« A Brief Doxology | Main | A Reason for Atheism »
God Saves! (Or, Jesus is not a rope)
By Duane | October 1, 2009
Earlier this month, Ryft - author of The Aristophrenium - developed some of the ideas expressed in an earlier post of mine on The ‘Innocent’ Heathen.
Thanks to some pushback, Ryft’s post (Merciful vs. Just) became a demonstration of how the coherence and truthfulness of Christianity can withstand critical scrutiny by higher critics, and is a must read.
There were many highlights in the discussion. But the most helpful part for me centred around what it means to say that God saves. The point of confusion in the discussion is typical - even among Christians - and arose due to an apparent minor grammatical distinction that actually has severe theological ramifications for the way we understand God’s active role in saving sinners. It is the difference between saying that “God saves” or that “God offers salvation”. The critical distinction between the two bears out in the discussion and I have reproduced the relevant portions below.
__________________________________________________
Fluke wrote:
If understanding and accepting Jesus is truly the only way to salvation, then allowing people to learn about Jesus would be an extremely merciful act! It’s analogous to throwing a rope to a drowning man. Sure, it’s up to the man whether to grab the rope or not, but at least you gave him the option! As it stands, God didn’t throw ropes to everyone—by a long shot. So isn’t that a bad thing? … Is offering salvation to someone that deserves punishment really a righteous thing to do? If it is righteous, then why would only offering salvation to a few people that deserve punishment be morally acceptable, compared to offering salvation to a bunch of people that deserve punishment?
Ryft responds:
As for your “ropes” illustration? I completely reject it. Salvation is not analogous to God throwing ropes out to drowning men, because according to Scriptures man is not splashing about in danger of drowning. Unbelievers are described as dead in their sins; i.e., they are not drowning but, rather, stone-cold dead on the ocean floor. God does not offer salvation; he saves. The picture that God is somehow offering salvation and wringing his hands while hoping people choose it is not a biblical picture of God. A sovereign and omnipotent God saves every single person he intends to save. “All that the Father gives me will come to me,” Jesus said. “This is the will of him who sent me: that I shall lose none of all that he has given me.”
Fluke:
Well, I think my rope analogy still applies. I wasn’t trying to suggest that God was waiting in anticipation over who would accept his salvation. Since he’s omniscient, he would obviously already know. Yet he could certainly make the rope available to more people.
Ryft:
… I still completely reject this rope illustration, for it presupposes that the ropes reach anyone. If we are all dead in our trespasses and sins, stone-cold dead on the ocean floor, who is God making the ropes available to? Would it not be patently delusional for you to toss a rope out to a corpse? What would you expect to happen?
Fluke:
Do you view God’s mercy as a virtuous act? In other words, is offering salvation to someone that deserves punishment a righteous thing to do?
Ryft:
No, that is a delusional thing to do. Tossing a rope out to a corpse is retarded.
Salvation is not illustrated as man splashing about in danger of drowning, with God tossing ropes of salvation out for anyone to grab onto. (1) Man is not drowning, in danger of dying. He is drowned, already dead on the ocean floor. There is no one on the ocean’s surface. (2) God does not offer salvation. He saves. Period. God does not toss ropes out to an empty ocean surface. He dives into the ocean, pulls bodies to the surface and resuscitates them.
Salvation is not something God offers; it is something God accomplishes, and without failure. By the death and resurrection of Christ the believer was not made saveable; he was saved, and that absolutely. Salvation is not a possibility offered; it is an actuality accomplished, and that infallibly. This is the very lifeblood of the gospel.
Do I think it is righteous that God dives in and saves a specific number of people? Absolutely. More than that, I find it staggering that he condescended to save anyone at all, considering how thoroughly we do not deserve it. Since all mankind have sinned, lie under the curse, and deserve eternal condemnation, God would have done injustice to no one had he left mankind in their sin and condemned them on account thereof. That from this mass of rightly condemned sinners God deigned to save anyone at all is something I find just astounding. Had he chosen to redeem only five, that still would have far exceeded the number who deserve redemption—zero. But he redeemed a multitude so vast it cannot be numbered. On my view, the mercy of God in redeeming anyone at all is at once humbling, shocking, glorious, and a cause for unending praise. Any failure to recognize this, in my opinion, results from a failure to recognize our mortal condition, God’s unapproachable holiness, and the consequent astounding nature of his mercy.
Fluke:
Do you think there is a limit to how many people God should offer salvation to?
Ryft:
Yes, and I think that limit should be zero. Why? Because, as I said, it is patently delusional to throw ropes out to corpses. No one offers salvation, because salvation is not an offer. It is fact. God saves. And his children spread the Good News about that salvation.
__________________________________________________
For those even vaguely familiar with Christian theology, this will bring to mind an ongoing discussion among Christians; between Calvinists and Arminians. As a Calvinist myself, I agree with Ryft; the rope analogy should rightly be totally rejected. But it seems to me that the rope analogy certainly would appeal to the Arminian, who holds that God makes a move to save those who first made a move toward Him; to seek, call out or reach for Him. Something that corpses clearly cannot do. J.I. Packer likewise sums up Calvinism in one brief statement: God saves sinners. The necessity of this cannot be made much clearer than to liken the fallen state of humanity to a corpse on the ocean bed, rather than a sea of barely floating persons, desperately flailing for a life buoy (or a rope for that matter) on the ocean surface.
Paul writes: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” - Rom 3:10-12.
Not only are we unwilling to seek God’s help, from Scripture one might argue that we are simply unable. In other words God’s intervention is completely unsolicited. Paul again writes: “the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.” [emphasis mine] - Rom 8:7. Paul continues in verse 11, “… if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.”
Ryft had said, “Salvation is not something God offers; it is something God accomplishes, and without failure.” He also quite appropriately quotes Jesus: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.” - John 6:37. Paul likewise wrote to the Romans: “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will” - Eph 1:4-5
So in summary, God does not offer salvation. Instead He determines to save whom He chooses and then acts to bring this about “in accordance with his pleasure and will”. In short, God saves! And to that, those whom God has called recognise this not as foolishness (i.e. unjust, immoral, unfair, or lacking in mercy) but as the power and grace of God, and say Amen!
Topics: Apologetics, Christianity, Theology |
October 2nd, 2009 at 8:24 am
Couldn’t disagree more.
Question: If God wants everyone to be saved, and despite on the Calvinist understanding that He is totally capable of saving all but will only save whom He chooses, how is that a demonstration of love, love being the defining ontology of Him?
Now before you answer, please don’t turn my question into a straw man.
October 2nd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Hi Marc,
So glad to have you back again, even if it’s to disagree.
Good question. I don’t want to raise straw men, so if you want to make your position clearer, that’d be fine with me. Did you agree with Fluke’s rope analogy? How would you’ve answered his challenge?
First I guess I’d first take exception with the term “wants”. There are clearly two types of will that God expresses in the Bible. One is His moral will and the other is His sovereign will. I first heard of this from Greg Koukl and I think he is spot on.
Moral will entails all those things God wants us to do, yet we may disobey. God wants us to be saved, yet many are not. God wanted Israel to turn to Jesus, yet most did not. God wants all kinds of things of His people–He wills those things–but they don’t come to pass. There’s a sense of God’s will that can be violated.
In contrast when Paul says, “Who resists His will?”, he can’t be talking of moral will, because I resist His will everyday when I sin. There are things about God’s will that He intends to come to pass. We see some of those details in the book of Daniel, and this is why Daniel makes the statement that God’s will, in this sense, cannot be violated. Daniel’s statements can only be sound if we’re talking about a different aspect of God’s will.
None of that really gets to the point yet I know, but I just wanted to be clear about the distinction that needs to made when we say God wants all to be saved. That is not an expression of His sovereign will, but His moral will.
Second, I reiterate what Ryft said earlier, when asked by Fluke how many people ought God save? The answer is zero. That He saves any at all is an act of grace. But God brings glory to Himself through His grace towards sinners and His justice meted out to guilty men. Love is inclusive of justice. I doubt you would think it very loving of a government that let all the criminals out of jail because “we’re a loving a government”. So how much more proper is it for a loving and holy God to punish those He wishes to punish and save those He wishes to save.
e.g. Romans 9
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
“Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?”
It’s clear to me that God does predestine - I think Calvinists and Arminians agree there - but there is disagreement on the “mechanics” (for lack of a better word) of how God decides who is to be saved and who is not. If I understand your objection correctly, it sounds like you consider sinners as those capable and willing to call for help and grab the rope when it is offered. I don’t see evidence of that in Scripture, taken on the whole.
October 4th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Ryft’s arguments are helpful in making the case for Christ. Thank you for posting it. As a matter of note, what I find interesting about the statement:
is the fact that the word “righteous” has to be borrowed from the accused in order to give the accusation merit, thus furnishing more proof that the argument is bankrupt.
October 6th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Hi Marc. Hi Duane.
I’d like to take a stab at this one if I may. Granted, my knowledge of this specific aspect of the faith is wanting but I understand it to go something like this:
Say I get married. I, for my part, am a wonderful husband to my wife. Soon after the honeymoon she begins stepping out on me and eventually leaves me for another man. I say to myself, “So be it. If she wants some other man more than me I will honor her decision.” Even though it breaks my heart to do so (and even though I know I am a better man for my wife than the one she left me for) I let her go her own way. It was, after all, her decision to make.
I get married again and, again, my new wife soon begins cheating on me and also leaves me for another man. This time, though, I pursue my wife and win her back to me with many acts of loving kindness. We remain faithful and happy with one another to the end of our days.
Which of the two wives did I truly love? In the Christian world-view love is not a feeling but an action (one defined by self sacrifice) so the answer would be: I loved both of them. The second wife I loved by pursuing and bringing her home. The first wife I loved by honoring the decision she made for herself.
I believe that your question is based on a faulty premise. If we lived in a world where God was playing some cosmic game of hide and seek with a mass of humanity that is eagerly trying to find him, your question would be very valid. But we don’t live in that world. We are, all of us, wayward wives who have turned our back on God and gone off to seek our own way. To some of us God says, “So be it. If he wants other things more than he wants me I’ll honor that decision.” Others of us He pursues and wins back with acts of loving kindness.
I suppose the next logical question at this point would be: why does he pursue some and not the others? Going back to the example of the jilted husband, I could have any number of reasons for choosing one wife over the other (and many of my reasons might have nothing at all to do with the women themselves). At any rate, my reasons are my own and I, being the one who was wronged, am not obligated to explain myself to either of the women who wronged me. I can only assume the same holds true for God.
I hope this helps
Grace and peace
October 11th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
My apologies for not having responded sooner but I’d actually forgot that I’d put a comment here.
I fear that this will be one of those discussions which won’t really go anywhere. Anyhow…let’s press on.
I think Fluke is closer to the money than others who commented. As a non-Calvinist, I do not believe in moral reprobation. That is, I do not believe that people are so immoral that they are now amoral and are no longer able to understand what it means to reason morally. The Bible talks about even the heathen behaving morally (see Romans 2:14ff). With this in mind I believe that Fluke’s rope analogy is apt, though God gives the rope to everyone.
Fluke is right. I am unable to see how, if it were true, God being able to give salvation to all but decides to withhold it and give it only to a few, is highly moral or even comprehensible. And surely, being able to understand salvation is the very essence of getting to know God. In any case, I don’t see that the Bible say what everyone is saying here.
The bringing in of two ‘wills’ in God, I believe, was first suggested by Augustine. It’s non-biblical ad hockery. God is not divisible with respect to his being. For a Calvinist to suggest otherwise – and the 2 wills do accomplish this – is strangely ironic. If God could will it i.e. offering salvation to all, but doesn’t, hardly resembles the love that Jesus demonstrated.
In any case, the Bible clearly teaches that he wills all to be saved. To erode that transparent piece of knowledge by claiming God has 2 wills is quite unsound.
Duane, you stated, “None of that really gets to the point yet I know, but I just wanted to be clear about the distinction that needs to made when we say God wants all to be saved. That is not an expression of His sovereign will, but His moral will.”
This is a tad circular. You assume that there are two wills, then slot the salvation question into the category which best suits your belief that God will only save a few. The biblical statement that Paul made in 1 Tim is ever so clear: “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.”
I think there is no need of multiplying endless escape clauses. Some sort of theological Ockham’s Razor should be dangling over our heads to warn us off.
You refer to Romans 9:19. Arguably Romans 9 is the chapter than Calvinists misrepresent/misunderstand more than any other chapter. It’s quite easy to take one word from an entire epistle and use it to buttress one’s case. Paul’s argument doesn’t rotate on a single word but has been set out, on a minimum, over the previous few chapters.
Clearly, the people to whom Paul addressed this epistle were well acquainted with the Torah texts he briefly quotes. It pays to go back and read them in full in context from Torah.
If the purpose of Israel’s leaving Egypt was to establish the nation of Israel so as to being about the Messiah’s coming, why did God harden Pharaoh’s heart in order to stop Israel leaving? Surely, he would have put it into Pharaoh’s heart to allow his people to go. If Pharaoh, before the hardening, hadn’t wanted to keep the people there, why would God make him do the opposite? If Pharaoh had already not wanted to send the people out, then God didn’t really have to harden his heart because he was already obstinate.
The Calvinist version of predestination doesn’t realize that Paul’s argument is actually an argument against the Calvinist version. Was it Esau or Jacob who was predestined for the inheritance? Why did Jacob get it if he wasn’t predestined? Because he wanted it and Esau didn’t!
Duane you said, “Second, I reiterate what Ryft said earlier, when asked by Fluke how many people ought God save? The answer is zero.” I think this is a piece of Calvinist rhetoric. It makes no sense if you picture how Jesus acted to all people in the Gospels. I can’t see it fitting the Calvinist one.
In any case, I have no idea what the ‘ought’ means here.
“Love is inclusive of justice.” Can you refer me to the biblical verse that says this?
“I doubt you would think it very loving of a government that let all the criminals out of jail because “we’re a loving a government”. So how much more proper is it for a loving and holy God to punish those He wishes to punish and save those He wishes to save.” Well, using your own analogy against itself, I wouldn’t think very much of a government who let that murderer out, but kept that one in, that paedophile set free, but that one serves life.
The Gospel that Calvin presents is a return to legalism. The analogy of jails illustrates this well. ‘God so loved the world’ is not a clause out of a piece of law text. It goes right to the heart of who God is.
You quote Romans 9:15, 21. Again, taken out of context. Verse 19 is part of the very long discussion about who the real Israel is and how, why and whom the Seed comes through. To construct a whole theology on 1 or 2 verses, take them out of context, and then misunderstand them, is not exactly a convincing case.
Duane said: “If I understand your objection correctly, it sounds like you consider sinners as those capable and willing to call for help and grab the rope when it is offered. I don’t see evidence of that in Scripture, taken on the whole.” That’s odd, but I do see the evidence. The alternative, the Calvinist soteriology that God can save all, but won’t, is unbiblical and conflicts with what would seem the right thing to do. If a man is quite capable of rescuing 3 drowning children but will only save one for no other reason apart from the fact that he refused, is hardly a good man. Why are God’s standards, on the Calvinist view, so much the opposite to a Christian’s, let alone a heathen’s?
Ryft’s “elaboration” of his Calvinism is based on a few verses ripped out of context from John 6. Jesus has a very subtle habit, and a very Jewish one at that, of egging his listeners one in order to stir them to grasp what he was saying. His talks were often riddled with irony in order to get people to change their minds. Ryft routinely misses this.
Royce said: “In the Christian world-view love is not a feeling but an action” Actually, the Christian biblical worldview is that love is WHO God is. We may know love is apparent by action but nevertheless it results from who that person is.
How ironic that you claim that the non-Calvinist God is playing a “cosmic game of hide and seek” That’s a straw man argument. It’s actually on the Calvinist view that he is. If God only saves a few because he won’t save all, then he is playing hide and seek.
You believe that God only “pursues [some] and wins back [that some] with acts of loving kindness. Your God is way too small.
Royce, you said, “I suppose the next logical question at this point would be: why does he pursue some and not the others? Going back to the example of the jilted husband, I could have any number of reasons for choosing one wife over the other (and many of my reasons might have nothing at all to do with the women themselves). At any rate, my reasons are my own and I, being the one who was wronged, am not obligated to explain myself to either of the women who wronged me. I can only assume the same holds true for God.”
How odd! If you ARE love you will explain yourself. You’ve got the whole story all upsidedown, insideout, mate. Really!
