptive about that--what is not stated is, there exists, in Dortian Calvinism, a single, incontrovertible, two-way prohibition upon the person "choosing." One way prohibits the person from choosing Christ; the other way prohibits the person from not choosing Christ."

The only thing that prohibits a person from choosing Christ is his own unwillingness to choose Christ, which what you say above. Nothing prohibits the person but the person himself! So there is not, as you have tried to argue, some fundamental disagreement about the nature of choosing between Calvinist and Non-Calvinists. Unbelievers are able to believe and unwilling to believe and take full blame for their unbelief.

peter

Joe,

Thanks. If I understand, Joe, you saying that the Calvinist says the non-believer refuses God because they don’t want to believe. That is, "they lack desire not ability."

Fine, so far. Will they believe apart from desire? I think you said they would not.

O.K. From whence comes the desire? I think you said, God.

O.K. Does God choose to whom the desire goes and from whom the desire is withheld? I think you would agree God does so

Is it possible for a person who receives this God-given desire to not choose Christ? No. At least not if I understand Calvinism correctly. The desire to believe is a product of the New Birth, if I am not mistaken. And, consequently, because of the Irresistible Grace of Calvinism, the one receiving the God given desire cannot not believe. Am I missing something?

On the other hand, is it possible that the one from whom the desire to believe is withheld would believe anyway? Not according to the way I understand Calvinism.

What drives the giving of the desires according to Calvinism? Eternal Election, if I am not mistaken. But if Eternal Election determines the dispensing of the desire to believe such that one who receives the desire cannot do other than believe and the one from whom the desire to believe is withheld cannot do other than not believe, how is it that one can speak of choosing freely between one thing and another?

Jonathan Edwards was both a master philosopher and eminent theologian, not to mention a giant of a Christian. However, he definitively did not possess the final word on the freedom of the will by introducing a definition of free will compatible with his established determinism--the mind choosing what we most desire.

From the NonCalvinist perspective, Edwards accomplished, at best, transitioning the focus from determination of the will to the determination of desire. Either way, however, divine determination is key, with the functional loss of human freedom.

Grace, Joe. With that, I am...

Peter

Baptist Theologue

Peter, I wrote the following words before I saw your latest post.

I think that Average Joe has hit at another key point of dispute. What type(s) of freedom does fallen man have these days? We might narrow this down to the soteriological sphere and ask what type of freedom(s) fallen man has in regard to salvation. Is it (1) libertarian freedom (choosing by generating a desire from a position of equipoise), (2) the type of freedom espoused by Jonathan Edwards and R. C. Sproul (we are free to do what we already have a disposition to do), or (3) both types of freedom depending on the circumstances (Edwardsian freedom before and after special conviction and libertarian freedom during special conviction)? Pelagius and Alexander Campbell indicated that man always has the libertarian freedom to choose Christ and that no special action of the Holy Spirit is required to counteract man’s depravity so that he can surrender his life to Christ in repentance and faith. John Wesley, in contrast, said that a special convicting action of the Holy Spirit (prevenient grace) is required to counteract depravity before man can surrender his life to Christ in repentance and faith. Of course, five-point Calvinists believe that regeneration is required to counteract depravity before man can surrender his life to Christ in repentance and faith. Those of us who are not five-point Calvinists believe that regeneration follows repentance and faith in logical order. The 2000 BF&M is rather vague as to the logical order: “Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” The 1925 BF&M, which was framed by a committee chaired by E. Y. Mullins, put regeneration after repentance/faith in logical order: “Regeneration or the new birth is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit, whereby we become partakers of the divine nature and a holy disposition is given, leading to the love and practice of righteousness. It is a work of God's free grace conditioned upon faith in Christ.”

Some five-point Calvinists, such as R. C. Sproul, argue that libertarian free will is impossible:

” Probably the most common definition says free will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination or disposition. For the will to be free it must act from a posture of neutrality, with absolutely no bias. . . . The neutral view of free will is impossible. It involves choice without desire. That is like having an effect without a cause. . . . Before we can choose Christ, we must first have a desire for Christ. The sum and substance of the whole debate on predestination rests squarely at this point: Does fallen man, in and of himself, have a natural desire for Christ?”

R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1986), 51-61.

Norman Geisler, however, demonstrated that a belief in the possibility of libertarian free will is necessary to explain Satan’s fall from a perfect environment:
“For the strong (extreme) Calvinists the ultimate question is: Who made the devil do it? Or, more precisely, who caused Lucifer to sin? If free choice is doing what one desires, and if all desires come from God, then it follows logically that God made Lucifer sin against God! But it is contradictory to say that God ever could be against God. . . . Consequently, some less strong Calvinists claim that God does not give any evil desires but only good ones. However, this view has two problems. First, why would God give a desire to do good only to some and not to all? If He is all-loving, then surely He would love all, as the Bible says He does (John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). Second, this does not explain where Lucifer got the desire to sin. If it did not come from God, then it must come from himself. But in that case, his original evil act was self-caused, that is, caused by himself—which is exactly the view of human free will the strong Calvinist rejects.”

Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 1999), 20-21.

Other five-point Calvinists, such as Arthur Pink, believe that libertarian free will was indeed possible for Adam:

“In unfallen Adam the will was free, free in both directions, free toward good and free toward evil. Adam was created in a state of innocency, but not in a state of holiness, as is so often assumed and asserted. Adam’s will was therefore in a condition of moral equipoise: that is to say, in Adam there was no constraining bias in him toward either good or evil, and as such, Adam differed radically from all his descendants, as well as from ‘the Man Christ Jesus.’”

