There is only one GROUND RULE for this chess match with a Calvinist. The Calvinist must accept all of my Arminian assumptions. Fair enough?
So if I assume that "the world" at John 3:16 literally means the whole world (of the living, of course, because that's the context, since John 3:16 is not talking about those in Hell being able to believe and have eternal life), in which "the world" is understood to be indiscriminate and distributive throughout living humanity.
Moreover, all references to "all" and "all men" must be understood in the same manner, unless the context explicitly indicates that "all" or "all men" incontrovertibly means something less, such as a present audience.
Moreover, the prospective contestant Calvinist must agree not to infer any "Secret Wills" in order to suggest that there is an unstated, hidden meaning to any given text.
Moreover, the prospective contestant Calvinist must agree to assume that God is so sovereign and so powerful that the "Total Depravity" of mankind is of little obstacle for God to overcome, without being "stuck" with having to resort to only using an Irresistible Grace, in order that a totally depraved person may be brought to the point of being divinely enabled to either accept or reject His free hand of grace. It is implicit in this assumption that where God leads, God liberates. So if man cannot do anything pleasing to Him, and is completely fallen, it is nonetheless of no difficulty whatsoever for God to be able to liberate such a person, so that they can freely receive or reject Him.
Additionally, the prospective contestant Calvinist must be willing to accept the Arminian assumption that both John chapter 6 and Romans chapter 9 each involve a very specific dialogue, which dialogue, is not allowed to be ignored, and that the dialogue which the Calvinist must agree to assume, is that the dialogue is focused squarely upon unbelieving Israel in the spirit of evangelistic conversion.
Additionally, the prospective contestant Calvinist must accept the assumption that if a New Testament writer makes reference to a passage from the Old Testament, that it be assumed that the writer fully intends that the Old Testament text serve as the contextual foundation and guiding principle for interpreting the New Testament revelation, such as Jeremiah 18:1-13 being referenced with respect to God being "the Potter" at Romans chapter 9.
Additionally, the prospective contestant Calvinist must agree not to manufacture text where it is not otherwise explicitly stated, such as by (1) illegitimately inferring an "eternal decree" where it is not otherwise explicitly stated, such as at Acts 13:48, and (2) illegitimately inferring a Calvinistic "elect" class into a text where it is not otherwise explicitly stated, such as at Ephesians 1:4.
Additionally, the prospective contestant Calvinist must agree to use only proper biblical usage of terms and words, such that terms like "from the foundation of the world" must not be shifted to mean "from [BEFORE] the foundation of the world," such as with reference to Revelation's "Lamb's Book of Life", such that the phrase, "from the foundation of the world" must be understood solely as defined by Scripture itself. (Cross reference Luke 11:49-51.)
Additionally, the prospective contestant Calvinist must agree to the principle that just because a biblical text positively affirms that Jesus died for "A", does not automatically mean that He must have died ONLY for "A", such that a positive affirmation of one group, does not automatically carry a contrasting negative implication for any other another group, which I will denote as "B", unless there is an absolutely explicit reference to "B" being excluded.
I understand that some Calvinists may feel that my "ground rule" is completely unfair, that is, to have the prospective contestant Calvinist accept all Arminian assumptions as the ground rule of any discussion. However, isn't it equally unfair for a Calvinist to insist upon me (as a "ground rule" to any discussion on Calvinism), that a person who is totally depraved cannot do anything good or pleasing to God, which thereby absolutely necessitates an effectual, monergistic, unilateral Irresistible Grace? Don't you think that such an assumption automatically sets Calvinism up to win? After all, why can't I assume that God is bigger than Total Depravity? Why can't I assume that where God leads, God liberates, so that a totally depraved person can be divinely enabled to either accept or reject God's hand of grace? After all, isn't divine intervention a Game-Changer? Moreover, compare with Jeremiah 18:1-13, in which Israel, believe it or not, threw Total Depravity in God's face, and God turned to the heathens and asked: "Who ever heard the like of this? The virgin of Israel Has done a most appalling thing." (Jeremiah 18:13) The purpose of this post is to show Calvinists that they are being totally unfair by insisting upon a "ground rule" (their words) which automatically sets up an assumption that makes Calvinism the victor by default. So I've created a post to give some "ground rules" to a Calvinist, to see how they like it. (Really, I'm trying to expose hypocrisy, although I loathe using such a strong word, but that's what it seems to be, in my opinion).
12 comments:
Richard you pose this question in your blog: "Why can't I assume that where God leads, God liberates, so that a totally depraved person can be divinely enabled to either accept or reject God's hand of grace?" To this I would say, you can, but if it would not be compatible with a free will of man perspective. You could not assume in that scenario that their is free will because it would be logically inconsistent to assume so. Allow me to explain.
If one is "divinely enabled" to accept or reject a "hand of grace" as you put it, or gift of grace, then it must have, out of necessity been determined by God. One simply cannot be enabled divinely and still preserve autonomous free will. Once God is involved in enabling of a regenerate believer, his/her conversion has already been predetermined.
If you argue that (and I'm not necessarily saying that you do) God can enable and not have predetermined him whom was willing, then you are in danger of rejection of God's omniscience and a move toward open theism. Assuming you hold to an orthodox view of omniscience and theology proper, then a closer examination of this issue of "divine enabling" reveals you are stuck where you (as a synergist) do not want to be. If God enables, then he must know who chooses, and if he knows who chooses, he must have known before. This, in turn, turns the notion of autonomous human free will on its head.
Not to mention, if he knows who chooses, he also knows who does not choose. Has the potter no right over the clay?
Check.
Hello Steve,
Thanks for taking the time to dig through the post. However, I think that you made an incorrect inference.