October 12th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Thanks for your thoughtful response (blogment!) Marc … and lucky you responded when you did, as the discussion had seemed to stagnate and I was about to close down the comments.
I need more time than I currently have to respond to this, but hopefully I can get back to you by week’s end.
In the meantime, others are quite welcome to offer further thoughts and clarification.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Hi again, Marc. I love spirited and passionate people so it’s a delight to read the responses you gave. I only hope that my answers to you will turn out to be equally well given. Let’s find out…
You’re quite correct when you say that God IS love. When I said that love is understood to be an action I was really just trying to clarify that I would be using the word “love” in a way different from the way that most people in the world use it. Oftentimes you will hear people talk about love in terms of how they FEEL about someone or something and I didn’t want you to read this understanding into what I was going to write.
As you seem to constantly require scripture of us in support of what we say (and, well done by the way; this is just as it should be) I’ll gladly provide one for you. In 1John 3:16 (just a little before the “God is love” line) John says, “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.” When John defines love he clearly does so in terms of action and not feeling.
As a parallel example, I’d like to offer the word “truth”. At some point I may refer to truth as being “anything that is consistent with reality”. I would be saying this to contrast truth with, say, opinion. At no point, however, would I be attempting to contradict the clear biblical teaching that truth is actually a person (John 14:6).
You then said that my God is way too small. On that, I have to disagree. It is not God who is way too small but, rather, my understanding of God that is way too small. I’m just a little salesman from California. I have woefully limited imagination and intelligence. Never would I even begin to try to claim that I have within me the capacity to comprehend more than the crudest and most rudimentary aspects of the infinite, all-mighty and all-glorious God. Any god that I am equipped to understanding would not be capable of creating the vast and breathtakingly beautiful universe I see around me and, therefore, would not be worthy of worship. All I can claim to know about God is that which has been revealed to me. My greatest hope is just to faithfully pass on what little I do know without letting my ego or personal bias get in the way.
As for a hide-and-seek God….
I do not claim to represent the Calvinist (or any other “ist”) point of view. The bible clearly states that God has made his existence, character and attributes plainly known to all mankind (Romans 1:19-20) but that men have suppressed this knowledge. Which really kind of brings us to the meat of the issue: our understanding of God’s actions in salvation as it relates to love.
Again, you have rightly said that God IS love. The bible also says that God does not deny himself (he always acts in a manner that is consistent with who he is). God is also THE law-giver. A lot of people miss this point so I think I should expand on it a bit. When dealing with spiritual and moral issues, people seem to operate under the impression that there is some ubiquitous standard of good and evil by which all entities are measured including God himself. This is not so. God, himself, IS the standard. That is why Jesus was able to say, “I am the way, the TRUTH and the life.” Jesus is the truth because, as the creator, his own character forms the basis for reality.
As an example of how this plays out, God cannot sin. Why? God cannot sin because he is good. Put more simply, God’s own actions serve as the very standard for what it means to be good. He cannot sin by default. The only exception to this is Jesus who was 100% God and 100% man. As God, Jesus was incapable of sin. As a man, Jesus was capable but, fortunately for us, “was tempted and yet was without sin.” If ever there is an instance when God appears to us to do something evil the error exists not in God’s character but our understanding.
Likewise, there is no overarching definition of love that God himself must adhere to. God is love. Therefore any action that he undertakes is an act of love. The notion that his actions at any given time may appear to us to be unloving simply means that we are attempting to judge him by a wrong standard (that is: some standard other than he himself).
Please respond to any faults you find in my understanding. If I am wrong I dearly need to know where they lie.
Grace and peace
October 12th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Royce, I have no, and never did have any, problem with your explication of ‘love’, none whatsoever. So, what’s your purpose in quoting 1John3:16?
You originally said “We are, all of us, wayward wives who have turned our back on God and gone off to seek our own way” and then labelled my non-Calvinist take on soteriology as presenting a hide-and-seek God. I see Scripture putting it this way. Scripture takes it as a fact that all men are sinners. Christ came to “not condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.” (Neatly dovetails with God wanting all men to be saved, by the way.). The next verse in John states that “he who believes in him is not condemned, but he who doesn’t is condemned already because he has not believed.” Now, if the Calvinist take is correct i.e. God only wants some men to be saved and only saves this some, then John 3:17-18 makes no sense whatsoever. It fares less than a triviality and strikes me as some sort of macabre, sadistic mocking of the lost. Why on earth would God, only pick a few when he could choose all, and then say “You’re condemned because I haven’t chosen you.” This is not Christianity but pretty, pretty close to an Islamic take on salvation. I see – and I’m not talking about the people who subscribe to this theology but the theology itself – it as the antithesis of love. You must explain how this is an action of love. Isn’t that what we are in the business of i.e. making sure people know that God is love by the fact that the Creation was perfect, that God died for us, that he rose physically, which then proves that the Creation was perfect and that Jesus is the Creator?
You also said, “I do not claim to represent the Calvinist (or any other “ist”) point of view. The bible clearly states that God has made his existence, character and attributes plainly known to all mankind (Romans 1:19-20) but that men have suppressed this knowledge.” I disagree on two accounts. First, that is the Calvinist take on this passage. Second, the 18th verse says that the wrath of God is against the ungodliness and unrighteousness OF MEN, not the men themselves (i.e. the sin, not the sinner)! And not all men suppress the truth. The Gospels are replete with heathen “getting it” before the chosen ones (cf John 4). Paul then makes a point, as I mentioned in my previous post, that there are people who are heathen and who act morally (cf Jonah, Daniel 5:10-12; 6:24-28).
You then said, “Which really kind of brings us to the meat of the issue: our understanding of God’s actions in salvation as it relates to love.” You then expand this, but I can’t understand its relevance. All I can read into it is that you’re saying that I shouldn’t question God’s standard in his salvation plan. If so, we have a problem and I believe you’re begging the question that your understanding is indeed the correct one. I believe from Scripture it’s not and so I question the standard that you believe is God’s.
You see, Royce, my reading of your case is that you haven’t addressed my point, namely, if God can save all, but won’t, how on earth does that demonstrate love. It’s not an independent standard but God’s own. The axiom ‘God can but won’t save all’ is not Scriptural. Scripture says that God wants ALL to be saved. End of story. Some people just don’t want to be saved. God cannot do anything about that. He tried to save all by incarnating and resurrecting, but some refuse the gift. I believe that that is the scriptural take. I think the problem is that Calvinism has a problem with God not always getting what he wants, namely, all people to be saved.
Again you say, “Likewise, there is no overarching definition of love that God himself must adhere to. God is love. Therefore any action that he undertakes is an act of love. The notion that his actions at any given time may appear to us to be unloving simply means that we are attempting to judge him by a wrong standard (that is: some standard other than he himself).”
I think that you should explain what is so loving about a man who can save 3 people but only chooses to save one. Our standards are not that unlike God’s. Otherwise we would have real chaos even in a secular country like Australia. If our standards were so different not even the lost would be able to judge. It would be a Sodom where the paedophile is rewarded and the thief honoured. So, I am not judging God’s standard but the standard Calvinists believe is God’s.
October 12th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
To further underscore the fact that most people know something about right and wrong,you only have to have seen the on-the-street interviews of people on TV over the Polanski affair. I cannot recall single person who took the side of Polanski, apart from some of the degenerates from the art and film world.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Hi Marc,
Still not had time to put together a response for you.
But I just quickly wanted to deal with a straw man that you’ve raised several times now and made most clear in your recent comment.
What statement did I make that gave you the impression that I thought the Bible taught that man was completely or totally morally reprobate? The rope analogy certainly did not intend to convey that, and neither is the doctrine of total depravity proper.
In truth, I actually agree with you. And passages such as Genesis 18:24-25 are great examples of this. Here we have Abraham - before the giving of law mind you - appealing to God, “Won’t the judge of all the earth do what is just?”
So I really do not understand your beef on this point.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:01 am
I also just wanted to say that Royce touched on something that I can relate to. That is, the desire not to be labelled as an “ism” or an “ist”, etc…
It’s true that I am attempting to represent my position – unrefined as it is - on all of this and unfortunately the labels are sometimes useful, although not completely representative of my view. That can get in the way sometimes as we can tend to assume a lot based on the label. Even as a “YEC-ist”, certain assumptions are often made of my view based on other conversations people may have had with other YEC-ists.
Just an observation for posterity.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Hi Marc,
I don’t agree with your 3 people challenge because it doesn’t define reality properly. Firstly you soften the analogy by using the term children which implies innocence, which, of course, we know is not true Rom 3:10-12. And then used the term people which I feel still falls way short of the mark. Instead you should have said that those 3 people are Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Or any 3 characters of despicable evil because that is how God sees all of us. That only changes when He sees Jesus instead of us because we believe.
So what does God do with these 3 despicable evil people? He could punish all according to Justice, that would mean there would be no-one in heaven - no bride for His Son. He wants all be saved. So this leaves us with the question of what He does and how He does it?
At this point, Flukes objection comes into focus. If the theology is that all have a rope thrown to them and have the choice whether to take it or not, then reality does not bear out this ‘fact’. We can look all around the world now and back through time to the 3rd day when Jesus was resurrected, and we can see that that rope is not there. Generally speaking, there is no bible in front of the Afghani woman just waiting for her to pick it up and read so she can know Jesus and thus be saved. No, that rope is 3 countries away. There are people around the world who don’t and will never have Jesus available to them.
So what happened to God’s will that all be saved? We know that if we leave this world without Jesus in our corner then we are judged and punished accordingly. And God has created a special place called Hell for those who die without Jesus. So what is this saying about Gods will? That it can be thwarted by men? This makes God seem impotent rather than omnipotent.
I think the concept of the two wills of God (moral will and sovereign will) is apt. We have been given Freedom to act according to Gods moral will, or not. Without this freedom we then become robots who can’t act outside our programming. But when God exercises His omnipotence and sovereignly wills something then there is no stopping it (hardening of hearts, eating of grass…etc). When God wills that we all refrain from sexual immorality, we see that this is Gods moral will because if His will was accomplished all the time then no-one would have any sexual desire until after marriage. Something we don’t see reflected in reality.
What is it about Calvinism that leads you to make the statement, “God only wants some men to be saved and only saves this some”?
October 13th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Hi again, Marc.
I’d like to start by re-emphasizing the fact that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Calvinist. Sure, I think the comic antics of he and his stuffed tiger are clever but that’s about the extent of it.
Second, I do have to apologize to you. I can see now that I have indeed not answered the question you’ve been asking; I’ve been answering the question I THOUGHT you were asking (I do have an unfortunate habit of being rather dim and somewhat slow-on-the-uptake at times). I thought you were trying to figure out how God’s pre-selection of the saved jibes with his loving character. I was set straight in my mis-understanding when you wrote:
“The axiom ‘God can but won’t save all’ is not Scriptural. Scripture says that God wants ALL to be saved. End of story. Some people just don’t want to be saved. God cannot do anything about that. He tried to save all by incarnating and resurrecting, but some refuse the gift. I believe that that is the scriptural take.”
I can see now that you are actually resurrecting the old “free will v.s. predestination” debate using Gods loving nature as the main point in support of your view. So, seeing how this is the case, I should probably duck out of the debate. I have been known in the past to take-up this argument on either one side or the other. I don’t anymore. The reason for this is really very simple and, yet, I fully expect you to whole-heartedly disagree with it: scripture does, in fact, support both free will and predestination.
The bible clearly teaches that those who are saved were chosen to be saved by God long before he laid the foundations of the world and that no one is able to come to Jesus unless the Father first acts to draw that person to him. The bible also clearly teaches that each and every one of us have the option to either accept Gods free gift of mercy or reject it, making us morally responsible for the choice we each make. The two concepts appear to be mutually exclusive… and they are. Yet, because the bible clearly teaches both of them, they must both be true.
I have heard a number of very intelligent and scholarly people make very good attempts at reconciling these two teachings in a way that makes them not contradictory. Honestly, none of the explanations work for me. Fortunately, I, for one, don’t feel an overwhelming need to have the contradiction explained. I think I’ve stated pretty clearly my acceptance of the idea that God is not only smarter than any lowly human, he’s smarter than all of humanity combined. The possibility that there should be some aspects of his plans that we cannot comprehend should not come as much of a surprise to anyone. Furthermore, I think I’ve also stated my opinion that any god we are capable of figuring out entirely couldn’t be the real God to begin with.
Why stop there?! I’ll even take it one step further. I think it only adds to Gods glory that he is able to devise and execute a plan of salvation acting with and through free moral agents while maintaining his sovereign prerogative. Brilliant! Three cheers for God.
So, in summary, I agree with you. He tried to save all by incarnating and resurrecting, but some refuse the gift.
I also disagree with you. No one is able to see until and unless God first gives that person sight. He chooses who will be saved and this in no way violates his loving nature.
Grace and peace
October 14th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Duane, regarding reprobate beings, while Ryft wrote them, you seem to approve of the following, as in “As a Calvinist myself, I agree with Ryft”:
“Unbelievers are described as dead in their sins; i.e., they are not drowning but, rather, stone-cold dead on the ocean floor.”
“If we are all dead in our trespasses and sins, stone-cold dead on the ocean floor, who is God making the ropes available to? Would it not be patently delusional for you to toss a rope out to a corpse?”
With Ryft’s generous use of the invective ‘delusional’ thrown against Fluke’s case, makes some seamless argument that I think “you thought the Bible taught that man was completely or totally morally reprobate.”
You yourself say such things as “Not only are we unwilling to seek God’s help, from Scripture one might argue that we are simply unable.”
October 14th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Yes Marc, and yet none of these are claims synonymous with your characterisation of my position that due to our fallen state, we are unable to distinguish right and wrong; good from evil. It wasn’t stated that way explicitly, and nor was it implied.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:26 am
G’day Marc,
Finally I’ve had a spare moment this morning.
Well it is clear that you are far more well-rehearsed in soteriology than I am - I would expect no less. So it would be of great benefit to me to see your position critiqued by someone who is equally well-studied, as I am sure there is much that I missing here. Nonetheless I will, as you say, press on. Then like Royce, I may have to bow out of the discussion and give you the final right of reply, unless someone else is able to contribute additional insights.
You said:
Well if what you mean by “won’t really go anywhere” is synonymous with “won’t result in you agreeing with my point of view”, then I can only sympathise. But I don’t measure the value of a discussion in that way. I have already found the discussion quite valuable for the simple reason that I am having to consider and engage alternative view points.
Good, neither do I, as I explained briefly earlier.
Well I am sure this is not the first time that you have been faced with such a challenge. I don’t know a single person who will claim that they completely understand everything that God has communicated to them in the Bible. Not being able to comprehend something is not a slam dunk case against the position. But certainly if one view appeals to you more than the other, then it is right to hold the view that makes the most sense or is more conscionable to you.
And on that note, I am as comfortable with God when he chooses to save some sinners and not others as I am when he chooses Israel over the surrounding nations as recipients of his promises.
All doctrine was essentially “brought in” at some point. The question is whether such doctrine accurately conveys or clarifies the intended message. So what makes this idea of two wills non-biblical?
You’ll need to expand on this a bit, because I am not sure what you mean by “divisible with respect to his being” and therefore I don’t follow how recognising that God’s will means different things in different contexts achieves this division.
You’re right, it does say that. But to hold this passage up in isolation as evidence for your view, when it is the very meaning of these kinds of passages (i.e. what it “teaches”) that we are discussing, begs the question. I assume you weren’t trying to do that, because you do cite other passages to try and build a cumulative case, such as the 1 Tim 2 passage.
Well first of all I didn’t assume it. I reasoned to it, in trying to make sense of God’s will in verses such as Daniel 4:35 contrasted with 2 Peter 3:9. Second, whether I am then applying this notion arbitrarily to issues of salvation I will take into consideration. But I cannot escape the plain and obvious notion of two wills.
If such a notion is not biblical then either God’s will only ever carries a moral imperative that man has the freedom to disobey, OR, it only ever implies a God-determined end that man cannot thwart.
Yes, this is where I think commentary on the notions of sufficiency and efficiency are helpful. Now although you may be quick to label such notions as mere Calvinist ad hockery, I have not yet found reason for such cynicism. At the moment I am just trying to figure out whether such notions make the best sense of Scripture or not. In saying that, the content of verses 4 and 6 does collectively seem to make a case for the notion that Jesus died for every person and not just for those that end up in heaven. But then the explanation of sufficiency and efficiency also fit nicely here too. That is, the penalty Christ paid was sufficient for all of mankind even though it wasn’t applied to all – either through man’s own choice to reject the offer, or God’s independent election and subsequent action to save the elect.