Arthur Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2002), 134-135.

My vote goes to #3 that I mentioned above. Under certain circumstances we have libertarian freedom, and under other circumstances we have Edwardsian freedom.

Chris Johnson

Thanks BT, (alias BP)

One thing is for certain,….as I was just speaking to my wife and another person about election, and affirmed them that fortunately it is not the “understanding” of the doctrines of free will, election, bondage of the will, or predestination that saves. It is Christ alone, by Grace, through Faith.

Romans 10:8-10 “But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, (9) that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; (10) for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”

Thank God for His Word! That is something I can live by…

Blessings,
Chris

Baptist Theologue

Chris, I can amen those words.

Average Joe

Peter,

Yes! The desire to love/believe/follow Christ comes from God, as it is a holy desire. Do you think otherwise? Would you say a holy desire comes from a person who is dead in sin?

Is it possible for a person who is chosen by God to believe and given a new heart not to believe? No, because people who are born of God believe, just as human babies cry...it is just what they do.

But you seem to insist that Calvinism denies free choice, but how is that, when a person is choosing what they desire? Unless you insist on a libertarian view of freedom, it seems to me that I am free in choosing X if I desire X and want X even if X is my only live option. In other words, if I drive through a town that only has sushi, but I happen to *love* sushi and *want* sushi, then my decision for sushi is a free decision.

I would disagree that eternal election "drives" the dispensing of holy desire unto salvation. In fact, it is total depravity that does in that the reason God has to give holy desire is because unless He does no one would be saved.

Let me suggest a hypothetical to get at this point and to ask you to clarity why you think in this matter of the genesis of holy desires for God:

Consider to unsaved friends, call them Walter and Donny. Walter and Donny are distraught after being disqualified from a bowling tournament, and to curb their sorrow decide to attend a revival at Powerhouse of Love Baptist Church. Both Donny and Walter are intelligent people and listen intently to the sermon. When the altar call is given (because this isn’t a reformed church :O) Donny goes forward and trust Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. Walter thinks Donny is an idiot, and just wants to hit the In-and-Out for a burger and shake.

So I ask you, Peter, why did Donnie believe and not Walter? You can say the holy desire to believe in and follow Jesus came from Donny, but then Donny can surely boast about this fact to Walter; after all, he possessed a holy desire and Walter didn't! You can say that some desires just change for whatever reason, and Donny cannot boast because Walter's also could have changed for whatever reason, but then our desires are random and our beliefs are out of our control. You can say that Donny and Walter were both pressed by the Spirit but Donny gave permission while Walter resisted, but this only begs the question since allowing the Spirit to have sway is a holy desire. Or you can say Donny was given a holy desire and Walter was not and of course it was God since (a) we know humans just don’t produce holy desires and (b) all good things come from God and (c) if God didn’t give holy desires no one would ever get saved.

In other words, election is logically necessary given total depravity, so I would start there rather than with sovereignty or election.

But I don’t see why you have made any argument to sustain your original charge that Calvinism denies a common sense view of choice or that the choice isn’t genuine.

peter

Joe,

Sorry, Joe. Once you concede--which you did--that one's desires are determined by another, which, in turn, determines our choices in such a way that we must follow what we most desire, you've lost the case for your alleged free will. That's my view anyway.

And, yes, I most certainly do embrace libertarian free will in contrast to what I perceive you to be saying--a compatibilist theory of free will within determinism. I see no hope, in the robust deterministic framework that 5 Point Calvinism demands for 'free' will or free moral agency to operate. "Free" is redefined by compatibilists to "fit" their system.

And, that it is a system, you demonstrated in your comment by placing desire after rebirth. Why? Because your system demands it--total depravity (in the Calvinist sense) presupposes eternal election. It also, unfortunately, presupposes eternal reprobation.

Take a look at BT's comment. He had a great summary of some various views on this.

With that, I am...

Peter


Walt Sobchak

Hi Peter,

I've really enjoyed this four-part series on the article about Unconditional Election. You've done a masterful job of refuting your opponent. However, you need to fix a typo. You keep typing 'Dr. Welty', yet I've never read anything published by the professor of philosophy of religion at SWBTS that is as poorly argued or stated as you have claimed here. I've read Dr. Welty's article on Unconditional Election and he doesn't make any of the arguments that you attribute to him. Furthermore I was confused as to how one brother in Christ could be so uncharitable when interpreting another brother in Christ's article. However, I then realized that you made a typo and you really are arguing against Dr. Schmelty, who is as incompetent as you have shown him to be. Personally I've never read a competent argument written by Dr. Schmelty, so you have done a great job of putting him in his place. I'm amazed that the Calvinists allow Dr. Schmelty to make arguments for them, because arguing against Dr. Schmelty is like you have demonstrated -- it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Keep up the good work.

Grace and Peace,
--Walt

Chris Johnson

Brother Average Joe,

David has some questions for God as well….

Psalm 10:1-12 "Why do You stand afar off, O LORD? Why do You hide Yourself in times of trouble? (2) In pride the wicked hotly pursue the afflicted; Let them be caught in the plots which they have devised. (3) For the wicked boasts of his heart's desire, And the greedy man curses and spurns the LORD. (4) The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, "There is no God." (5) His ways prosper at all times; Your judgments are on high, out of his sight; As for all his adversaries, he snorts at them. (6) He says to himself, "I will not be moved; Throughout all generations I will not be in adversity." (7) His mouth is full of curses and deceit and oppression; Under his tongue is mischief and wickedness. (8) He sits in the lurking places of the villages; In the hiding places he kills the innocent; His eyes stealthily watch for the unfortunate. (9) He lurks in a hiding place as a lion in his lair; He lurks to catch the afflicted; He catches the afflicted when he draws him into his net. (10) He crouches, he bows down, And the unfortunate fall by his mighty ones. (11) He says to himself, "God has forgotten; He has hidden His face; He will never see it." (12) Arise, O LORD; O God, lift up Your hand. Do not forget the afflicted."

Paul speaks to the genesis of desire….. the original intent of desire…. an its opposition to the Spirit. He seems to be clear on the origination of desire, and what the intent of man’s desire is in his opposition to the Spirit,…. and that those that have come to know God, “rather” to be known by God, are able to desire the things of God. Paul makes it clear that since we are still sinners, even as adopted children, we have the same freedoms.

Galatians 4:9 "But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?"

Galatians 5:17 "For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please."

Galatians 5:24 "Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."

It appears that to teach that we have a desire to know God, or a desire to somehow call on the goodness of a God, even when we hear the gospel message, is an effort of our own making and is absent from scripture. Doesn’t scripture teach us that God gets all the glory and the believing man receives all of God in Christ Jesus? It doesn’t seem to teach that man’s desire is to get all of God if he believes, because if man is separated from God he has no need of Him in his own account or desire,…and therefore runs to bring glory to himself and never to God.

Paul goes on to close his letter to the adopted ones at Philippi, by describing that there are people that desire to walk, yet their desires remain attached to the flesh lacking the power of the gospel.

Philippinas 3:18-21 “For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, (19) whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things. (20) For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; (21) who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.”

He had the same reaction to his fellow kinsmen in his Roman account (Romans 9). So like Tina Turner’s new song “What’s Desire Got to Do With It?”

1 John 5:4-10 "For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. (5) Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? (6) This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. (7) For there are three that testify: (8) the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (9) If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. (10) The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son."

John’s letter to his fellow Christians is abundantly clear that we confess what we know, even in desire.

Blessings,
Chris

Average Joe

“Sorry, Joe. Once you concede--which you did--that one's desires are determined by another, which, in turn, determines our choices in such a way that we must follow what we most desire, you've lost the case for your alleged free will. That's my view anyway.”

Why is that your view? God gives me holy desires, they are my desires, and thus loving/believing/following God (the natural result of my holy desires) is a free act. What exactly is your objection to this, Peter? Why do we lack free will if determinism is true?

What I have argued is that God is the source of our holy desires. You didn’t answer the question below: From whence do holy desires come? Why Donny and not Walter?

“And, yes, I most certainly do embrace libertarian free will in contrast to what I perceive you to be saying--a compatibilist theory of free will within determinism. I see no hope, in the robust deterministic framework that 5 Point Calvinism demands for 'free' will or free moral agency to operate. "Free" is redefined by compatibilists to "fit" their system.”

Robust deterministic framework (of) 5 point Calvinism? A determinist believes that all events, including human decisions, are caused by another. The Calvinist is only committed to the view that God must decide to save you, give you holy desires, and (as a result) you freely love Him. If one’s desires lead one to act in such-and-such a way, then human decisions are not caused by another and the charge of determinism is vacuous. If you have a problem with this, then let me hear your explanation of human decisions. If they originate from human nature, then human nature determines decisions, which is a position I think you would want to avoid. Maybe nothing causes our desires, and so in this case, we are not free because our desires are externally determined.

I think the charge of determinism is a red herring. Calvinism does not entail robust or hard determinism. As you know, there are many Calvinist who are Molinists.

Chris, if I understand you correctly, are you saying the desire for God must come from God? I would agree...God gives us a desire for him and then we freely desire Him. Sorry if I am not understanding you right.

Chris Johnson

Brother Joe,

Yes, I believe you have made some sense and that scripture supports that God does the calling,...we do the responding. How else could anyone respond to God? Does a blind man make himself to see? Or a deaf man make himself to hear? A deaf or blind man may have the desire to do both, yet it is impossible without God in Christ.

Those that desire to be saved, will be saved, because of him who calls, not because of him who runs.

Blessings,
Chris

Average Joe

Chris,

Why did Donny accept the offer of salvation and not Walter in my hypothetical below?

This is the crux of the matter.

peter

Joe,

To ask me, “Why is that your view?” is a bit strange, if I may be candid. I sift through the evidences just like every one else. I come to conclusions as best I know how at this stage in my journey just like every one else. I do not know how to be any more straight forward than that.

You write, “What I have argued is that God is the source of our holy desires.” Granted. But you insist that without such desire, “A” cannot be chosen rather than “B.” But even further, once desire is plugged in the human constitution, “A” not only can be chosen, “A” cannot not be chosen; indeed “A” must be chosen for at least two reasons, in fact.

One, the ‘desire’ about which you speak is not simply a standard, everyday desire like, for example, being hungry for sushi. Rather the desire indicative of that about which you speak, Joe, is a complete change in my physiological makeup which minimizes all desires but the compulsive, insatiable desire for sushi.