Well I was under the impression that the weight of the argument rested on more than just one word and did capture the meaning of the passage. But thanks, I’ll study that further.
Given your demonstrated knowledge in other areas I’m surprised that you would even ask this and can therefore only assume that the entire blurb is rhetorical. You would have been better off just making your point, which I am struggling to distil from all of that.
It’s clear to me from Ex 3-4 and from logical induction regarding the nature of slavery, that Pharaoh wanted the Israelites to remain and would require a “strong hand” to force his decision to free them. It’s also clear that God needed to harden Pharaoh’s heart because he would otherwise relent in awe of the miracles that were to be performed and let the Israelites go. So what is your point?
Sure, Jacob wanted it. So what? In hindsight I’m sure Esau did too. But again, I’m sorry, I’m just struggling to feel the weight of your argument here. God had told Rebekah before the twins were born that Esau would serve Jacob and then events ensued that brought that to pass. How is all of this related to God’s election of the saints?
Now, Fluke had asked Ryft how many people God should offer salvation to, which he responded, zero. Your response to this was…
Sorry if I misunderstand the argument, but that sounds like a non-sequitur. All Ryft was trying to point out was that there is nothing about God’s character that impels him to save anyone, and yet there is a rather obvious reason why he should not. Or as Ryft so eloquently put it, “justice is God delivering what we deserve, while mercy is God withholding what we deserve.” But how does the way Jesus acted towards others in the Gospels argue against the notion that God should not save anyone? The concepts don’t appear to be directly related.
It’s not that kind of argument Marc. What I mean is that love and justice are perfectly compatible notions, in that they are both expressions of God’s character – expressions of his image that also seem to be reflected in man. So he doesn’t stop loving when he is meting out justice. The statement, God is just, is just as true as God is love.
That doesn’t work. If all are deserving of judgment and salvation really is undeserved, then whether God saves one sinner or one billion sinners is moot. On the principle you espouse, how does saving one undeserving person morally oblige God to save all undeserving persons? That’s like saying that because I chose to cancel the debt someone owed me, then I am now morally obliged to cancel all debts. Huh?
Interesting point. I need to look at this claim more thoroughly.
When you said to Royce:
I agree that “why” is not a question that I can answer given my current theological position, other than to say that God’s treatment of both the saved and the un-saved bring him glory. But this is true even without a Calvinistic framework. And whether such an answer is necessary is not clear to me. I don’t believe that scripture makes it clear why he acts to save some and not others, and yet it seems that he does exactly that – as Royce also agrees is the case. So I don’t see that I have much choice but to take the position I do. Even within the context of Israel, he fulfils his desires through the nation of Israel for no other reason, it seems, than because he determined it. He chose Israel, but it seems to me he could have chosen any people group to reveal himself to and make his covenant with. In the same way, he appears to have chosen some to be transformed into the likeness of his son and others to fall under his judgment as a consequence of sin. He chooses to show mercy to some and not others, as both Moses and Paul attest to.
OK, so as far as I can tell you are comfortable with the notion that God can be selective with his mercy in general, but you are not willing to say the same when it comes to this issue of salvation. And the reason for that is because you think scripture doesn’t support such a notion. Hope I have summarised correctly. It is an area I am certainly willing to investigate further.
October 14th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Marc,
You had essentially asked, “How can God be considered loving if he saves only some of mankind?” That question seems fundamentally important to you, which makes me wonder why you did not bother interacting with my one paragraph which answered that question. Perhaps you could be implored to, now at this point?
And yes, I am joining the conversation from this point onward. Greetings to the regular commenters here at Duane’s site: Royce, Adam, Marc, etc.
~ Ryft
October 16th, 2009 at 7:45 am
From an outside (atheistic) perspective, I see both the Calvinist and the Arminian views to be flawed.
On one hand, we have the Calvinist view, where God chooses to save some and not to save others. I think many people react negatively to this because it just seems so unfair and immoral. Wouldn’t a loving God attempt to save all people, if not at least MOST people? The Calvinist justification for this problem seems to be that God views us all as Hitlers and Stalins and Pol Pots, thus we all deserve hell and God is not acting immorally by not even giving us a chance to avoid it. However, there’s two problems with this justification. First, the notion that we’re all essentially as evil as Hitler in God’s eyes is extremely hard to swallow. Personally, I think it’s flat out morally reprehensible to hold the view that the average person’s sins are justifiably punishable with eternal torture. None of us here would ever be okay with an earthly judge sentencing the average citizen to a life of torture in prison from the crimes of telling some lies or cheating on his wife or thinking hateful thoughts, etc. Yet, for some reason, some of us are able to rationalize this view when we’re talking about God. Secondly, even if one accepts the crazy idea that we’re all as evil as Hitler in God’s eye, how then does that person justify God showing mercy to such evil creatures as we? If we had Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot locked in prison, and I decided to release Stalin, but keep Hitler and Pol Pot locked up, wouldn’t you be outraged? Why the heck would it be a glorious act of mercy for me to not punish a completely evil a-hole? Thus, I think the Calvinist view is flawed in a moral sense.
On the other hand, we have the Arminian view, where God extends his “rope” of salvation to everyone, and it is up to the people to decided to except it or not. This idea certainly seems more pleasant and conducive with God’s supposed “loving nature”. However, as has already been pointed out, this view is not very conducive with the way the world is actually set-up in reality. We have many many countries where the teachings of Jesus are completely unheard of, and we have many more countries where children are raised from birth to reject Christian teachings in favor of other religions. This certainly does not reflect a world where God is extending an equal chance of salvation to everyone. Thus, I think the Arminian view is flawed in a practical sense.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Does this mean you want back in Fluke?
If I understand you correctly, I’d like to make an inference. There would be three options that you would accept, none of which are actually so.
1. God should save everyone
2. God should save none
3. God should not have created free moral beings
October 16th, 2009 at 9:06 am
“1. God should save everyone”
Perhaps not everyone deserves to be saved, yet I don’t think anyone deserves to be tortured forever.
“2. God should save none”
If God were to save no one, I’d consider his character to be even more devoid of morality than I already do.
“3. God should not have created free moral beings”
Personally, I’d say freewill isn’t worth the consequence of hell. So, given the fact that God’s nature is such that he must torture sinners for eternity, I’d say it was immoral for him to creature beings who are compelled to sin in the first place.
My main beef here is with the concept of Hell. I’ve never heard an acceptable justification to the obvious immorality of the notion that we all deserve to be tortured forever. I think the unjustness of Hell is the elephant in the room for this entire discussion.
October 16th, 2009 at 9:09 am
“Does this mean you want back in Fluke?”
I try to stay away, since the way you run your blog isn’t to my liking. Yet, I can’t resist when I’m mentioned by name.
October 16th, 2009 at 9:18 am
One small point of clarification Fluke, although you probable know this is the Christian position. In your example where Stalin is released, Stalin still has a punishment assigned to him. It just so happens that Jesus steps in and takes the “flogging” on his behalf. The punishment is still dealt out. Just not to Stalin but Jesus instead. That’s the Mercy/Grace message. Should Jesus accept the punishment of anyone …nope. The fact He does at all is the glorious act you speak of. If He does it just one person it it still a glorious act. Now I know you don’t believe this but at least we can have clarity if not agreement.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:37 am
1. I wrote: “I am unable to see how, if it were true, God being able to give salvation to all but decides to withhold it and give it only to a few, is highly moral or even comprehensible.”
Duane responded: “I don’t know a single person who will claim that they completely understand everything that God has communicated to them in the Bible. Not being able to comprehend something is not a slam dunk case against the position. But certainly if one view appeals to you more than the other, then it is right to hold the view that makes the most sense or is more conscionable to you.”
With all due respect, Duane, but you question beg. My comment was implying that your position, the Calvinist one, isn’t the Biblical one. I was not saying that I don’t understand the biblical theology – I do – but that I cannot comprehend the Calvinist one. And Calvinists do admit that they do not even understand their own position by frequently talking about “the incomprehensibility of God’s will” or some such equivalent statement.
You’re assuming that it is the case that God can save all but only wills to save some. The Bible mentions no such thing. It does say quite clearly however that God wants all to be saved.
The choice of modals is extremely important here. We are not free to swap or remove modals of our own choosing, especially if they are selected to reinforce our own brand of theology, or, in this case, soteriology.
Given that we know certain things about God, particularly as a result of Jesus’ character as recorded in the Gospels, I am reasonably confident that the Calvinist theology and soteriology are plain wrong.
2. Duane said: “And on that note, I am as comfortable with God when he chooses to save some sinners and not others as I am when he chooses Israel over the surrounding nations as recipients of his promises.”
Well, I’m not. It rocks against every piece of moral lesson contained in the Bible. It also jars against even what we intuitively would consider to be the morally good action. It also reminds of just how wrong humans can go when they swap their own view of what God should be like with how he really is. (cf Isaiah 55 and Ezekiel 18)
In any case, it wasn’t as though Israel was a closed shop. Nations could align themselves and share in the blessings of Israel if they toed a certain line.
It concerns me that you admit not understanding how it can be morally right to only save some when you could save all, and then still uphold it as truth. If you don’t understand it, it may be that it isn’t the case that it is right in the first place.
3. “So what makes this idea of two wills non-biblical?”
The original claim was, “There are clearly two types of will that God expresses in the Bible. One is His moral will and the other is His sovereign will.”
Recall that this claim was made in reference to comments I’d made about God wanting to save all men. The problem for the Calvinist is to uphold the truth of this statement and at the same time reconcile it with the obvious reality that not all men will be saved. So, if God wants all to be saved but not all men are, and if God’s sovereign will is irresistible but his grace knows no limit, how then to solve this dilemma? Maybe, “God wants all men to be saved” isn’t a statement about God’s sovereign will and just maybe it’s another type of will. Hmmmm…let’s call it God’s moral will. Problem solved.” I don’t think so.
I just don’t see how the ‘want’ in “God wants all men to be saved” is an example of a moral will. This isn’t such a statement but one that gives perspicuous insight into God’s being. It is God’s nature to love all men and thus he has a desire to save all.
4. I said: “God is not divisible with respect to his being. For a Calvinist to suggest otherwise – and the 2 wills do accomplish this – is strangely ironic.”
Duane inquired: “You’ll need to expand on this a bit, because I am not sure what you mean by “divisible with respect to his being” and therefore I don’t follow how recognising that God’s will means different things in different contexts achieves this division.”
I alluded to it at the end of point 3 above. There appears to be an ontological tension in God’s being on the Calvinist view of things. That is, God wills that all men be saved yet this runs counterpoint to God’s putative sovereign will of actually only saving a few. Surely this presents itself as a schizophrenic theology in which God has a Janus-faced existence. It also seems to say that morally God is obliged to save all but does something quite different in practice. Saying one thing and doing another hardly constitutes clarity and simplicity.
5. Duane: “But to hold this passage up in isolation as evidence for your view, when it is the very meaning of these kinds of passages that we are discussing, begs the question.”
But you offer no unambiguous evidence to rebut my claim that “God wants all men to be saved” means exactly that. To reiterate the conundrum, the Calvinist is in an unenviable position of having to try to maintain his belief in the face of a theology which is clearly at odds with itself. That is, if only some get saved while at the same time the Bible promises God wants all to be saved, and God is omnipotent and his sovereignty always wins out, then the Calvinist is forced to argue that the “all” in ‘God wants all men to be saved” can’t mean ‘all’ despite its obvious and ordinary sense to mean ‘all’. To go to this length of seeking supported from such an ad hoc band-aid “solution” is theologically and logically unwarranted. Something must give. My suggestion is that it is the idea of sovereignty, of God on every occasion getting what he wants. God’s very being, indeed, his eternal existence, is to relate as father, not to be sovereign. The whole basis of God’s salvation plan is a reaching-out-to-us in a relationship of love. There are no 2 wills. It’s a distracting red-herring which takes our attention from the essential issue of who God is.
There are some verses which are stand alone verses. This is one of them. To argue otherwise, to accuse me of begging the question because I take this verse as crystal clear, while overlooking the fact that it is the Calvinist soteriology which has the problem, is hardly fair debating.
6. I said: “This is a tad circular. You assume that there are two wills, then slot the salvation question into the category which best suits your belief that God will only save a few.”
Duane responded: “Well first of all I didn’t assume it. I reasoned to it, in trying to make sense of God’s will in verses such as Daniel 4:35 contrasted with 2 Peter 3:9. Second, whether I am then applying this notion arbitrarily to issues of salvation I will take into consideration. But I cannot escape the plain and obvious notion of two wills.”
Nebuchadnezzar had almost deified himself and was obviously incredibly immoral (4:30), despite being pre-warned by Daniel (4:27). Daniel had even told him that if he changed his ways, he wouldn’t go mad. The future was open and it was entirely up to the king to make a choice, just like he has previously reasoned to the truth (2:47).
I don’t read this passage as God manipulating every moment of political reality. I see it as God knowing what the future will definitely bring if any man does action x. We don’t comprehensively know the circumstances but we do know the king had a choice. His future was not fixed and depended on whether he was to reject or accept God again.
Don’t forget the words you’re quoting are the king’s words, not Daniel’s or God’s. Do you really believe that all men on earth are “nothing”? Do you really believe that God believes that all men are “nothing”? It’s a piece of poetic hyperbole from the king when he’s humbled by the fact that his megalomaniacal vision came to naught.
7. Duane: “Yes, this is where I think commentary on the notions of sufficiency and efficiency. That is, the penalty Christ paid was sufficient for all of mankind even though it wasn’t applied to all – either through man’s own choice to reject the offer, or God’s independent election and subsequent action to save the elect.”
I am not a legalist (i.e. I don’t hermeneutically sift the biblical verses through a legal framework) and so Christ’s sacrifice is not a legal requirement but a demonstration and a fulfillment of God’s eternal character, the supreme sign of his commitment to bring us back into a relationship. The verses I seek support for this are from John 3:14-16. Jesus tells us that his death is pre-figured in the desert incident. Here we have an event where death entered Israel and law could not save them. Salvation came from outside of the law, something which even came after the law was given. The very thing that was killing them was to save them. This was a picture of the Cross. It had nothing to do with the demands of the law.
8. I said: “If the purpose of Israel’s leaving Egypt was to establish the nation of Israel so as to [bring] about the Messiah’s coming, why did God harden Pharaoh’s heart in order to stop Israel leaving? Surely, he would have put it into Pharaoh’s heart to allow his people to go. If Pharaoh, before the hardening, hadn’t wanted to keep the people there, why would God make him do the opposite? If Pharaoh had already not wanted to send the people out, then God didn’t really have to harden his heart because he was already obstinate.”
Duane replied: “Given your demonstrated knowledge in other areas I’m surprised that you would even ask this and can therefore only assume that the entire blurb is rhetorical. You would have been better off just making your point, which I am struggling to distil from all of that.”
No, it wasn’t a piece of rhetoric but a laying out of the limited logical possibilities that this passage entails. Calvinists use this passage to “prove” that God can overrule a person’s intentions (i.e. the hardening of Pharaoh by God) and then use it to “demonstrate” that mercy, and thus salvation, is limited.
9. Duane: “It’s clear to me from Ex 3-4 and from logical induction regarding the nature of slavery, that Pharaoh wanted the Israelites to remain and would require a “strong hand” to force his decision to free them. It’s also clear that God needed to harden Pharaoh’s heart because he would otherwise relent in awe of the miracles that were to be performed and let the Israelites go. So what is your point?”
I am a bit confused at your explanation: ‘relent’ to do what? And I don’t quite grasp your point as to why God would “need” to harden his heart if it was already hardened.
Pharaoh’s heart was already disinclined to let Israel go before the miracles came. God didn’t harden his heart but Pharaoh was already hardened and continued to do it to himself e.g. Ex 7:14, 1Sam 6:6. Pharaoh’s heart was hardened by the miracles God performed.
10. I said: “The Calvinist version of predestination doesn’t realize that Paul’s argument is actually an argument against the Calvinist version. Was it Esau or Jacob who was predestined for the inheritance? Why did Jacob get it if he wasn’t predestined? Because he wanted it and Esau didn’t!”
Duane said: “Sure, Jacob wanted it. So what? In hindsight I’m sure Esau did too. But again, I’m sorry, I’m just struggling to feel the weight of your argument here. God had told Rebekah before the twins were born that Esau would serve Jacob and then events ensued that brought that to pass. How is all of this related to God’s election of the saints?”