And, number two, any other foods to the contrary are eliminated from consideration—“if I drive through a town that only has sushi, but I happen to *love* sushi and *want* sushi, then my decision for sushi is a free decision” (italics mine).

Also, to speak of God placing “desires” within a person, it must be remembered that we’re not talking about a “single set” of desires here. We’re talking about a cause-effect chain of desires stemming from creation forward.

There is not one, single, act or event in the history of time, if I understand compatibilist determinism correctly, including every single choice of every single human being that was not meticulously planned precisely as it was and is which, when it comes to dealing with moral agents, that God did not get the exact thing He desired to get.

In short, God decreed the outcome through human desires, rather than human will. Either way, in my view—whether humans are determined by God via infusing/withholding will or infusing/withholding desire—the consequence is the same: raw determinism.

Nor do I think, Joe, your characterization of the Calvinist is necessarily accurate. In an attempt to distance the Calvinist from determinism, you write:

A determinist believes that all events, including human decisions, are caused by another. The Calvinist is only committed to the view that God must decide to save you, give you holy desires, and (as a result) you freely love Him. If one’s desires lead one to act in such-and-such a way, then human decisions are not caused by another and the charge of determinism is vacuous...I think the charge of determinism is a red herring. Calvinism does not entail robust or hard determinism. As you know, there are many Calvinist who are Molinists.

First, while determinism surely embraces that “all events, including human decisions, are caused by another,” a significant part of the “all events” that must be reiterated is the event of infusing/withholding the proper desires to get things done as decreed. Without God absolutely decreeing desires absolutely, we have no reason to believe, in the Calvinist scheme, that God’s Will will win out.

Secondly, Joe, your description of the Calvinist claim is much too weak. You assert that the Calvinist is apparently only “committed to the view that God must decide to save you, give you holy desires, and (as a result) you freely love Him.” To the contrary, Joe, if that is all there is that’s claimed, I state as unapologetically as I know how—I am a Calvinist!

For, know I believe with my deepest being that, if I am saved, God must fully, completely, utterly, unilaterally decide to do so. Further, I believe with my deepest being that, if I am saved, God must fully, completely, utterly, unilaterally give me holy desires and as a result I freely love Him. If I am not saved fully by grace, I am not saved at all.

Unfortunately, the confusion consists in the way you toned down Calvinist premises to distance the Calvinist from determinism. In Calvinism, unlike the softened version,

God not only must decide to save me as I fully believe (and He demonstrated such through Calvary), God decrees to save me—decreed meaning that it was eternally impossible for anything to prohibit my salvation; God decreed to give me (holy) desires— decreed meaning that it was eternally impossible for anything to prohibit my receiving that desire; and God decreed my ‘freely’ loving Him--decreed meaning that it was eternally impossible for anything to prohibit my loving Him.

That's the tonic I encounter so often being sold.

As a byline, what Calvinists rarely desire to address—especially those who speak of Dortian Calvinists being “Evangelical” Calvinists—is the horrid flip side of this deterministic decretalism. It goes something like this:

God decrees to not save me—decreed meaning that it was eternally impossible for anything to prohibit my condemnation in Hell; God decreed to withhold from me, (holy) desires—decreed meaning that it was eternally impossible for anything to commend Christ to me; and God decreed my ‘freely’ hating Him--decreed meaning that it was eternally impossible for anything to prohibit my hating Him.

The real problem for the Calvinist is that the air-tight system of the 5 points gets in the way of relieving him from determinism.

And, you can call it a red herring if you like. Fine with me. You've just not yet demonstrated it as such. Nor does the alleged fact that “many Calvinist [sic] who are Molinists” negate one thing I’ve mentioned here. If Calvinists move to Molinism, that is perhaps a good thing.

However, a) it'd be nice if you’ll name for me some of the “many” who have moved to Molinism b) while some are ‘dabbling’ in Molinism, as Ken Keathley mentions in his essay, Molinism, by and large, is seen, especially by some leading Calvinists, as a concession to Arminianism at best and a form of Arminianism at worst.

Either way, a shift to Molinism, Joe, precisely demonstrates some of the criticisms of Calvinism I’ve suggested here, contra to your view of Calvinism--a Calvinism some Calvinists are apparently abandoning because they cannot escape the devastating criticism--may very well possess a bit of bite to them.

With that, I am...

Peter

Chris Johnson

Brother Joe,
You asked,….

“Why did Donny accept the offer of salvation and not Walter in my hypothetical below?”

Because of grace through faith… Donny confessed with his mouth and believed in his heart that Christ has rescued him from his sin… in that grace has been establish in Donny through faith where he recognizes that he has passed from death to life in Christ Jesus and has received the obedience of Christ imputed to him for eternity and that his sin has been imputed to Christ.

Walter has a faith that is void of life. (We need to share the gospel with Him, so that the living faith and substance of the promise that is outside of him in the person of Jesus Christ may be given to him.)

Habakuk 2:4 "Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by his faith."

Walter needs a faith he can live by…..

Blessings,
Chris

Average Joe

[You write, “What I have argued is that God is the source of our holy desires.” Granted. But you insist that without such desire, “A” cannot be chosen rather than “B.” But even further, once desire is plugged in the human constitution, “A” not only can be chosen, “A” cannot not be chosen; indeed “A” must be chosen for at least two reasons, in fact.]

No! I do not insist that A *cannot* chose B but rather that A *will not* choose B. Our choices stem from our desires, and as such, are free.

[One, the ‘desire’ about which you speak is not simply a standard, everyday desire like, for example, being hungry for sushi. Rather the desire indicative of that, about which you speak, Joe, is a complete change in my physiological makeup which minimizes all desires but the compulsive, insatiable desire for sushi.]

To my knowledge there is no change to the physiological make-up when one comes to Christ. If the desire for God is unlike everyday desires, then what is the sense of such analogies of hungering for God or thirsting for righteousness? My point was to show that being free in choosing Christ is about having desires for Christ and acting (as we do) in accord with our desires. The Bible calls us to desire God and pursue Him as a thirsty man for water, a hungry man for bread, etc. When we do desire God, it isn’t that we stop desiring sin, but that our desire for godliness grows and is often greater than our desire for sin, resulting in obedience.

[And, number two, any other foods to the contrary are eliminated from consideration—“if I drive through a town that only has sushi, but I happen to *love* sushi and *want* sushi, then my decision for sushi is a free decision” (italics mine).]

Ok, so I like sushi and was hungry when I wrote this. Seriously though, even if there is one choice and we like that choice, we can still be free. In heaven, we will be free to worship the Triune God and there will be no other religions around to compete with true worship. But we will still be free in heaven in our worship. That is to say, it will be in accord with our desire. I guess we could worship a tree or another saint in heaven, but we will not want to, making it free worship.

[Also, to speak of God placing “desires” within a person, it must be remembered that we’re not talking about a “single set” of desires here. We’re talking about a cause-effect chain of desires stemming from creation forward. There is not one, single, act or event in the history of time, if I understand compatibilist determinism correctly, including every single choice of every single human being that was not meticulously planned precisely as it was and is which, when it comes to dealing with moral agents, that God did not get the exact thing He desired to get.]

Why can’t God just put desires in someone? I do not see why we need a cause-effect chain stemming from creation. It could be that God allows people to do as they wish and at some point, in order to bring people to himself, decides to infuse them with faith unto salvation. I do not think believing, as I do, that God gives us holy desires that it commits me to some inferential chain of cause and effect such that I commit determinism, or at least, that has yet to be shown.

[In short, God decreed the outcome through human desires, rather than human will. Either way, in my view—whether humans are determined by God via infusing/withholding will or infusing/withholding desire—the consequence is the same: raw determinism.]
What is your argument for the incompatibility of God-given-desires and human freedom? For instance, I love my wife with the love of God, which is to say that love comes from God, as God is love. So my desires come from God yet they are free and fully mine. I just do not see why this is incompatible.

[Nor do I think, Joe, your characterization of the Calvinist is necessarily accurate. In an attempt to distance the Calvinist from determinism, you write: A determinist believes that all events, including human decisions, are caused by another. The Calvinist is only committed to the view that God must decide to save you, give you holy desires, and (as a result) you freely love Him. If one’s desires lead one to act in such-and-such a way, then human decisions are not caused by another and the charge of determinism is vacuous...I think the charge of determinism is a red herring. Calvinism does not entail robust or hard determinism. As you know, there are many Calvinist who are Molinists.]

Actually Peter, you have assumed that Calvinism implies determinism. What I am trying to do is show your assumption to be wrong.

[First, while determinism surely embraces that “all events, including human decisions, are caused by another,” a significant part of the “all events” that must be reiterated is the event of infusing/withholding the proper desires to get things done as decreed. Without God absolutely decreeing desires absolutely, we have no reason to believe, in the Calvinist scheme, that God’s Will will win out.]

I do not believe that God is causally determinative of all events because I am not a determinist, but I am a Calvinist. This is my whole point, that Calvinism doesn’t entail determinism.

[Secondly, Joe, your description of the Calvinist claim is much too weak. You assert that the Calvinist is apparently only “committed to the view that God must decide to save you, give you holy desires, and (as a result) you freely love Him.” To the contrary, Joe, if that is all there is that’s claimed, I state as unapologetically as I know how—I am a Calvinist!]

Why is it too weak, because it doesn’t fit deterministic Calvinism? Maybe you should consider that Calvinism isn’t necessarily deterministic.

[For, know I believe with my deepest being that, if I am saved, God must fully, completely, utterly, unilaterally decide to do so. Further, I believe with my deepest being that, if I am saved, God must fully, completely, utterly, unilaterally give me holy desires and as a result I freely love Him. If I am not saved fully by grace, I am not saved at all.]

Agreed.

[Unfortunately, the confusion consists in the way you toned down Calvinist premises to distance the Calvinist from determinism.]

This is where you are wrong, Peter. Calvinism doesn’t have to entail determinism. So when you reject a Calvinist as a determinist (as you have Welty) you better make sure they are a determinist.

[In Calvinism, unlike the softened version, God not only must decide to save me as I fully believe (and He demonstrated such through Calvary), God decrees to save me—decreed meaning that it was eternally impossible for anything to prohibit my salvation; God decreed to give me (holy) desires— decreed meaning that it was eternally impossible for anything to prohibit my receiving that desire; and God decreed my ‘freely’ loving Him--decreed meaning that it was eternally impossible for anything to prohibit my loving Him. That's the tonic I encounter so often being sold.]

There need not be a dichotomy between Calvinism and the softened version, for the latter is just a legitimate form of Calvinism. So if you reject determinism, you can still be a Calvinist! If your problem with Calvinism is determinism, I hope to have shown that you can have the former without the latter.