The passage is used by Calvinists to “prove” their version of predestination i.e. of the individual. That is, God wills whom he individually wants and damns those whom he doesn’t. As a non-Calvinist I hold it that God does not predestine individuals but the Church.
Esau was, according to the law, predestined to be the inheritor. The Bible tells us that Esau surrendered this “destiny”, not because God manipulated the whole event but because Jacob wanted it. (How God knew, well tomes could be written about it, yes?) Calvinism says that whether an individual person is saved or not is entirely up to God, and it uses these passages from Romans 9 to “prove” it. I’m saying that the passages do no such thing; in fact, they prove the opposite i.e. the individual who is “predestined” can give it up.
11. Duane said: “Sorry if I misunderstand the argument, but that sounds like a non-sequitur. All Ryft was trying to point out was that there is nothing about God’s character that impels him to save anyone, and yet there is a rather obvious reason why he should not.”
Disagree. There is something about God’s character that does compel him to save someone: It’s who is. He relates in love. It’s the very essence of what fathers do for their children.
12. “Or as Ryft so eloquently put it, “justice is God delivering what we deserve, while mercy is God withholding what we deserve.””
Way too glib. Sorry, that’s not the Gospel.
13. “But how does the way Jesus acted towards others in the Gospels argue against the notion that God should not save anyone? The concepts don’t appear to be directly related.”
“If you’ve seem me, you’ve seen the Father.” “[Jesus came] so that the world through him might be saved.”
How can you have these 2 statements existing comfortably alongside your statement that God by his nature shouldn’t save anyone? How can God act against his nature? Which is the real nature of God, love or that he shouldn’t save anyone?
14. “The statement, God is just, is just as true as God is love.”
‘Just’ is an adjective and after the copulative ‘is’ grammatically offers limited insight into God’s ontological essence. On the other hand, ‘love’ is an abstract noun and thus after the copulative explains who God actually is. An adjective after the copulative tells us a description or character of the person e.g. Jack is tall. Common nouns after the copulative tend to be tautological e.g. Jack is a man (we already know Jack is a man by his name.). Abstract nouns after the copulative are grammatical nonsense e.g. John is height. However, 1 John 4:16 is an exception. It makes perfect sense.
15. “That doesn’t work. If all are deserving of judgment and salvation really is undeserved, then whether God saves one sinner or one billion sinners is moot. On the principle you espouse, how does saving one undeserving person morally oblige God to save all undeserving persons? That’s like saying that because I chose to cancel the debt someone owed me, then I am now morally obliged to cancel all debts. Huh?”
Very circular. You leave out that it’s God’s nature to relate in love because he is love. It is by his nature to forgive all of us and the way he did this was to die for us, not as an act of legalism, but as an act of supreme love to draw us to him, just as the bronze serpent did for the Israelites.
It’s not about our “undeservedness” or about God being putatively obliged (both are straw men!) but it’s all about God’s very nature to redeem us. So, in a sense, because God is love, because he has forgiven one, he will forgive all. That is what the cross is all about.
16. I said: “Why on earth would God, only pick a few when he could choose all, and then say “You’re condemned because I haven’t chosen you.” “
Duane responded: “I agree that “why” is not a question that I can answer given my current theological position, other than to say that God’s treatment of both the saved and the un-saved bring him glory. But this is true even without a Calvinistic framework.”
I can’t see how in a Calvinist position God refusing to save someone, when he can, brings God glory. You’ll have to unpack that one for me.
17. “I don’t believe that scripture makes it clear why he acts to save some and not others, and yet it seems that he does exactly that”
I don’t see Scripture saying that at all.
Regards
Marc
October 16th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Fluke,
Totally agree with your assessment of Calvinism.
Your diasgreement with “my” view of things (I don’t label myself Arminian, btw!) is flawed. Paul clearly teaches that there is an imputation of Christ to people who seek to know the good and act (though of course inconsistently!) on this knowledge (see e.g. Romans 2:14ff).
The Bible, both in the Old and New testaments, is littered with examples of the “non-chosen” seeking truth. A good contemporaneous example is Tony Flew’s recent thoughful response to God through natural theology, a science Calvinism abhors.
With all due respect Fluke, I am unable to see your “god” in the Gospels’ historical record of Jesus. I can however see your “god” in many Christians’.
Regards
Marc
October 16th, 2009 at 10:48 am
My apologies, Ryft, but isolate the passage and I’ll respond, if I can.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:20 am
“The punishment is still dealt out. Just not to Stalin but Jesus instead.”
Adam,
Yes, I’m aware that under the Christian philosophy the punishment is still dealt, it’s just dealt to Jesus instead of Stalin. Yet, I think my point still stands…which is that if Stalin deserves punishment, then it is immoral to punish someone else and spare Stalin. For example, if someone kidnapped and murdered your daughter, and the judge said, “we’re going to release this murderer without punishment, and consider the punishment of Jesus enough to cover it”, I’m sure you’d have a problem with that. The point being, if someone truly deserves to be punished, it is immoral to not punish THAT PERSON specifically.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:40 am
“Your diasgreement with “my” view of things (I don’t label myself Arminian, btw!) is flawed. Paul clearly teaches that there is an imputation of Christ to people who seek to know the good and act (though of course inconsistently!) on this knowledge (see e.g. Romans 2:14ff).”
Marc,
First, sorry about the labeling. I’m mostly just applying these labels out of convenience.
As for your point that there is an imputation of Christ to people who seek to know good, I don’t think this view is reflected very well in the reality of our world. If this were truly the case, then Christianity would be much more evenly spread through-out the world. Those seeking truth and goodness through-out the world would naturally stumble upon Christ’s teachings and adhere to them. Yet, this is not the case. Scholars and philosophers and truth seekers in other countries usually just end up sticking to the religion of the region they’re from. This is because tradition, culture, and authority are the main driving forces behind religious beliefs. If you’re raised in Alabama, chances are you’ll find the word of Jesus very appealing, since everyone you know holds Jesus in such high esteem. Likewise, if you’re born in India, chances are you’ll find Hindu teachings to be very appealing, since that’s what you were raised with. An Indian driven to seek goodness on a religious level will most likely find that goodness in Hinduism, not in Christianity.
I think you’re trying to devise a way for everyone to get a fair chance at the “rope” of salvation. Yet, it’s plainly obvious that that’s just not the case.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Marc said “Very circular. You leave out that it’s God’s nature to relate in love because he is love. It is by his nature to forgive all of us and the way he did this was to die for us, not as an act of legalism, but as an act of supreme love to draw us to him, just as the bronze serpent did for the Israelites.
It’s not about our “undeservedness” or about God being putatively obliged (both are straw men!) but it’s all about God’s very nature to redeem us. So, in a sense, because God is love, because he has forgiven one, he will forgive all. That is what the cross is all about.”
Now I am confused. Are you saying that all are saved? Believer and unbeliever alike? If so then I don’t undestand why you would then argue Christianity to anyone. Since everyone ends up in heaven anyway. Why not eat, drink be merry for tomorrow we die and go straight to heaven? And why did Jesus talk at all about hell if it was not real. Or send anyone out into the world to tell of his sacrifice?
I’m sorry but If I am wrong on this assessment of your position can you please correct me? You are not a Calvinist or Arminian, so what exactly is your position on salvation? Who are saved and who (if any) are not?
October 16th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Adam,
I never said all are saved. In fact, if you read carefully I alluded to my not being a universalist. I said the process of atonement and redemption is meant for all. Hence, God WANTS all to be saved. Big difference.
This is why the rope analogy is more accurate (note, not completely) than all this unbiblical talk about God doesn’t have to save anyone etc.
You said: “If so then I don’t undestand why you would then argue Christianity to anyone. Since everyone ends up in heaven anyway. Why not eat, drink be merry for tomorrow we die and go straight to heaven? And why did Jesus talk at all about hell if it was not real. Or send anyone out into the world to tell of his sacrifice?”
This is a straw man and completely misrepresents my theology and soteriology. This misrepresentation is always the reaction to what a person says who does not believe that the shibboleth of Calvinism is the biblical position.
I’m not trying to be rude, it’s just my experience from listening to the Calvinist objections. “Oh, if you don’t believe Y what we believe, then you MUST believe ~Y.” Of course ~Y is often not a necessary logical derivative of Y. it could be that there are other ways of understanding God’s character, like A, B…X and Z! It’s also begging the question by believing that the Calvinist soteriology is the default position.
October 16th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Fluke,
It’s a quick read but may I recommend C.S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce’. He comes closest to what I believe “may” happen with regard to those in India etc.
Btw, having spent some time in India I can “reassure” you that country is not devoid of Christian witness.
In any case, the majority of Christians, no matter what side of the soteriological divide we come from, know that your Creator is not some deistic passive God who doesn’t have input to the world.
A question for you.
Before the Spaniards came to the Americas and the Aztecs etc were sacrificing millions of humans to their gods, would you consider that a morally reprehensible act?
October 16th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Sorry Marc, I did not mean to throw accusations around as to what you believe. Which is why I started with ‘if’ and ended with please correct me. Sometimes these conversations get a little high brow and I get lost trying to understand all these big ideas expressed using even bigger words at times.
If I can ask then, if God “wants” all to be saved then why aren’t all actually saved?
October 16th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Adam asks: “If I can ask then, if God “wants” all to be saved then why aren’t all actually saved?”
There is a prevailing dogma in Christian circles that God is omnipotent. I understand the concept was borrowed from Greek thinking, in particular Aristotle. Your question, Adam, causes a problem for Calvinistic type theology, not mine. I do not hold that God possesses Greek omnipotence (or even Greek omniscience). The Bible is not a Greek text but Jewish. There are innumerable verses that argue against God’s “Greekness”. That is, God does not always get what he wants.
Put simply, God doesn’t probably save all because men can refuse his free gift of eternal salvation. The Bible says that one example of the unwise man is he who denies the existence of our Creator and does not seek him. The evidence for our Creator is all around us and we have a mind to reject or accept that evidence. That’s why not all men are saved, despite the offer being freely available. We can only but reason with another’s mind to demonstrate that there is a Creator, that the world did not evolve by chance chemical accidents.
October 16th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Two passages came to mind. The first providing an example of God’s reaching out and wanting to relate but our not wanting. The second is that there are some who do right because of their inner conviction.
Luke 13:34 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!
Luke 14:12-14,12 “Then He also said to him who invited Him, “When you give a dinner or a supper, do not ask your friends, your brothers, your relatives, nor rich neighbors, lest they also invite you back, and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”
October 16th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
This is a logical non-sequitur. Failing to understand x does not equate with failing to understand y. It is not my position but rather God’s will that is incomprehensible. I frequently talk about the incomprehensibility of God’s will precisely because I do understand my own position, as informed by responsible exegesis of scriptures.
You are begging the question here, sir. That God wills to save some is not an assumption but a conclusion, one that is drawn from a vast wealth of biblical revelations, for the Bible most certainly does mention such things. You may be content with simply asserting your position as correct without the bother of a critical examination, but others here might be somewhat uncomfortable with making pronouncements about arguments not yet presented.
I challenge you to name just one. In full disclosure, from both testaments of the biblical record I could cite scores of examples where God selectively chose to save some sinners and not others. Before I even finished writing that sentence, two examples hit my mind immediately: Noah and Lot. If the discriminating mercy of God Most High jars against what you intuitively consider to be morally good, I would question what you have calibrated your moral compass against and what you think mercy means. That from this mass of undeserving sinners God chose to save anyone at all is a grace that simply defies any hope of expression; any words that I could call into service would absolutely pale in comparison to how incomprehensibly awe-inspiring I consider that grace to be.
So that means God chose those nations? Of course not. Ergo, Duane’s point still stands.
Or perhaps it could mean that Duane is a relatively new Christian who is willing to acknowledge that he is a sinner rescued by God, admitting along with the apostle Paul that there exists a tension between his spiritual and fleshly nature, open to the fact that the latter heatedly rebels against the former, that he is not infallible and his feelings should be informed by and align themselves with God’s Word rather than the other way around. Maybe Duane is learning and growing in the knowledge of God, carefully examining both sides of the issue and taking it to God in prayerful study of his Word, and perhaps discovering exactly how morally right it is and how utterly blasphemous the alternative is. And it may be that Duane knows it is a case of the Argument from Incredulity fallacy to think, “If I don’t understand it, then it’s not the case.” Just maybe.
What I want the readers of this blog to understand is that such a problem is not at all unique to Calvinism. The Arminian must contend with precisely the same quandary. The Calvinist, having learned of the two wills of God from elsewhere in Scriptures, finds reason to apply that revelation to this issue and is happy to discover that it resolves it. The Arminian, on the other hand, chooses to resolve the conflict by blaspheming the holy name of God: he denies the omnipotence of God by ascribing failure to him, directly contradicting Scriptures by asserting that sinners can thwart what God purposes, that God can will something and it not come to pass; he denies the efficacy of Christ’s atoning sacrifice in his claim that Christ died for the sins of all mankind, that his life, death, and resurrection did not propitiate God’s wrath and did not expiate the sinner’s guilt, again directly contradicting Scriptures; either that or he denies that God is holy and just by admitting that God’s wrath was indeed satisfied and the sinner’s guilt was indeed removed, thereby leaving God with no reason but malevolent sadism in condemning sinners to the fires of hell.
Talk about unenviable positions! “It is Calvinist soteriology which has the problem”? It turns out that it is more consistent with Scriptures to admit God has two wills, especially when we find so many demonstrations thereof throughout the Bible. There is what God purposes of himself (decretive will) on the one hand, and what God commands of mankind (prescriptive will) on the other, a reality we find exposed all throughout Scriptures but perhaps nowhere more clearly than at the cross of Christ, a day that saw countless sins committed (violations of God’s prescriptive will) and yet a day that God ordained from eternity (actualizing God’s decretive will). There is also God’s command that we affirm the name of Christ and yet him ordaining that Peter deny even knowing Christ. There are the sins committed by Joseph’s brothers and yet God had willed it happen. And so on. There is a clear distinction between what God wills of himself and what he wills of mankind: two wills.
Seriously? 1 John 3:21-24; cf. Rom. 10:9-10.
Similar to how God wills that his commands are obeyed and yet wills disobedience thereof (e.g., 2 Sam. 24:1; cf. 1 Chr. 21:1)? Nevertheless, it is not an ontological tension: our moral culpability, what he wills of us, is not identical ontologically to his redemptive purposes, what he wills of himself.
The future is open. God is simply a good guesser. There it is, Duane, the Greg Boyd and ‘open theism’ red flag. God is not sovereign, he is not omnipotent, he is not omniscient, he is not transcendent…
No one pretended it was. What a bizarre objection.
It was a moral obligation his death satisfied, not a legal one. I am not aware of anyone who proposes that his death satisfied some legal point; certainly Reformed theology posits nothing of the sort.
Questions for Marc to answer:
1. Did God intend to save all mankind?
2. Did Christ die for the sins of all mankind?
October 17th, 2009 at 4:45 am
“It’s a quick read but may I recommend C.S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce’. He comes closest to what I believe “may” happen with regard to those in India etc.”
Marc, there’s probably a 0.01% chance that I’ll actually read this book. So, would you mind providing a brief summary of what Lewis says “may” happen to Indians.
October 17th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Luke 13:34, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!” (emphasis added)
October 18th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Everyone, I’ll get back to you in a few days.
October 20th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Ryft, a simple question: What do you think 2 Peter 3:9 means?
October 20th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Fluke,
Re the Indians, their situation is no different to an atheist here in the West. Paul argues that you can reason to the existence of a Creator by looking at his handiwork, just like one posits a builder and architect behind a house. Anything with extraordinary complexity and with such highly specified information requires more than mere chance and time to explain its existence. An atheist says that chemical accident after chemical accident gave us the genetic code for life. Hindus argue that gods with a hundred arms who eat people and half man half elephant creatures are the explanation. Both however do not explain the reality that’s before us. Being Indian here in the West or in India is a red herring.
October 25th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Ryft,
There is a question for you above.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:04 am
Quick question for all.
Does everyone get a choice? Do the non-elect get a choice to reject or accept God? Does God, knowing those who will not freely choose Him, deny them that choice?
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:37 am
As I understand it, Adam…the Calvinist position is that the non-elect do not have the option of choosing salvation. As Ryft put it, the non-elect are like corpses….and corpses can not choose salvation.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:09 am
I’m a little hazy on the issue but I thought that there is some sort of freewill choice made for God in the Calvinist view of salvation. God, knowing what that choice will be, acts accordingly by diving in to retrieve those corpses of the bottom of the ocean of those that choose Him.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:38 am
NOTE: My apologies for the delay in responding. I got absolutely swamped at work, averaging nearly 16 hours a day over the last couple weeks. However, on the weekends when I had free time, I was working on my response to your question, Marc, and with my apologies for the lag time, here it is.