[As a byline, what Calvinists rarely desire to address—especially those who speak of Dortian Calvinists being “Evangelical” Calvinists—is the horrid flip side of this deterministic decretalism. It goes something like this: God decrees to not save me—decreed meaning that it was eternally impossible for anything to prohibit my condemnation in Hell; God decreed to withhold from me, (holy) desires—decreed meaning that it was eternally impossible for anything to commend Christ to me; and God decreed my ‘freely’ hating Him--decreed meaning that it was eternally impossible for anything to prohibit my hating Him].

God doesn’t need to decree that you don’t believe in Him, because your unbelief is obtained as a result of your fallen nature. At this point, God knowing X does not entail Him causally determining or decreeing X. As I say, one need not be a determinist to be a Calvinist. It does mean X must obtain. If this committs the Calvinist to determinism, it committs all Christians to determinism as well given the doctrine of divine forknowledge.

[The real problem for the Calvinist is that the air-tight system of the 5 points gets in the way of relieving him from determinism. And, you can call it a red herring if you like. Fine with me. You've just not yet demonstrated it as such. Nor does the alleged fact that “many Calvinist [sic] who are Molinists” negate one thing I’ve mentioned here. If Calvinists move to Molinism, that is perhaps a good thing. However, a) it'd be nice if you’ll name for me some of the “many” who have moved to Molinism b) while some are ‘dabbling’ in Molinism, as Ken Keathley mentions in his essay, Molinism, by and large, is seen, especially by some leading Calvinists, as a concession to Arminianism at best and a form of Arminianism at worst.]

Bruce Ware and Terry Tiessen are prominent figures of this position, and it is significant enough that John Laing wrote about it in the September 2004 JETS. As for (b), I think that Molinism is wrong, but not because it is Arminian. Either show why the weaker-Calvinism isn't Calvinism or concede that Calvinism doesnt entail determinism.

[Either way, a shift to Molinism, Joe, precisely demonstrates some of the criticisms of Calvinism I’ve suggested here, contra to your view of Calvinism--a Calvinism some Calvinists are apparently abandoning because they cannot escape the devastating criticism--may very well possess a bit of bite to them.]

Perhaps, but it also demonstrates that one need not be a determinist to be a Calvinist, which was my original contention. So even if you insist on libertarian freedom, you can still be a Calvinist, so Calvinism does not require determinism.


Average Joe

Chris,

Do Donny was given something by God that Walter was not, faith, the ability not to resist the Spirit, etc.

Would you agree?

Chris Johnson

Brother Joe, when you stated and then asked,….

“Do Donny was given something by God that Walter was not, faith, the ability not to resist the Spirit, etc. ……Would you agree?”

I’ll answer the question by way of Paul to the Corinthian church….

1 Corinthians 2:12-16 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, (13) which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. (14) But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. (15) But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. (16) For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ."

This is consistent with what is revealed by Paul to the Roman church….

Romans 9:18 "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires."

The Roman church (believers) were having a hard time understanding this undeniable objection to their previous learned logic. This section of scripture is in perfect harmony with all other sacred text and Paul was kind enough to the Romans to articulate the sovereign choice and ways of God,… supplying substantiating evidence from the reality of the Law and Prophets.

So without the work of the Spirit of God it is impossible to respond to Christ through faith.

Blessings,
Chris

peter

Joe,

These are getting pretty long. I'm running out of steam, here.

First, unless you can show precisely how there’s a real difference between your preferring “will not choose” to “cannot choose,” you appear to be stuck with the proverbial “distinction without a difference.” The questions is, is it possible for “A” to choose “B” apart from the desires given?

If it is possible, please explain how it is that the desires are necessary for “A” to choose “B” when it is conceded that it is possible to choose without the desires.

On the other hand, if it is not possible for “A” to choose “B” without the necessary desires, it seems one must accept “A” cannot choose “B” apart from the necessary desires. Call it “will not” all you wish. It reduces to cannot—a distinction without a difference.

Nor, Joe, does it help one iota to continue to assert without proof that “our choices stem from our desires, and as such, are free.” I’ve given now a couple of responses to this particular point and you simply dismiss them and continue right on asserting. Be my guest...

You quote me: "the ‘desire’ about which you speak is not simply a standard, everyday desire like, for example, being hungry for sushi. Rather the desire indicative of that, about which you speak, Joe, is a complete change in my physiological makeup..." And then you respond: “To my knowledge there is no change to the physiological make-up when one comes to Christ. If the desire for God is unlike everyday desires, then what is the sense of such analogies of hungering for God or thirsting for righteousness?”

Joe, please. You understand well the meaning I had there. I meant no such thing that there is a “change to the physiological make-up when one comes to Christ” which is absurd.

It was your illustration, not mine. You mentioned “if I drive through a town that only has sushi, but I happen to *love* sushi and *want* sushi, then my decision for sushi is a free decision.” I was alluding to that.

Rather, my point was the physiological change must take place in that context, where no choice is there but “sushi” and “sushi” alone.

And, no it is definitively not a free choice. For the Calvinist, there is no “I happen to *love* sushi and *want* sushi.” Instead, on the Calvinist’s premises, I hate sushi, I loathe sushi, I would never, in a thousand lifetimes, desire sushi. If sushi comes into my purview, I must be given a desire for it—that is, a change to my physiological make-up must take place. And this change is so radical that sushi is all I could want. I must have sushi.
So, similarly when one comes to Christ.