Very simply, 2 Peter 3:9 means precisely what it says. Every time this passage is brought into question, the problem hinges less upon what it means and more importantly upon what it says. You see, most people don’t even know what it says because they have become accustomed to using the passage as a proof-text, reading it in isolation rather than interpreting it in context, as though Peter’s second epistle was not actually a complete letter but a collection of pithy sayings. When you start asking relevant questions about Peter’s second letter, like who he was writing to, you move beyond proof-texting errors into responsible exegesis and consequently discover what it says…
…and therefore what it means.
But before we get into that, let us first assume that it means what you think it does, that God does not want anyone whatsoever to perish. And let us further assume along with you that there are no distinctions in what God wills, that he has but one will. If we understand his singular will here in the decretive sense (i.e., that which God decrees or ordains shall happen), then we discover a violent contradiction between this understanding and what the Bible declares elsewhere, in so many places, about the enduring force of God’s will, about how his purposes cannot be thwarted, about how God is able to do whatever he pleases in all his creation for he is almighty and sovereign over all things. If this passage means that it is God’s holy decree that no one whatsoever perish, then the fact that so many ultimately end up perishing means that God can—and does—fail, that his purposes can be thwarted, that he sometimes cannot do as he pleases, that he is neither almighty nor sovereign. It shipwrecks countless scriptures.
In every case I have observed, the fundamental reason people give for God’s inability to accomplish what he ordains (in this case, the redemption of literally all mankind) is the notion that God is either unable or unwilling to violate man’s free will, a notion for which there is not a single shred of scriptural evidence. That is bad enough in itself, but it is made all the worse by the wealth of scriptural evidence of God not only being able to violate man’s free will but his precisely doing so, from Genesis clear through to Revelation (cf. Exo. 21:13; Gen. 20:6, Rev. 17:17). So the fact that this interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 creates such violent contradictions, plus the fact that its underlying assumption is without scriptural support at best and contradicted by numerous biblical passages at worse, we have ample, solid reason to consider such an interpretation as highly improbable.
If we understand his singular will here in the prescriptive sense (i.e., that which God prescribes or commands should happen), then we find no overt contradictions with other scriptures. But it does create a problematic dissonance in the context of the passage, for it seems out of harmony with not only the text itself but the context of the letter overall. It does not exactly make sense to understand it as saying, “God is patient with you, not commanding anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance.” While it is certainly true that God commands everyone to come to repentance, it is nonsensical to think Peter is reminding his readers that God does not command anyone to perish. That creates a monkey wrench in the flow of the text that gives us reason to think it is a rather improbable reading.
So if God’s will here is in neither a decretive nor prescriptive sense, what other sense is there for us to take it in? Well, that is a conclusion I do not feel we have reached yet. This passage certainly is referring to God’s will in its decretive sense, but the question is less theological and more exegetical; in other words, the issue is not about the nature of God’s will so much as the identity of who Peter is talking about. Many people like you use this as a proof-text that God’s purpose was to save literally all mankind without discrimination, an easy and tempting instinct when this verse is isolated from its context—the chapter, the letter overall, and the letter that preceded it. But the passage itself is clear about who is being referred to. First of all, the complete verse reads:
And that is the vital key so many people overlook: “with you.” Peter has a specific group of hearers; the context of “anyone” and “everyone” Peter is referring to is defined by the “you” he is writing to. That direct relationship is important to note. Consider the following illustration.
Imagine that you have called a staff meeting. As you stand looking over the people gathered in the board room, you announce, “We cannot afford to have anyone miss this information, so before I get to what I have to tell you, I need to know if everyone is here.” Obviously you are not asking if all six billion people on the planet are present in the board room; moreover, you are certainly not asking if all people who have existed, do exist, and will ever exist are present. The “anyone” and “everyone” are directly related to the “you” being addressed—your staff members.
The Lord is patient with you, Peter said. That is a vital key too often missed: the Lord does not want “anyone” (of those he is patient with) to perish, he wants “everyone” (of those he is patient with) to come to repentance. So then who is this “you” Peter is addressing in his letter? All mankind indiscriminately?
Back up to the first verse. We find Peter saying, “My friends, this is now my second letter to you.” So those who his letter is speaking to isn’t all mankind without discrimination but rather his friends that he has already written to once before. Moreover, the beginning of the letter (2 Peter 1:1) is addressed even more clearly still: Peter is writing “to those who, through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ, have received a faith as precious as ours.” Obviously what Peter has to say is not addressed to all mankind because not all mankind has received the faith of the apostles. He is addressing the faithful flock of Christ. Peter had a specific mission with a specific message.
But it is important to remember that this message of his in 2 Peter 3:9 is being addressed to friends he has written to before. So what will we find out about these people from that first letter of his? We will find out that they are (1 Peter 1:1) “God’s elect . . . who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood.” That is who God is patient with in 2 Peter 3:9, who he will not have perish but have come to repentance. God is patient with you, my friends, to whom I have written before, who have received the faith of the apostles, God’s elect, chosen by the Father through the Spirit for the Son. God is patient with you, such that every single one will be redeemed.
This understanding gains even further support still when you read elsewhere in the Scriptures that God has a select remnant of Israel chosen by grace and a select number of Gentiles. God is not slow in keeping his promise; he is being patient, waiting until that full number of God’s chosen has been fulfilled (cf. 2 Pet. 3:15). In other words, the Day of the Lord will not come until all those he has chosen have been born and redeemed. God’s people must not be impatient with God and his timetable, but faithful and praising the glory of his plan set from eternity, humbled and giving thanks to his incomprehensible mercy. Not only does this interpretation make sense, it is the only one that does.
Under an Arminian understanding, 2 Peter 3:9 makes very little sense because it holds that God’s plan gets thwarted quite routinely. He does not want anyone at all to perish, yet innumerable billions have and will. He wants literally everyone to come to repentance, yet innumerable billions have not and will not. The sinful desires of mankind is more important to God than his own righteous glory.
Under a Reformed understanding, 2 Peter 3:9 makes perfect sense—within the context of that verse itself, within the context of the letter overall and the one before it, within the context of letters written by other apostles, and so forth. God’s own righteous glory is more important to God than the sinful desires of mankind. As John Piper has said: for God to deny the infinite worth of his own glory, "he would imply that there is something more valuable outside himself. He would commit idolatry . . . Where will we find a Rock of integrity in the universe when the heart of God has ceased to value supremely the supremely valuable?"
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
First, not only is there no biblical support for the popular view of autonomous free will (i.e., libertarianism) but a very clear and resounding scriptural case against such a view, from the nature of man’s sinful condition to the almighty reach of God’s sovereignty over his creation, including countless references to God having power over man’s will in both potentiality (is able to) and actuality (has done so). See for example Sennacherib king of Assyria choosing to do as he willed, and yet God said he maintained sovereign control the whole time, as a woodsman controls the axe, while the king was held morally culpable (Isa. 10:5-19; cf. 2 Kings 19:20-37, 2 Chr. 32:9-22). It is impossible to maintain the popular view of autonomous free will when passages like this directly contradict it.
Second, my illustration of God diving into the ocean to retrieve dead corpses is an illustration of salvation as a whole. Let me repeat that: salvation as a whole. That means the entire scope of salvation, from everlasting (our election) to everlasting (our final glorification) and every step in between (e.g., repentance, justification, sanctification, etc.). Although we participate in our salvation, God is the final author thereof at every point (2 Tim. 2:24-26, Heb. 12:2, Phil. 2:13, Rom. 8:29-30, and so on). In short, if we choose him it is because he dove in and revived us.
Does John 6:37 say, “All who will come to me the Father gives me”? No.
Does John 10:26 say, “You are not my sheep because you do not believe”? No.
Does Acts 13:48 say, “All who believed were appointed for eternal life”? No.
Does 1 John 5:1 say, “If you believe Jesus is the Christ, you will be born of God”? No.
Prayerfully consider the powerful teaching found in every single clause of 2 Thes. 2:13-14: “But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Third… well, when it comes to describing the sense in which we are corpses on the floor of the ocean and in need of rescuing, I could not state the matter any more succinctly or clearly than did Arthur Pink, John Piper, and Mitch Cervinka, so I will quote them:
Arthur Pink wrote:
John Piper wrote:
Mitch Cervinka wrote:
So yes, we are commanded to respond in faith and repentance in Christ, but in obstinate rebellion against God we absolutely refuse to—until God miraculously regenerates our hearts of stone, breathing new life into our spiritual corpses, enabling our moral affections to seek the true and living God, which we absolutely do because what God purposes to do never, ever fails. As the disciple John said, “All that the Father gives me WILL come to me.” Every single one of God’s sheep will be saved, and that without fail.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Ryft,
The reason I asked the question is because I have a friend at Church who was insisting that all get a choice. And that we are not simply robots who can do no other than what our programming dictates. This is consistent with the Biblical message of Jesus’ sacrifice for all.
So, autonomous free will aside, is there not some sort of, say, “limited” free will going on for everyone during their lives where they either accept God or reject Him? Would such a choice take the form of following the religion of your country even if Christianity is nowhere to be seen or heard there? Or perhaps the choice is made when we reject natural revelation obvious in the universe around us?
What I really want to know is: what form the “command to respond in faith and repentance in Christ” comes in to everyone?
I’m not trying to be argumentative here or anything, I’m just trying to flesh out orthodoxy and understand how it all works.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Adam,
Perhaps the simplest response to your friend would take the form of a question: “Where in the Bible does it say that all get a choice?” What this question seeks to find out is whether that belief was brought to the Bible (eisegesis) or acquired from the Bible (exegesis). If the latter, then he should be able to show you where.
I am also curious about his notion that we “can do no other than what our programming dictates,” such that I wonder what he means by “programming.” If it refers to our sinful nature—that outside of Christ, our nature is sinful and choices are not made apart from our nature—then it’s actually true that we can do no other than what our programming dictates.
And finally, I wonder if your friend has thought about what was accomplished by Christ laying down his life—that it was a substitutionary atonement, that it propitiated God’s wrath, that it expiated our guilt, and so forth—and therefore what the result would be if Christ laid down his life for all mankind, the theological and soteriological ramifications.
As for the “command to respond in faith and repentance in Christ,” that is heard through the preaching of the gospel, which means it is heard wherever the gospel is preached—i.e., worldwide.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:41 am
So, in summation, God knows what our choice will be given a certain set of circumstances. And for those He knew would choose Him, He makes those circumstances a reality which in effect “elects” us.
Is that a fair generalisation?
November 10th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
No, I would say that is inaccurate. That says God elects (chooses) those who chose him, which turns numerous scriptures on their heads. God does not elect people based on their desire or effort; that would make election a product of merit rather than grace. The basis upon which God elects people is his sovereign mercy, which can operate only where the demands of justice have been fully satisfied (the atoning sacrifice of Christ Jesus).
If God knows that we will choose him when given a certain set of circumstances, then he must actualize those circumstances in order for us to choose him; i.e., first God’s choice (election), then the right circumstances (regeneration), then our choice (faith). God does not choose us because we first chose him. We choose God because he first chose us.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Ryft,
His response was to cite the door and knock passages. Those in the Gospels seem to indicate that we do the knocking, to which Jesus will open the door. And the one in Revelation seems to indicate that Jesus knocks on the door and those that answer will receive Jesus.
How do these passages fit in Calvinistic theory?
November 11th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
I’m sorry, the door-and-knock passages in the gospels? Did your friend metaphorically wave his hand in some vague direction or did he cite actual passages? Exegetical evaluation is difficult without specific texts in hand. The question was, “Where in the Bible does it say that all get a choice?”—because it is at once both relevant and important to find out whether this is a foregone conclusion being brought to the Bible, or truth acquired responsibly from the Bible.
Take as our available example the passage in Revelation 3:20. Did your friend notice the verse just before it and what it says? Did he observe what verse 14 says about who is being addressed? Is he aware that the first chapter of this book clearly states that these are letters being written to churches (1:4)? Whether literally or symbolically, the message of 3:20 is addressed to believers who already have a relationship with God, with an allusion to Song of Solomon 5:2 in that Christ is seeking a renewal of relationship with his Bride who are in danger of forgetting their dependence on the providence of God’s grace (q.v. Greg K. Beale, The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Book of Revelation, pg. 308). Many Christians tend to use this passage as a message for unbelievers, but in fact it is written for the beloved Bride of Christ, whether literally in Laodicea or symbolically of all those who in their covenant relationship to Christ have turned lukewarm.
Although a basic principle can be inferred from it with respect to unbelievers, one must remember that those who hear his voice and open the door Jesus identified as his sheep given to him by the Father (i.e., the elect): “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27; compare 10:29, “The Father, who has given them to me…” and 6:37, “All that the Father gives me will come to me”). Responsible hermeneutics must be committed to exegesis that is conscious of theological themes and the details of the historical, linguistic, and textual context.
Incidentally, something else bothers me about your earlier statement, which I want to share and get your thoughts on. “For those God knew would choose him,” you said, “he makes those circumstances a reality, which in effect ‘elects’ us.” That makes his electing activity temporal and ongoing (i.e., at innumerable points of time throughout the history of mankind—this date for Shalhoub, that date for Smith, et cetera). But the scriptures tell us that God’s electing activity occurred before the foundation of the world, that his choice took place not only before we were alive but prior to creation itself. He elected us in eternity, not in time.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
My fault on the door and knock point…I was being lazy and didn’t look up the exact verses. He was talking of the one in Rev 3:20 which you clarified, thanks. But I thought the ones in the gospels would come up in the future. Matt 7:7-8 and Luke 11:9-10 are the ones I should have spent the time quoting. In Matt we have those asking will receive almost straight after instruction on dealing with aggressive unbelievers. Are these passages that are interpreted in light of other more specific Calvinistic passages or can the meaning be determined from the passages themselves?
My fault on that last one too. Poor choice of words. It’s something I have to work on, getting my point across preciseley. I understand and believe that election was before the foundation of the world.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
The meaning of the passages can be determined from the passages themselves, of course—as is the case for practically any passage of scriptures. Notice that my response to Marc on 2 Peter 3:9 and to you on Revelation 3:20 both were primarily an internal examination of the texts in themselves. When I do bring other scriptures to bear on the subject, it is to demonstrate the coherence and consistency of the interpretation across the scriptures, sometimes contrasted with how a competing view introduces contradictions or inconsistencies to relevant passages elsewhere.
You said that Matthew 7:7-8 follows on the heels of Christ’s remarks “on dealing with aggressive unbelievers.” Before writing anything on this reference, I should first like to ask how you came to interpret them as unbelievers. With your conclusion on the table before us, can you tell me how you reached it? Then we can look at verses 7 to 8 afterwards.
P.S. Could I succeed in encouraging you to stop injecting the term “Calvinistic” as a description of select exegesis? Not only does it serve as a pejorative in many cases, it is also completely irrelevant because the issue isn’t whether or not an interpretation is Calvinistic but whether or not it’s scriptural truth. We are examining Christ and the word of truth, not Calvin and his works.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:25 am
I see verse 6 refering to unbelievers:
“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”
I read this verse at face value. Thats how I came to the conclusion that dogs and pigs trampling the truth and then turning on the believer are in fact unbelievers.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
1. Ryft said: “[L]et us first assume that [2 Peter 3:9] means what you think it does, that God does not want anyone whatsoever to perish. And let us further assume along with you that there are no distinctions in what God wills, that he has but one will. If we understand his singular will here in the decretive sense (i.e., that which God decrees or ordains shall happen), then we discover a violent contradiction between this understanding and what the Bible declares elsewhere, in so many places, about the enduring force of God’s will, about how his purposes cannot be thwarted, about how God is able to do whatever he pleases in all his creation for he is almighty and sovereign over all things. If this passage means that it is God’s holy decree that no one whatsoever perish, then the fact that so many ultimately end up perishing means that God can—and does—fail, that his purposes can be thwarted, that he sometimes cannot do as he pleases, that he is neither almighty nor sovereign. It shipwrecks countless scriptures.”
Talk about begging the question! Who said God always gets what he wants?
Are you really saying that God wanted Adam to sin because if, on your account, Adam sinned, then God must have wanted it?
When the Scriptures state that “the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart”, then God, on your view, at the time he made Adam and everything was very good, also knew then and then that he was going to be sorry he made man. Thus, God foreknowing he would rue making man and be grieved about doing it, still went ahead because his purpose of being grieved in the heart could not be thwarted. That is, God’s purpose was to have “the earth [be] filled with violence” because if it wasn’t filled with violence this state of affairs would run contrary to God’s will and thus the earth’s not being filled with violence would be thwarting his will to have the earth be filled with violence. Yep, makes perfect sense to me!
2. Ryft said: “In every case I have observed, the fundamental reason people give for God’s inability to accomplish what he ordains (in this case, the redemption of literally all mankind) is the notion that God is either unable or unwilling to violate man’s free will, a notion for which there is not a single shred of scriptural evidence.”
That, mate, is a straw man!
Again, on your account, the sin of the world must have been something God wanted because if he didn’t want it, it wouldn’t exist. The fact that sin does exist can only mean one of two things: either it exists because God desired it and God always gets what he wants or God didn’t want it and God doesn’t always get what he desires.
I may not be the smartest bloke west of Alpha Centauri, but it seems to me that it’s a fairly uncomplicated equation and to invoke two wills or some other defensive posture is really throwing your lot in with mysticism. It’s entirely unnecessary and just makes the Christian message far too intellectual. The simple Gospel is that we have corporately and individually taken up arms against our Creator and God didn’t want his creation to be in such a state and has taken steps to reconcile us back to him.
3. Ryft said: “That is bad enough in itself, but it is made all the worse by the wealth of scriptural evidence of God not only being able to violate man’s free will but his precisely doing so, from Genesis clear through to Revelation (cf. Exo. 21:13; Gen. 20:6, Rev. 17:17). So the fact that this interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 creates such violent contradictions, plus the fact that its underlying assumption is without scriptural support at best and contradicted by numerous biblical passages at worse, we have ample, solid reason to consider such an interpretation as highly improbable.”
May I suggest Ryft that you take your Calvinist glasses off for a moment and read the passages you marked out with a little less bias.
When I read Ex. 21:13 I was immediately struck by its peculiar language. Indeed, it would be beneficial for us if you took some of your own medicine that you’ve been freely dispensing to others. I suggest that you read it in context.
And that context is that it sits between two verses outlining the penalty for murder. Verse 13 is quite clearly talking about manslaughter and I have no idea how you came about that this verse supports your claim that God overrules people’s wills. You’ll have to unpack that one for us heretics!
The verb used, anah, in the piel, as far as I can tell, occurs only once in the Bible. Harkavy translates it as “God let it come into his hand”. It’s an unusual expression and I wouldn’t be so bold as to base a whole theology on what seems to be an idiomatic expression. To wrench out that God overrules so-and-so’s will from “delivered him into his hand” (NKJ) seems way too tendentious. After all, the verse is one verse merely setting out a criminal statute concerning accidental killings.
Re Genesis 20:6, what’s your point? Ditto Revelation.
One perennial tactic Calvinists use is to take one or two particular instances of something which supports their view, and then make it a universal. So, one or two possible instances of God overruling a person’s thoughts means that God always does it. Therefore, humans are nothing but robots for God’s end purposes. How charming!
4. Ryft said: “If we understand his singular will here in the prescriptive sense (i.e., that which God prescribes or commands should happen), then we find no overt contradictions with other scriptures. But it does create a problematic dissonance in the context of the passage, for it seems out of harmony with not only the text itself but the context of the letter overall. It does not exactly make sense to understand it as saying, “God is patient with you, not commanding anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance.” While it is certainly true that God commands everyone to come to repentance, it is nonsensical to think Peter is reminding his readers that God does not command anyone to perish. That creates a monkey wrench in the flow of the text that gives us reason to think it is a rather improbable reading.”
If none can be lost, if the elect can’t perish, why would Peter in 3:9 write to “us”, the elect, as though he were warning the elect that it is possible that they could perish and be lost? That is, if Peter is intending to mean that “The Lord…is long-suffering towards us [the elect], not willing that any [of the elect] should perish but that all [of the elect] should come to repentance”, and Peter’s readers all understand that the elect cannot perish because God only selects those individuals that he preordains will be saved, isn’t Peter merely stating a triviality, at best, a tautology at worst? If God’s will for any one particular elect is irresistible, is Peter really saying much at all? After all, the precise number of “all” in “all come to repentance” can’t fail to eventuate. From eternity, on the Calvinist view, not one of the “all” can fail to repent because God has willed this exact number, so I can’t see that this verse is in any way revelatory. Why would it give anyone any extra hope?
And of course, Peter’s expression of God’s desire dovetails rather smoothly with Ezekiel 18:23, 32.
On the non-Calvinist view of Peter’s verse, we learn from Peter that the future is open, that God takes no pleasure in the death of any man and that God really wants all people to be with him.
5. Ryft said: “Many people like you use this as a proof-text that God’s purpose was to save literally all mankind.”
Yes, Ryft, it is true that many people like me do believe that it is God’s purpose to save all mankind. It is a terribly outrageous and blasphemous belief, isn’t it! Here I am thinking all along that me cursing others was the wrong thing to do because Jesus said it was wrong, but God damning others to eternal hell when he could save them against their will but won’t is right because God says it right.
6. Ryft said: “The Lord is patient with you, Peter said. That is a vital key too often missed: the Lord does not want “anyone” (of those he is patient with) to perish, he wants “everyone” (of those he is patient with) to come to repentance. So then who is this “you” Peter is addressing in his letter? All mankind indiscriminately?”
Context, context, context. Peter was encouraging people because of the attacks by the scoffers. He wanted them to not lose faith as a result of the skeptics’ philosophy that God had no input into the earth’s affairs (v.4). It was to bolster their faith that if God promises something, he will deliver. Verse 9 is almost parenthetical to the chapter’s main purpose. It provides the reason behind the long wait for God’s return. Indeed, if the verse is meant to be read the way you read it, why would Peter warn the reader that he or she could fall away (verse 17)?
7. Ryft states that God’s mercy is incomprehensible. For someone who believes that God’s mercy cannot be understood, you sure do right an awful lot about it.
8. Ryft writes: “Under an Arminian understanding, 2 Peter 3:9 makes very little sense because it holds that God’s plan gets thwarted quite routinely. He does not want anyone at all to perish, yet innumerable billions have and will. He wants literally everyone to come to repentance, yet innumerable billions have not and will not. The sinful desires of mankind is more important to God than his own righteous glory.”
I’ll ignore the straw man here, but let me say to the others on this thread that the other option (i.e. Ryft’s), in which God does want most people to perish, does not want everyone to come to repentance, and purposely refuses help to 99% of humans who have, do and will live, is hardly commensurate with a being who is love. Sorry to have to say this but I can only conclude that the only being who gains from that is ol’ Nick; for surely, the only being who would see it as a plus that so many people will not be joining God for eternity is the Devil himself. It couldn’t be God, but on Ryft’s “theology” it’s just what God wants.
9. Ryft quotes John Piper, “[for God to deny the infinite worth of his own glory] he would imply that there is something more valuable outside himself. He would commit idolatry . . . Where will we find a Rock of integrity in the universe when the heart of God has ceased to value supremely the supremely valuable?”
Oh, such silly sophomoric sophistry from Piper! In any case, God did think there was something more valuable. Has not Piper understood John 3:16? For God so loved the world that he gave his own life for us!
10. Ryft says: “In short, if we choose him it is because he dove in and revived us.”
You can’t have it both ways. If our will is not to turn to God, then God’s overturning our will doesn’t make this new will ours, it’s God’s. If God changes our will against our will, then we are naught by robots. It’s a jejune argument where you want your cake and to eat it too.
11. Ryft asks: “Does John 6:37 say, “All who will come to me the Father gives me”? No.”
It appears so cut and dried when you quote a verse in isolation from its context, context, context.
In verse 28, the people ask Jesus how to serve God. Jesus replies that they should believe in him. Verse 34 records that the people want the bread of life. Verse 40 has Jesus stating that it is the will of the Father that if people see and believe Jesus, they will live eternally. Now, if God’s action means that only the ones that God overturns their will will come to him, then what Jesus says is a triviality and is a cruel joke.
As for the rest of the verses you quoted, I think you should go and hang out with a few Jews. You’ve totally misunderstood ancient Middle Eastern Jewish culture, rabbinical teaching methods and Jesus’ beautiful sense of irony and his genuine human ability to stir his opponents up to make them really seek God’s kingdom. As an active evangelical who regularly has a stall at festivals and the like, it is a great technique to gain someone’s attention when you know they’re not focusing. The subtlety was obviously lost on you.
12. Ryft states that Christ’s death was “a substitutionary atonement, that it propitiated God’s wrath, that it expiated our guilt, and so forth”
Well, that’s one way of looking at it, and of course is the shibboleth for Calvinists. On the other hand, some of us don’t believe in the Calvinist schizophrenic God, the one that says “I am love…but I couldn’t be bothered saving 99% of the rest of humanity when I could by merely overruling their wills like I did with the 1%.
13. Ryft writes that the “command to respond in faith and repentance in Christ,” that is heard through the preaching of the gospel, which means it is heard wherever the gospel is preached—i.e., worldwide.”
Yep, seems like a real purposeful event when it is God’s will directly overturning our will that brings about change. Why would you need the Gospel to be heard if God can just overturn people’s will?
November 15th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Ryft said: “In every case I have observed, the fundamental reason people give for God’s inability to accomplish what he ordains (in this case, the redemption of literally all mankind) is the notion that God is either unable or unwilling to violate man’s free will, a notion for which there is not a single shred of scriptural evidence.”
Ryft said: “The sinful desires of mankind is more important to God than his own righteous glory.”
Surely God is unwilling to violate man’s free will, otherwise what is man? A written book? Only in the important ways, right? If God was willing to violate a man’s free will in this way, then man would effectively have no free will. Faith couldn’t even really exist either. I bet God loves forcing a ‘relationship’ upon humans. Talk about righteous glory. That’d be like me building an army of paper soldiers. Glorious? Yea…
If God creates all - ’saving’ some and ‘destroying’ others - and free will does not stand then God must have been mistaken in creating many. Does God want sin? Does God create some people simply to destroy them? Well, then maybe He wasn’t mistaken afterall. What is wrong with God in that case though? Perhaps I should build two houses, like God - one to live in and one to burn down.
You say there is not a shred of scriptural evidence, but I doubt that with confidence. In my experience the Bible jives with common sense. Ryft seems to have missed the boat, but more likely his heart has misdirected his mind into absurdity. Marc makes excellent points.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
All right, thank you for describing how you reached that conclusion. Now, consider a couple of things here.
First, notice that there is nothing in verse 6 by itself which identifies who these dogs and pigs are, that is, whether they are believers or unbelievers. Ergo, reading that verse “at face value” cannot by itself produce the inference you drew, which means it had to come from elsewhere (and therefore should be checked for validity). Moreover, even a casual reading of the New Testament exposes a person to the fact that often those who knew God trampled his pearls and attacked his children, to numerous instances where Christ himself condemns such white-washed hypocrites, and to countless warnings in the apostolic epistles about them. So do pigs and dogs represent unbelievers? Rarely, it seems. From the scope of the evidence it is more often an image representing those who knew God, believers who rejected the ministry of Christ.
Second, I find little reason to tie the seekers of verse 7 with the hypocrites of verses 1-6 preceding it, for doing so needlessly derails synoptic harmony (of when Matthew, Mark, and Luke are found saying the same thing, it is received as them recounting the same circumstance ). Consider that whereas Matthew typically presents the sayings of Jesus in large blocks of teaching material, Mark and Luke tend to place the sayings into specific settings. In this case, we know from Luke that the seek-and-find sayings were in a different setting than the judge-not sayings; i.e., Luke’s gospel offers up reason to think there is a shift in setting and context between Matt. 7:1-6 (see Luke 6:37-42) and Matt. 7:7-12 (see Luke 11:9-13)—especially when in Luke we discover that the context of seek-and-find is the authentic and persistent prayer of Christ’s followers.
Third, even if we assume for the sake of argument that this refers to unbelievers, it is true that by seeking one will find but it does not follow that therefore everyone seeks. The one who seeks is the one who finds, yes, but who seeks? There is no one who seeks God, Paul reminds us. Those not controlled by the Spirit are hostile to God and refuse to obey him. “They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts” (Eph. 4:18). “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14; see John 6:63).
So who seeks? The one who desires God. But who is that? Without the indwelling Spirit of life, who seeks the true God? Although the glorious message of the gospel is spread throughout all the world, it is only the sheep who believe. “You do not believe,” Jesus said to certain of his detractors, “because you are not my sheep.” Everyone who seeks will find, yes, but who seeks? It is never the goats. Those who seek are the sheep who Christ brings into his fold—not a single one of which will be lost.
(I am responding to Jon next. My response to Marc will be submitted Friday night.)
November 25th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
(1) Define what “free” will is, and (2) show evidence for that definition using scriptural texts. Having thus defined what “free” will is according to Scriptures, (3) show evidence using scriptural texts that (i) God does not possess sovereign control over the human will, or (ii) that God possesses but refuses to exercise sovereign control over the human will.
(In Christian orthodoxy and this discussion, the Word of God is the final authority on Christian doctrines. Ideas and beliefs that are not supported by the Holy Scriptures are subject to its test, and those which the Scriptures contradict are rejected as non-Christian. Also, please understand that if there are examples in the Bible of God exercising sovereign control over the human will, then your above statement is refuted—in proportion to the number of such passages. And there are many.)
God does not force a relationship on humans, and for what should be an obvious reason: the word “force” implies resistance, as if anything could obstruct almighty God. It is like saying that God “forces” a person to see when he cures their blindness. “When I act, who can reverse it?” (Isa. 43:13). The very notion is absurd! When God gives the blind new eyes, they simply see. When he gives the lame new legs, they simply run. When he gives the sinner a new heart, he simply loves. Righteous glory? Yes, it most certainly is. Nothing is difficult for the King of kings, the Most High and Almighty.
This is a question that all Christians who believe in an omniscient and almighty God must answer—including Arminians, who say that God ultimately knows who will choose to believe in Christ Jesus. But they so often overlook an important fact: If God knows who will believe, then he also knows who will never believe. Consequently, why would God create someone he knows will never believe?
(And no, he does not create anyone “simply to destroy them.” God has many purposes for those headed for destruction, all of which serve to bring unimaginable glory to his Most Holy Name.)
Only where common sense jives with the Bible, sir. (And “common sense” is a misnomer, for there is nothing common about it. Most people are Christ-denying sinners with ever-deteriorating faculties of sense, as they wander further and further from the God who made them.)
There is no need for personal attacks on my character.
November 27th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
This will constitute my final response to Marc because I am not here to convince him of anything personally, but rather to provide compelling argument and evidential support for the views I have put forward—in the article Duane originally referenced and here in the comments area—and I am confident I have done so. Although Marc represents an alternative view (viz. Open Theism), the mere existence of competing view Y does nothing to refute original view X. He is at liberty to hold whatever view he wishes, but that has no bearing on the truth value of the view I have defended. I will stay engaged in discussions with Adam and others, but these are my final comments to Marc.
(Reminder: We had assumed at one point with Marc that God has only one will and in the decretive sense, or that which God ordains shall happen, so that there is no difference between what he decrees of himself and what he commands of us.)
First, if Marc accepts that the Scriptures are the Word of God, then he already knows the answer to his question. When I cite Scriptures, it should be clear who is saying it—at least to orthodox Christians, who believe and affirm that the 66 books of scriptural canon are the Word of God. In other words, God said it. Second, the Bible is replete with statements about the enduring force of God’s will, about how his purposes cannot be thwarted, about how God is able to do whatever he pleases in all his creation for he is almighty and sovereign over all things. I have an ever-increasing list of such passages at the ready, which grows each week as my nightly Bible reading presents more revelations about the sovereign glory of God.
No, God is really saying that. It would have been better for Marc to interact with what my actual argument is. What we learn about salvation from studying the Bible is that God ordained man’s salvation in Christ before the foundation of the world. "[You were redeemed] with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake" (1 Pet. 1:18-20). "For he chose us in [Christ] before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will" (Eph. 1:4-5). "All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world" (Rev. 13:8; cf. Acts 2:23; 4:28; Titus 1:1-3; Eph. 3:8-11). The entire scope of salvation, the necessity and means thereof, which by definition involved the reality of man’s sin, was ordained by God from eternity for eternity to the glory of his holy name. That Adam would sin was neither beyond God’s knowledge nor outside his control, for Scriptures are clear about God’s unlimited knowledge and sovereign power (Isa. 46:10; Job 37:16; Psa. 139:2-4; Psa. 147:5; Pro. 5:21; 1 John 3:19-20).