Hence, please, Joe, if you want to spank me again, at least be fair with my words.

Again, you assert that “[You] do not see why we need a cause-effect chain stemming from creation. It could be that God allows people to do as they wish and at some point, in order to bring people to himself, decides to infuse them with faith unto salvation. I do not think believing, as I do, that God gives us holy desires that it commits me to some inferential chain of cause and effect such that I commit determinism, or at least, that has yet to be shown”

First, Joe, I am not attempting you “show” you anything. You’ve asked; I’ve responded as best I know how. Know I possess absolutely no illusions of grandeur that anything I write will end the Calvinist/NonCalvinist discussion. Believe as you wish. I’m very likely to do the same.

Secondly, you wonder if “It could be that God allows people to do as they wish and at some point, in order to bring people to himself, decides to infuse them with faith unto salvation.” Well, be my guest!

What’s funny is, my view of God’s sovereignty is much more robust than such a hilarious scenario. So God just kinda ‘let’s things go, ah? Interesting. By the way, please inform me of your list of Calvinist theologians who would sail on that boat.

The reality is, just because one is left to the depravity of his heart, it does not at all follow that what is done will fulfill the Sovereign’s plans. What if, left to themselves and their wicked hearts, the mob stoned Jesus to death or pushed Him over the side of the cliff? Where would the cross be?

Indeed, it could very well be argued from Calvinist premises that God places desires for particular evil in people’s hearts in order to accomplish His purposes. That seems to be the only recourse for the fall of Lucifer, as has already been mentioned by another. Why, then could it not be precisely what God does, given Calvinist premises, in how God works out His providence? After all, Joe, you’ve pushed desires to its limits now for the elect. Why not, a long with the absence of positive desire in the NonElect, the presence of evil desire as well? A tidy way to fulfill Providence.

You inquire “What is your argument for the incompatibility of God-given-desires and human freedom? For instance, I love my wife with the love of God, which is to say that love comes from God, as God is love. So my desires come from God yet they are free and fully mine. I just do not see why this is incompatible.”

My argument, Joe, can be found in most introductory textbooks on Metaphysics. But you know this, don’t you? I have not asked to go down this path in hammering out philosophical issues. Moreover, about the only ones who even care about such as these are philosophers, which, by the way, may say a lot.

Once again you write: “Actually Peter, you have assumed that Calvinism implies determinism. What I am trying to do is show your assumption to be wrong.” Nope. Sorry. I am not implying anything. I am saying Calvinism is deterministic.

However, you later say “I do not believe that God is causally determinative of all events because I am not a determinist, but I am a Calvinist.” OK. It would be nice to have a list of events that you believe are not causally determined.

Unfortunately, Joe, the longer you go, the more confusing you get. You write: “Calvinism doesn’t have to entail determinism. So when you reject a Calvinist as a determinist (as you have Welty) you better make sure they are a determinist...” Then later, you write: “There need not be a dichotomy between Calvinism and the softened version, for the latter is just a legitimate form of Calvinism.”

“Softened version” of what? Determinism? So, Calvinism doesn’t have to entail determinism but the ‘Softened version” is a legitimate form of Calvinism? Are you equating compatibilism with the “Softened version” of Determinism? If, so, how is it that Calvinism doesn’t have to entail determinism if determinism—albeit soft determinism, but determinism nonetheless—is a legitimate form of Calvinism?

By the way, could you point me to a philosophy text that does not view compatibilism as determinism? If I am correct that you are probably not going to produce it (unless you wrote it yourself), it is simply special pleading to insist one is not a determinist just because one is a certain type of determinist. That would be like insisting I am not a Georgian because I live in Carrollton and not Macon.

Furthermore, if I am correct, your conclusion simply does not follow: “So if you reject determinism, you can still be a Calvinist! If your problem with Calvinism is determinism, I hope to have shown that you can have the former without the latter.”

To the contrary, Joe, that is not true at all, given the propositions you’ve here argued. If you reject determinism, given your understanding, you cannot be a Calvinist. You may reject one form of determinism—hard determinism—and remain Calvinist. But, given your premises, your conclusions as they are do not follow.

As a byline, there are Calvinists, I concede, who reject determinism flat out but still claim they are Calvinists. Their view is, practically everything we’ve argued thus far is a waste of time. They fully accept libertarian free will—in the very same way Libertarians understand it—and they fully accept God’s sovereignty but plead mystery to it all. I accept that. In fact, I think that is a commendable position.

However, Joe, you have not argued such. You’ve insisted—in my view against reason—that somehow moving free will’s motivation back to the area of desire, you’ve eliminated the rational problem. It does not. It only takes it back a step. That’s all. The determinist may have dodged a lethal bullet by shifting from will to desire, only to bled out by a ricochet.

The rest of your response, Joe, is decidedly non sequitur. All you appear to do is deny you are a determinist which, given the standard definition of determinist, does not at all make sense.

With that, I am...

Peter

P.S. I think you made a few slips, my brother. The biggest I think was this one: "If this committs [sic]the Calvinist to determinism, it committs [sic] all Christians to determinism as well given the doctrine of divine forknowledge [sic]." This fairly well sealed your phony identity (along with a few other hints dropped my way). And know I am saddened by it.

This conversation could have been stimulating and helpful to all and integrity salvaged in the process.