We know that Christ was chosen as Savior from eternity. We know that the attributes of God include unlimited knowledge and sovereign power. We know that God is supremely holy, infallibly just, infinitely wise, and faithfully loving. This is the God we worship, in whom we are assured that nothing happens unless he decreed it, that from the motions of the heavens to natural disasters on earth, from the well-being of God’s children to the rise of foreign nations, from the acts of pagan kings to the tiny sparrow on a branch, all things belong to God and are before his knowledge, under his power, and working out for his glory by the righteous and loving purpose of his good pleasure.
Here is a question for Marc to ponder. If the existence of sin was against God’s will, why did he place the forbidden tree in Eden? If Bobby did not want his daughter to cut herself, would he place a knife in her playpen? A rather strange thing for God to do if he truly did not want Adam to sin. Perhaps Marc would raise the "free will" response. But moving the issue in that direction would only compound his problem and from two simultaneous directions: (1) If the existence of sin is necessary for free will to be possible, then either God wanted the existence of sin for the purpose of man’s free will, or God did not want the existence of sin at the expense of man’s free will; (2) If the existence of sin is necessary for free will to be possible, then either the saints will not have free will in heaven, or sin will have to exist in heaven.
"If the existence of sin was against God’s will, why did he place the forbidden tree in Eden?"
Sadly, Marc here displays astonishing ignorance about this text of Scriptures, for Genesis 6:6 does not claim that God rued making man and was grieved about doing it. Wrong on both counts. (Moreover, my view likewise does not assert either of those.) No less than nine exegetical resources and commentaries refute Marc’s incredible interpretation. I stopped at nine because agreement between that many sources seemed sufficient. (1) Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament; (2) Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament; (3) Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testamament Scriptures; (4) Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible; (5) Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible; (6) Herbert Leupold, Exposition of Genesis; (7) John Wesley, Notes on the Bible; (8) David Guzik, Study Guide for Genesis 6; (9) Robert Utley, Free Bible Commentary. They all say the same thing, that this passage expresses (i) his just and holy displeasure against sin and sinners (ii) and a turning point in his dealings with mankind.
As Robert Utley notes, "This is the tension that always occurs when we use human terms to describe God. God is not a man, but the only words we have to describe him and his feelings are human terms." But responsible exegesis resolves this anthropopathism rather easily. This repentance on God’s part is not a change of purpose, which is eternal and never changes (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; James 1:17; etc.), but a change of feeling out of which a new course of action develops (cf. Exo. 32:14; 1 Sam. 15:11; 2 Sam. 24:16; Isa. 63:10; Jer. 18:7-10; 26:3,13,19; Jon. 3:10). As Matthew Henry summarizes all seven sources, "When God had made man upright, he rested and was refreshed, and his way towards man was such as showed he was pleased with the work of his own hands. But now that man had apostatized, God could not do otherwise than show himself displeased, so that the change was in man, not in God." And David Guzik, "God’s sorrow at man and the grief in His heart are striking. This does not mean that creation was out of control, nor does it mean that God hoped for something better but was unable to achieve it. God knew all along that this was how things would turn out, but our text tells us loud and clear that, as God sees his plan for the ages unfold, it affects him. God is not unfeeling in the face of human sin and rebellion." And Robert Jamieson, "He is described as about to alter his visible procedure towards mankind. From being merciful and long-suffering, he was about to show himself a God of judgment." Remember, in Scriptures repentance does not mean narrowly "I regret doing this" but more fully "I’m changing direction"—whether God with respect to his dealings, or man with respect to his sinning.
If interested: Robert Deffinbaugh, "Does God Change His Mind?" (about halfway down).
No. As the mounting evidence continues to demonstrate, it is throwing your lot in with Scriptures. God having a decretive will and a prescriptive will is not arbitrarily invoked from human imagination but, rather, exegetically discovered from divine scriptures (notwithstanding Marc’s needless prejudicial language here). I had provided no less than three examples from the Bible clearly demonstrating both wills at work simultaneously, citing only explicit examples; e.g., it was according to his will (decretive) that his Son would be beaten and put to death for our sins, yet it was against his will (prescriptive) that anyone would beat and murder his precious Son.
It is rather simple. The conditional that God lets it happen tells us that God could prevent it; i.e., it is possible for God to interject on the exercise of creaturely freedom. The ESV translation of this passage accords with that of Harkavy cited by Marc—"if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand"—which goes toward making my point, that God could prevent him from falling into the other’s hand, intervening on circumstances involving the human will. And such a possibility is boldly underscored by occasions of its actuality, as seen in Gen. 20:6 and Rev. 17:17. (Examples could be multiplied, esp. the Assyrian king, but two sufficed to make the case.) God can, and has, exercised sovereign control over the human will.
Marc conceded those two passages but with a retort, "What’s your point?" Just because there are occasions where God exercises sovereign control over the human will, he argued, that does not mean God always does it. By racing to some vituperative straw man, perhaps Marc is hoping that no one notices his concession. First, I want the reader to remember what the real point was, as we looked at 2 Peter 3:9. As I had said, in every case "the fundamental reason people give for God’s inability to accomplish what he ordains (in this case, the redemption of literally all mankind) is the notion that God is either unable or unwilling to violate man’s free will." As we observe from Scriptures, that notion is wrong on both counts: not only is God able but he is also willing. A notion that is contradicted by Scriptures is worthy of tossing out. But I can appreciate why Marc would want to gloss over this point, for it delivers a fatal blow to that view of salvation. How? Consider the intractable problem: (1) If it is God’s will to save literally all mankind, and (2) he is able and has proven himself willing to exercise control over the human will, then (3) how come not all mankind is saved? We know the conclusion gets at the truth, that not all mankind is saved. And we know that the second premise is biblically sound. So that means the problem originates at the first premise. A horrible cognitive dissonance develops from wanting to affirm the first premise while knowing the Bible proves the second premise as true. At this point a person faces an extraordinarily important decision: cling to what one wants to believe despite the Bible, or surrender to the disquieting process of reforming one’s beliefs.
Second, his retort was a vituperative straw man by an order of magnitude; neither Reformed theology nor the view I have been presenting here claims that "God always does it" (actively controls every human thought). Marc erected a straw man that I daresay nobody recognizes and then attacked it valiantly, but I cannot fathom what he hoped to gain by doing so—especially when it leaves the Reformed view untouched. If the readers reviewed my posts here they would notice that nothing I have written corresponds to Marc’s caricature, nor does anything in Reformed confessional literature. Real edification in studying God’s Word comes from exploring views with honesty and integrity, not fallacious rhetoric.
I suspect that Marc does not realize what ‘elect’ means in theological terms. An often overlooked point of fact is that one can be part of the elect and not yet saved, for it is through faith that one is saved (thereby being justified and part of God’s covenant family). Election is part of salvation, but is not itself salvation. For example, a nineteen-year-old atheist who is living in defiant rebellion against God can be part of the elect, and given his incredibly sinful lifestyle no one would ever suspect that thirteen years later he would encounter a road to Damascus experience of repentance and faith and become a renowned evangelist for the name of Christ. In fact, one can be part of the elect and not yet even born. How can one who does not even exist yet come to repentance? The Lord is not slack concerning his promise to return but patient, not willing to lose any of those for whom he laid down his life, the sheep given him by the Father—including those sheep who might not be born yet. "In other words, the Day of the Lord will not come until all those he has chosen have been born and redeemed." That is what Peter is writing to them about, reminding them that God has a time for everything and encouraging them to trust faithfully in him—not whether the elect can perish or not.
First, God does not save anyone against their will. He creates in them a new heart, enabling their affections for the things of God—which he does as infallibly as restoring sight to the blind. "What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow" (1 Cor. 3:5-6; cf. 1:30; Matt. 13:1-23; Rom. 5:5; etc.). Second, God damning people to hell is right because God is right, for all mankind are sinners deserving of justice.
Indeed, I write frequently about how incomprehensible his mercy is, how absolutely baffling are the riches of his grace, that Christ would die for the ungodly.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Ryft said: (1) Define what “free” will is,
“Free” will enables a person to make a decision that conflicts with God’s will.
Ryft said: (2) show evidence for that definition using scriptural texts
Adam ate the apple, disobeying God’s will. Cain killed Abel, disobeying God’s will.
Ryft said: (3) show evidence using scriptural texts that (i) God does not possess sovereign control over the human will, or (ii) that God possesses but refuses to exercise sovereign control over the human will.
Adam at the apple, disobeying God’s will Cain killed Abel, disobeying God’s will.
This requires that Adam’s disobedience and Cain’s murder conflict with God’s will - which is supported by scripture in which God is displeased with disobedience and sin. God reacts to these developments with punishments - kicking Adam out of the garden (dooming him to death) and banishing Cain (dooming him to a hard life before death).
Looking at your response to marc - you explain God by bringing up conflicting wills. One will wants Cain to kill Abel, and the other doesn’t. This way Cain will be willed into murder by God, but can then be punished by God as well. I don’t know what to say about that so far. Looks twisted.
Ryft said: God does not force a relationship on humans, and for what should be an obvious reason: the word “force” implies resistance, as if anything could obstruct almighty God.
If humans are inherently worthless, then you’re right (i.e. if humans effectively have no will of their own). At that point why mention “relationship”.
Ryft said: But they so often overlook an important fact: If God knows who will believe, then he also knows who will never believe. Consequently, why would God create someone he knows will never believe?
If humans have any ability to make their own decisions, then creation would be affected by those. If man cannot make decisions apart from God’s will, then he cannot be held responsible. Because man misdirects creation we read about events such as the flood or large groups of people being completely destroyed and can view them as justifiable. If God led the world into these situations we’d be inclined to think rather poorly of Him.
The point is that man’s sin plays a role in the continuation of man - generation to generation. God alone created Adam. But God was not the only one involved in the creation of Cain, for example.
Ryft said: (And no, he does not create anyone “simply to destroy them.” God has many purposes for those headed for destruction, all of which serve to bring unimaginable glory to his Most Holy Name.)
Aborted babies don’t get a chance to do much themselves. Which ones are among the elect and which are doomed to destruction? This seems like a case of the sins of man affecting life on earth, and not God’s unilateral decision to create a baby and then kill a baby.
Ryft said: There is no need for personal attacks on my character.
Then I should like to see how this works out, such that your character is not deserving of attacks. For one thing I don’t understand the dual conflicting will.
Ryft said: If the existence of sin was against God’s will, why did he place the forbidden tree in Eden?
That’s seems like saying: If Bobby didn’t want his daughter to kill her friends, why’d he let her play with her friends?
Or: If rape was against God’s will, then why did he create woman? Rape is clearly something God wants to occur.
Anyway — If sin is a part of God’s will, then why is He displeased with it?
December 1st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Thanks Ryft,
That’s definitely cleared up a few things. I’d forgotten about the “nobody seeks” notion. And those sections in Matt and Luke do sound reasonable and warrant further investigation on my part.
To clear things up a bit, the reason I “face value” read pigs and dogs as non-Christians is due to their actions “trampling the truth and then turning their attack onto the Christian”. This hardly sounds like the actions of a believer. Your definition of “those who knew God” would have to be fleshed out here I think. Are we talking about the people who knew God as those like Paul describes in Romans 1? “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him…..etc” Paul then goes onto detail to a great extent the actions of these people who “knew” God. Or are we talking about the people who knew God as like those who John describes in 1 John? 4:6 “We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us” and 2:3-4 “We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” The whole of 1 John is basically a “Are you a Christian” test, detailing what is expected of those who call themselves Christian right?.
I read all those instances of Jesus condemning such white-washed hypocrites as Jesus identifying those who are not in the Truth. i.e. Calling yourself a Christian does not make you one, anymore than eating an ashtray makes it food.
I do however find it hard to come to terms with your claim that those who reject the ministry of Christ still know God. Isn’t the God they now “know”, a false God? E.g “The God I believe in did not come to earth in human form to die on a cross in atonement for my sins”.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:02 am
There are probably only a few items worth discussing among Christians themselves and with non-believers. By ‘worth’ I mean, what Christians should discuss due to their striking at the very core of what our whole philosophy stands upon. These issues are in other words properly basic. It truly is shameful that very, very few of our brothers and sisters bother about these.
Creation theology, how God brings life into existence, is certainly one of these. And also just as undeniably is the subject of this thread. What indeed could be more basic to our preaching and evangelism than clearly setting out the very character of our Lord? Notwithstanding the goldmine of understanding that finds its root in an accurate theology of creation, how, whom and why God saves must surely deserve primary rank in significance. Get this wrong, and one may as well be asking a person to serve an idol.
One way of looking at the subject of this thread is that it’s really concerned with the problem of evil. Now, a materialist would say that the existence of evil is natural, but, nevertheless, one should do something about it, not realizing that his philosophical worldview denies the only system of thought that can actually provide understanding of the problem. Yet, notwithstanding my claim that Christianity is the solution to the problem of evil, what has taken place here somewhat vitiates this contention. On the one hand, I have proposed that God has ‘no blood on his hand’ in as much as he neither wanted nor caused sin to enter the world. The Fall, on my reckoning, was something God, due to his unchanging character, had known from before the foundation of the world that if it were to take place, he had a plan to adequately and profoundly deal with it. On the other hand, Ryle believes that God had not only known that the Fall would definitely take place, but had actually been the author of it. The Fall, on Ryle’s account, had been a necessary event in order to show the majesty of God. On Ryle’s account, God warned Adam not to eat of the tree, but simultaneously didn’t really mean it as a sign that he didn’t want Adam to eat the fruit but actually to, somehow, cause Adam to eat it. The question I believe everyone should be now asking is, Just how does God’s causing evil to enter the world demonstrate his majesty, let alone his love?
And this is where I have my most serious concern about Ryft’s arguments. It’s not that I believe Ryft to be of an entirely different species, of another faith even – certainly not! It’s that I cannot for a moment recognize anything in his propositions and counter-arguments that aligns itself with the spirit, personality and, indeed, the actions of our Lord when he was on earth 2,000 years ago. So foreign are the elements in Ryft’s portrayal of God that – and the readers can judge this for themselves – the Jesus that Ryft paints is one entirely devoid of love.
I’ve come to expect that the mention of this one attribute, love, serves as a launching pad for a tirade of sardonic misrepresentations from Calvinists. Its mere mention sets the litmus paper for the existence of liberalism flashing bright red. However, this is the one defining ontological flag pole that is routinely overlooked in Ryle’s camp. Sure, it’s called “a mystery”; certainly, “unfathomable”, but never set down as the one unambiguous essential of who God has plainly defined himself to be. Everyone has read it countless times. There it is: “God is love”, as the disciple John wrote in his first epistle.
But just how important is it in our understanding of soteriology? This, may I suggest, is where Ryft’s whole case is gone adrift. One cannot set out on a journey with a broken compass and faulty map and expect to arrive at the proper destination. Calvinism, for all its earnestness, does not ultimately rely on the Bible. Rather, for whatever reason or cause, begins with a clearly pagan view of our Lord and builds an unrecognisable monster upon it.
And thus what I’ve come to expect to see in a Calvinist argument is its sheer nonsense and irrationality. This is not only demonstrated by one proposition not logically flowing from another, but more clearly, without exception, it’s evinced by the question begging artifice that Calvinism is the default theology and by rarely, if ever, actually engaging head-to-head with the specifics of the anti-Calvinist case that would derail this circularity.
1. Ryft “asks”: “(1) Define what “free” will is, and (2) show evidence for that definition using scriptural texts. Having thus defined what “free” will is according to Scriptures, (3) show evidence using scriptural texts that (i) God does not possess sovereign control over the human will, or (ii) that God possesses but refuses to exercise sovereign control over the human will.”
I don’t wish to be tied down to one definition but I think Bruce Reichenbach puts up a fair one. He writes that “[t]o say that a person is free means that, given a certain set of circumstances, the person could have done otherwise than he did…The individual is the sufficient condition for the course of the action chosen.”
I first wish to draw attention to arguably the most important and fundamental element in Calvinism’s theology, namely, its opposition to human free will. Consistent Calvinism, and indeed, Ryft’s version, believes that whatever comes to pass does so because God has so ordained it. Ultimately, unless God decides otherwise, a person does not choose God but rather God chooses him. By virtue of this a Calvinist can say that man is not free to choose God and thus, as a logical consequence, free will is a myth.
But what of Scripture? Does it unambiguously rule out man’s ability to choose, as Ryft so earnestly contends? Indeed, if it did, it would be game set and match.
It’s clear that, taking Scripture at face value (i.e. without the frequent appeal to its get-out-of-jail escape card like ‘anthropomorphism’ ), Scripture seems to utilise all the language of choice. That is, whether it’s Jesus as God incarnate or God in heaven, the language of the Bible clearly offers man choice. If language’s first function is to communicate information – and in the Bible’s case, pre-eminently so – then the words of Scripture shout that man has the power of free will and choice. Unless the postmodernal nightmare is in fact reality, then Calvinism is clearly false. Calvinism appears to be true only by virtue of its first squeezing Scripture through a philosophical sieve rather than letting Scripture speak for itself. Let me demonstrate this by quoting some verses and by later addressing some of Ryft’s claims.
Take John 1:12. The order of the verse is that men first receive Jesus, then God gives them the right to become his children. Ryft reverses it. If Ryft’s understanding were true, John’s message would be an unnecessary [and false!] triviality because God’s granting a select number of people salvation would mean that their receiving of it was (i) mechanical (ii) a self-refuting contradiction because God has forced it on them and so it wasn’t a receiving of it at all.
Arguably, the parable which most accurately reflects the Gospel is the Lost Son. The two key verses are Luke 15:17 and 20. Note in the latter verse that it’s the father who goes out to meet him. However, also understand that Jesus has clearly stated that the sinful son reasons within himself and wishes to turn back to his father, thus implying a choice.
Verse after verse contains a call for the listener (and reader) to change their attitude to God and to others. If the call was not truly open for all to accept, then there’s only one question to ask: Why does the Gospel have the appearance of being an invitation? Look at Matthew 4:17 where Jesus preaches to everyone to “Repent.” If the people who could repent were only the ones to whom God gave an ability to repent, then Jesus would not need to ask people to repent because they would have been already able to do it.
The Beatitudes are a universal invitation to change for the better. If this master sermon was not an invitation to see and experience the Kingdom of God, then what is it? Again, why would it be necessary to say what Jesus said in the Beatitudes if it were the case that humans had no free will and God could just as easily “twitch his nose” and Bang!, all the elect would just believe without even having Jesus speak?
And this brings me to what I believe is a central question. If the elect, here on earth, are Christian because God has overruled their will to reject him, and thus become his children, why aren’t they perfect “just as your Father in heaven is perfect”?
Here are some more verses which scream choice: Matt. 7:5,7-12, 13-14, 24-29; 9:37-38; 10:32-33; 11:20-24; 13:18-23; 16:24-25; Mark 10:15; Romans 6:15-17; [all of ch.]10; 11:11-14 etc etc etc.
Ryft asked to give an example “that God possesses but refuses to exercise sovereign control over the human will.” Any example of a Christian sinning demonstrates that human will wins over God’s sovereignty, unless of course you believe that every time a Christian sins God wants the sin to occur (and it wouldn’t surprise me if Ryft believed that!).
Another possible example would be the Golden Café incident. God told Moses he would definitely wipe out the Israelites but Moses convinced God to change his mind.
2. I had asked, non-rhetorically, “Who said God always gets what he wants?
Ryft’s reply is, “the Bible is replete with statements about the enduring force of God’s will, about how his purposes cannot be thwarted, about how God is able to do whatever he pleases in all his creation for he is almighty and sovereign over all things. I have an ever-increasing list of such passages at the ready, which grows each week as my nightly Bible reading presents more revelations about the sovereign glory of God.”
There’s a well-disguised straw-man in this.
The purpose of my question was to draw attention to a number of passages that plainly demonstrate that God, occasionally, can be frustrated. Quite clearly, God’s ultimate plan of creating for himself a priesthood of believers is not one of those. The Bible is overflowing with examples where God wants one thing, man another. By ignoring these or reinterpreting these to accord with one’s idea of what God should be like, then the Bible is suddenly transformed into an esoteric manual for a Gnostic priesthood. I am unable to draw out the meaning the Calvinists are selling unless I first plug in their eisegetical software. Then, and only then, can I see what and why they’re saying the things they do say.
If we can believe Scripture and Jesus’ words, then apparently his intention to do mighty works in Nazareth was frustrated. Mark states that, despite healing a few people, there was no great miracle (“he could do no mighty work there” Mark 6:5) and Jesus “marveled because of their unbelief.” (Mark 6:6) Why would Jesus be surprised at the lack of faith and of his inability to cure many if he had not prior to his arrival in the area had the plan to heal on a grand scale? Mark’s record of Jesus’ comment only makes sense if Jesus had a plan to heal many. Here is God’s purpose being thwarted.
In the beginning of the Bible God tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. On Ryft’s account, God had both intended Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit (Genesis 2:16-17) and eat it (because, on Ryft’s theology, Adam’s and Eve’s eating of the fruit demonstrates that God must have wanted it because it wouldn’t have happened if God hadn’t have wanted it).
In Genesis 6:6,7 it’s stated that God “was sorry [he] made man.” Ryft claims it doesn’t (“Sadly, Marc here displays astonishing ignorance about this text of Scriptures, for Genesis 6:6 does not claim that God rued making man and was grieved about doing it.”). Sorry, Ryft, but the truly astonishing thing here is that you argue Scripture doesn’t say this and your only defence is a series of commentaries rather than Scripture.
Ryft has obviously hardened his mind against perspicuous Scripture, so I suggest the reader go to Genesis 6:6-7 and read for themselves what the writer states are God’s thoughts and words.
Gesenius’ Lexicon says that the word nacham in the niphal (how it’s used at Genesis 6:7) means to grieve about one’s own actions i.e. repent. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that man thinks (i.e. an anthropomorphism) that God is repenting about God’s own actions in making man if God in fact isn’t thinking this at all. What sheer nonsense!
Quite predictably Ryft charges that this is merely anthropomorphic. Why? Not because it’s stated in Scripture that it is, but because Ryft’s question begging theology means that it can’t support his presuppositional framework unless it is regarded as anthropomorphic. That is, because God always gets what he wants, then God could never regret making man. The claim that this verse is merely from a human perspective should be seen for what it is: eisegetical nonsense! It clearly says that God “repented” he made man, not man attributing that to God.
If Ryft’s escape clause is correct then Scripture lies because despite man thinking that about God, God hasn’t really said that. The writer of this verse has put words in the mouth of the Lord that he never actually articulated. Not just any words but words that are the exact opposite of what he did think. This is not just an error, but blasphemy. Furthermore, if not really true, how can we believe anything the Bible records about God’s speaking? We just couldn’t. We would have to know that there is an extra-biblical framework that we must first apply to Scripture before we can understand the author’s true meaning. It starts to sound an awful lot like a return to sacerdotal elitism.
One hears ‘anthropomorphic’ tossed in whenever a Calvinist comes face-to-face with any square peg verse that obstinately refuses to fit into his round-hole theology. It’s a standard practice, but habitual invocation does not in any way establish its truth.
Ryft has to massage all these passages with his circular belief that God always gets what he wants because if he didn’t always get what he wants then the truism that God always gets what he wants wouldn’t be true. Rather than allowing Scripture to straightforwardly speak to him, Ryft has to give it a make-over and transform it into the image of his Calvinism.
3. I asked Ryft if he believed God [ordained] Adam to sin?
Ryft responds by saying, “No, God is really saying that. It would have been better for Marc to interact with what my actual argument is.”
What can I say? It was a set up by God? Perish that thought, Marc!
God, knowing that if he, God, wanted to not have Adam sin could have had Adam not sinning. But instead, God purposely intended that Adam commit evil, before there was a Fall, in order to have man commit sin, to have billions of babies born with the most painful and injurious genetic diseases as a consequence of God’s intending Adam to commit evil. For what? In order to show the glory and majesty of God? On Ryft’s theology this is what its sole purpose was. God created man to commit evil in order to show God’s perfection. Madness, total madness!
4. Ryft than asks: “If the existence of sin was against God’s will, why did he place the forbidden tree in Eden?” If Bobby did not want his daughter to cut herself, would he place a knife in her playpen? A rather strange thing for God to do if he truly did not want Adam to sin.”
As a card-carrying creationist I hold that the world was created perfectly and was perfect at the end of day 6. That is, not only was God’s method of creation without stain and death, the result was similarly free of these, hence Genesis 1:31. As a consequence, at the end of day 6 there was no fruit that Adam and Eve could not eat (1:29). For God to prohibit the two from accessing the true of knowledge of good and evil means something happened between these two moments. The only thing that we know that could possibly serve as an answer was the transformation of Lucifer to Satan. Scripture does not give an exhaustive knowledge of this, though it does provide some.
Lucifer is portrayed as a carrier of God’s wisdom and a seal of perfection over the creation (Ezekiel 28). I suggest that the tree was in some way connected to Lucifer’s responsibility. How, I don’t know, but the Scriptures do say that Lucifer was perfect in the beginning and then fell from grace, and along with this, the tree. Subsequent to the completion of the creation, Satan arose and anything he was connected with likewise fell. The tree was not created imperfectly: it became this.
Your analogy about Bobby’s knife doesn’t even come close to matching the Edenic event.
5. Ryft says: “Perhaps Marc would raise the “free will” response. But moving the issue in that direction would only compound his problem and from two simultaneous directions: (1) If the existence of sin is necessary for free will to be possible, then either God wanted the existence of sin for the purpose of man’s free will, or God did not want the existence of sin at the expense of man’s free will; (2) If the existence of sin is necessary for free will to be possible, then either the saints will not have free will in heaven, or sin will have to exist in heaven.”
Why is man having free will an “expense” at some other cost? Straw man!
6. I’d previously made a comment: “On [Ryle’s] view, God knew that he was going to be sorry he made man. Thus God, foreknowing he would rue making man and be grieved about doing it, still went ahead because his purpose of being grieved in the heart could not be thwarted.”
Rather than directly respond, Ryle argues from “authority”. He begins with an ad hominem and builds upon it:
“Sadly, Marc here displays astonishing ignorance about this text of Scriptures, for Genesis 6:6 does not claim that God rued making man and was grieved about doing it. Wrong on both counts. (Moreover, my view likewise does not assert either of those.) No less than nine exegetical resources and commentaries refute Marc’s incredible interpretation. I stopped at nine because agreement between that many sources seemed sufficient. (1) Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament; (2) Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament; (3) Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testamament Scriptures; (4) Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible; (5) Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible; (6) Herbert Leupold, Exposition of Genesis; (7) John Wesley, Notes on the Bible; (8) David Guzik, Study Guide for Genesis 6; (9) Robert Utley, Free Bible Commentary. They all say the same thing, that this passage expresses (i) his just and holy displeasure against sin and sinners (ii) and a turning point in his dealings with mankind.”
Ryle then quotes a few lines from his favourite commentators: “As Robert Utley notes, “This is the tension that always occurs when we use human terms to describe God. God is not a man, but the only words we have to describe him and his feelings are human terms.” But responsible exegesis resolves this anthropopathism rather easily. This repentance on God’s part is not a change of purpose, which is eternal and never changes (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; James 1:17; etc.), but a change of feeling out of which a new course of action develops (cf. Exo. 32:14; 1 Sam. 15:11; 2 Sam. 24:16; Isa. 63:10; Jer. 18:7-10; 26:3,13,19; Jon. 3:10). As Matthew Henry summarizes all seven sources, “When God had made man upright, he rested and was refreshed, and his way towards man was such as showed he was pleased with the work of his own hands. But now that man had apostatized, God could not do otherwise than show himself displeased, so that the change was in man, not in God.” And David Guzik, “God’s sorrow at man and the grief in His heart are striking. This does not mean that creation was out of control, nor does it mean that God hoped for something better but was unable to achieve it. God knew all along that this was how things would turn out, but our text tells us loud and clear that, as God sees his plan for the ages unfold, it affects him. God is not unfeeling in the face of human sin and rebellion.” And Robert Jamieson, “He is described as about to alter his visible procedure towards mankind. From being merciful and long-suffering, he was about to show himself a God of judgment.” Remember, in Scriptures repentance does not mean narrowly “I regret doing this” but more fully “I’m changing direction”—whether God with respect to his dealings, or man with respect to his sinning.”
The truly amazing thing in all of this is the language used. Each one of these commentators first accepts what Scripture plainly says (i.e. God regrets etc) and then attempts to realign that statement with their theological belief (i.e. “this does not mean…” etc). Take Guzik as a case in point. The man says that the Scriptures do not intend to communicate “that creation was out of control.” Well, when I read Genesis 6:5 (“Then the Lord saw the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”) I can’t help but get the impression the writer of Genesis is trying to tell me that the creation really was way out of control and that God was forced to destroy the entire earth. I mean, you don’t wipe out all life when a few minor tweeks here and there would have set everything back on an even keel, do you?
7. Ryle writes, “Marc conceded those two passages but with a retort, “What’s your point?” Just because there are occasions where God exercises sovereign control over the human will, he argued, that does not mean God always does it. By racing to some vituperative straw man, perhaps Marc is hoping that no one notices his concession.”
No, Ryle, it’s not a concession at all. You just never bothered to ask me what I held to be true. I just can’t believe in your heartless, illogical and unscriptural vision of God.
8. Ryle argues: “Consider the intractable problem: (1) If it is God’s will to save literally all mankind, and (2) he is able and has proven himself willing to exercise control over the human will, then (3) how come not all mankind is saved? We know the conclusion gets at the truth, that not all mankind is saved. And we know that the second premise is biblically sound. So that means the problem originates at the first premise. A horrible cognitive dissonance develops from wanting to affirm the first premise while knowing the Bible proves the second premise as true. At this point a person faces an extraordinarily important decision: cling to what one wants to believe despite the Bible, or surrender to the disquieting process of reforming one’s beliefs.”
I suggest you pay a little more attention to your second premise and see if it accurately reflects (i) what the Bible does in fact always say about how man comes to belief in God and/or the Gospel (ii) the non-Calvinist position (i.e. it’s not a straw man).
9. Ryle writes: “First, God does not save anyone against their will. He creates in them a new heart, enabling their affections for the things of God—which he does as infallibly as restoring sight to the blind.”
Amounts to the same thing, Ryle.
10. Ryle says: “God damning people to hell is right because God is right, for all mankind are sinners deserving of justice.”
You omitted the important part: When God only saves some when he could just as easily save all, for no other reason other than an arbitrary will (no rhyme, no reason, just because!), then this does not seem just at all. To say it’s right because it’s right is tautology.
My favourite scientist, A.E.Wilder-Smith, once called Calvinism the curse of Europe. When Calvinists espouse a theology/philosophy which makes God the author of evil, makes Jesus the cause of the Fall and thus the first cause of all the horrendous and gratuitous pain and suffering that babies have experienced since the Fall, then I understand that Calvinism is an evil. If my theology is wrong, I know I can stand before our Lord and say that my purpose in espousing this error was to free his holy Being from the taint of being held ultimately responsible for the pain and suffering of humans since the Fall. But, Ryle, if yours is wrong, I have no idea what your excuse is going to be, none whatsoever. Think about it.
11. Ryle comments: “Indeed, I write frequently about how incomprehensible his mercy is, how absolutely baffling are the riches of his grace that Christ would die for the ungodly.”
Well, Ryle, if you paid more attention to, say, 1 John 4:16, you may not be so baffled.
December 5th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
On Ryft’s own blog he makes the following comment: “The mercy of God is not a product of arbitrary whim; on the contrary, as indicated above it is rooted in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In other words, God shows mercy only to those for whom the demands of justice are met elsewhere, for the mercy of God cannot ignore the justice of God.”
I have always contended that Calvinism has the horse before the cart. Ryft’s comment above demonstrates this. And the problem lies with the fact that he has not relied on Scripture but on his theology.
I would like to hear from Ryft and have him explain why selecting only a few (and I mean A FEW!) people to salvation, for no reason other than the tautological ‘because that’s the way God did it”, shouldn’t be taken as arbitrary. To slip in another proposition (i.e. “rooted in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ”) doesn’t add anything to his explanation - it merely momentarily prolongs or removes the accusation of being arbitrary by one step.
In any case, the New Testament doesn’t say what Ryft has stated. In fact it says the complete opposite, that the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ is rooted in the mercy (or loving-kindness!!) of God. Paul writes that “God demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ dies for us.” (Romans 5:8) God’s love for us is the wellspring for his giving of his son.
A question for Ryft: Where in your theology and soteriology does ‘love’ get a mention?