Too late for such. DO NOT COMMENT AGAIN WITHOUT YOUR REAL NAME. IT WILL BE DELETED.

Debbie Kaufman

I think Calvinism can best be described as seeing things from God's point of view, or what actually happens in the process of salvation.

From man's point of view, it would be seen as Chris and Peter have described, but from God's point of view I believe the process is as Calvinists believe it. This way God gets all the glory and not man. We can't pat ourselves on the back because we didn't do a thing.

Peter: You say it is not Biblical but I disagree. The book of Romans and Ephesians for starts says differently.

Debbie Kaufman

I believe in free will, I just believe that God changes that free will.

Pro 21:1 The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.

Chris Johnson

Sister Debbie,

I don't think Peter is trying to argue he knows the mind of God. Who does?

I believe he is articulating....if you say you are a Calvinist, then be consistent with what you say you believe.

Calvin, in my humble opinion, has put some significant thinking together on the subject of soteriology, but so have many others. Calvin has also layed an egg on other things like baptism. Calvin is simply a man....so if another man wants to imitate him, they should be able to either agree with Calvin's thoughts or deny what Calvin thinks. But it is important to know what those differences are while articulating your case.

I think that is Peter's point.

Blessings,
Chris

Chris Johnson

Sister Debbie, one other thing.....

I think the string of conversation as been interesting and helpful to all of us. For instance, my belief on the process of salvation has been impacted by both John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius, yet I trust that scripture and the application of the Spirit of God has placed more of the actual truth in line for me.

I still view salvation as much like the process of birth as illustrated throughout scripture…. where the analogy of birth is used vividly.

Whether I am young and naïve or whether I am old and wise, being born again is the work of God alone (I think we would all agree). Much like the birthing analogy, ….I am created by God, and He submits His creation to His desires for His Glory , even to one before he was actually born and He loses none. A good illustration is John the Baptist….It is hard to determine how much desire that John had before he was born (except for a little flip in the belly). But what we do know is what he would be doing……and he was willing to do what God had purposed and desired.

Luke 1:15-16 "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb. (16) "And he will turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God."

If I believe God’s word, I would have to say that John was more than a minor miracle (much the case for all that are made righteous), being filled with the Spirit before he was physically born. Wow…..But nevertheless, later on John (Apostle) leaves us an answer by our Lord to Nicodemus….

John 3:3-8 "Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (4) Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" (5) Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (6) "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (7) "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' (8) "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

So like John the Baptist, Nicodemus is instructed that being born again is consistent with being made righteous. But unlike Nicodemus, whose desires became obvious, John (Baptist) was born of the Spirit of God without obvious desires. For me at least, this analogy given by Christ has provided a great deal more information concerning the importance of desires in the relationship of God to His creation.

Blessings,
Chris

bill

I don't know if this helps or not. If not, just ignore.

I am free to eat brussel sprouts. And yet I do not eat them, even though I am free to do so. I will not eat them even when they are offered freely to me. I don't eat them because they are loathsome. I am free to eat them, but I am not free to desire them. I cannot choose to desire them because it is not in my nature to change my own desires.

God, for whatever reason, may change my palate and senses so that I now desire brussel sprouts. That, IMO is not a violation of my free will and He certainly has the power and right to do it. Am I still free to reject brussel sprouts even though my desire is towards them? I suppose so, but in practical terms we follow our desires. If I now desire them, and they are freely offered to me, will I not reach out my hand (fork) and take them?

David R. Brumbelow

Peter,
I’ll not offer any profound arguments, but simply say I’ve enjoyed your posts on Calvinism. I’ve also learned and benefited from them. Thanks.
Isn’t it great to be “in Christ!”
As far as I can tell, this has been written under my own free will. I have a suspicion, however, that God already knew what I was going to say.
David R. Brumbelow

ross

Peter,

Have you read Luther's "Bondage of the Will"?

Ross

peter lumpkins

Ross,

Thanks for the Q. The answer is yes...sorta...It's been ever so long but one class I had way back when had Luther's Bondage as required. I had almost forgotten about the old boy :^)

With that, I am...

Peter

Ross

Peter,

I know you are a busy guy but I'd love to see your critique of "The Bondage of the Will" if you ever got the chance. I'd be interested to know if you would side with Luther or Erasmus on the issue of "free will". Luther considered a proper understanding of this issue essential to the gospel.

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2007/11/from_packers_into_to_luthers_b.php

From your critique of Dr. Welty's paper and associated posts, it sounds like you would agree with Erasmus.

Thanks,
Ross

peter lumpkins

Ross,

Thanks for the invitation. Tell you what: if you review the writings of Melanchthon, offering a review/critique of his works and how he changed his mind, deciding to go against his fellow Reformer's view (Luther) and side with Erasmus, perhaps I'll give a stab at Bondage.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

ross

Peter,

I haven't read Melancthon. If he did indeed side with Erasmus over Luther on the issue of "free will", he was wrong. Concerning this issue, I am convinced that Luther had the Word of God on his side. You are convinced that Erasmus and Melancthon had it right. Unfortunately, I would guess that a majority of modern-day evangelical protestants would agree with you.

I would encourage those reading this post to pick up a copy of Luther's "Bondage of the Will" and judge for themselves. Even if you disagree with Luther, its a classic that is still worth reading.

Ross

peter lumpkins

Ross,

Thanks, Brother. Agreed: Luther's "Bondage of the Will" is a Christian classic that needs to be read.

With that, I am...

Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.