You wrote: “Once God is involved in enabling of a regenerate believer, his/her conversion has already been predetermined.”
If God is involved in the liberation and enablement of a totally depraved *unregenerate unbeliever* (notice the difference between what you wrote above), so that the unregenerate unbeliever has the opportunity to make a decision for, or against, Christ, then only the opportunity itself is what is predetermined. It sounds like your post assumes that if God enables a person, then the enabling must be irresistible and fully regenerative, which no Arminian would agree with. So that's why your argument would not resonate with an Arminian. An Arminian would think that you are assuming Calvinism in order to prove Calvinism, which Arminians will contend is circular reasoning. In other words, if God intervenes in a divine encounter, in which a totally depraved person is miraculously liberated by Jesus to make an either/or decision to either accept or reject His gift of eternal life, then only the opportunity is what is predetermined. Do you follow? Arminians are heavily persuaded by Matthew 25:41, in which Jesus states that Hell was made for the devil and his angels. For that reason, Arminians do not believe that God ever intended Hell for humans, but that humans will go there, if they do what the devil and his angels do. However, if a person infers a secret will at Matthew 25:41, then this conclusion can be avoided, but Arminians reject secret wills completely, as per my opening Blog post. In fact Arminians believe that “secret wills” corrupt God’s word.
Let me illustrate how an Arminian views Total Depravity. Imagine a person who is drunk on alcohol and stoned on drugs, to the point where you cannot have any rational conversation with them. Then imagine if you touch them, and they were instantly sober, and could instantly hear and understand every word that you were saying. And then imagine that they accepted your testimony, and as a result, you instantly cured them of their addiction and they were immediately and forever a changed person (regenerated). Conversely, imagine if they rejected your testimony, even despite the illustrated liberation, and immediately you sent them back to the state of being drunk and stoned, and even in a worse condition than before. This is how Arminians view the divine encounter, in which where God leads, God liberates, so that the totally depraved sinner could freely receive God’s free gift of eternal life and His indwelling and His regeneration of them.
You mentioned the Potter’s sovereign rights.
A's understand Romans 9 differently than their C brothers, not merely over understanding “nations” vs. “individuals”, but also of the entire dialogue, in terms of who Paul is talking to. A's believe that Paul is persuasively arguing with the unconverted Jew. (See Romans 2:17 in which Paul specifically calls out the Jew. Paul turns his attention to the Gentiles at Romans 11:13, in order to not have pride over the grafting change. Later, Paul turns his attention back to the church at large when discussing obedience to the governing authorities and his visit to the church.) A's believe that at Romans 9:1-3, Paul sets the tone for the dialogue, in that he has their best interests at heart, and to consider that, for what he is about to say. Paul mentions that the Jews think that they are saved by virtue of being sons of Abraham (Romans 9:7), and Paul immediately brings up Ishmael and Esau, both of whom are sons of Abraham, and yet neither comprised God’s covenant people, which has the effect of showing the unconverted Jews that they cannot simply trust in being children of Abraham. Paul adds that grace does not come through “willing and running.” If Paul is in dialogue with the unconverted Jew, then this “willing and running” is in reference to the Jews efforts to keep the Law, and merit God’s mercy, which Paul points out that God’s mercy is not triggered by keeping the Law. Paul then brings up the point about Moses and Pharaoh, which is relevant to the hardening. No Jew would ever reject that God was perfectly fair in hardening Pharaoh, since Pharaoh was the Hitler of the ancient days. However, God had more justification in hardening the Jews, than in the hardening Pharaoh, because the Jews had more light than Pharaoh. Scripture warns Israel at Jeremiah 18:1-13 that God said He would harden them like a potter hardens clay, unless Israel turns back to Him. According to Isaiah 65:2, God reached out His arms of grace to Israel all day long, but Israel rejected His loving efforts to gather them, like a hen gathers its chicks. This hardening was then executed according to Isaiah 6:9-10. The hardening was shown to be fulfilled at John 12. The talk of the hardening at Romans 9 was in reference to Israel (as part of the continuation of the dialogue from Romans 9:1-3), and is intertwined with the concept of the “stumbling stone,” which is also referenced in Romans 9. At Romans 11:25, the hardening is shown to be a partial hardening of the Jews, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. The concept of the hardening is not a magical process, but rather has to do with a person’s value system. The Jews did not value what God values. So when God would send His Messiah, He did not send His Messiah to reward the unbelieving Jews. Instead, God sent His Messiah with the same exact value system as His own, which value system, the Jews had rejected. The Jews valued power, omnipotence and sovereignty. God has those things, but they do not define Him. God values mercy, compassion, love, humility, faith and forgiveness, and the people rejected the substance of God. So the “stumbling stone” is a factor of God’s Messiah, Jesus Christ, being reflective of God’s values, in complete contrast to the people’s values, and hence they rejected the Son as well. If they had loved God for His values, then they would have loved the Son who mirrored those values, and would not have stumbled over the stumbling stone, and Jesus would not have been a stumbling stone at all. This is what Romans 9 is getting at, and God was patient with Israel, vessels fitted to destruction, because they rejected God’s grace toward them. See Isaiah 65:2. At Romans 9:20, Paul anticipates their reaction to having been hardened. The part about who are “you” o man, is the same “you” of Romans 2:17, which is part of the ongoing dialogue. So A's have a vastly different understanding of Romans than their C brothers.
Mr. Coors, thank you for that summary of Romans 9.
Hello, Richard! I am a Brazilian blogger, and I am currently working on a blog about Arminianism/Molinism. Here in Brazil there are very little resources about it - and the young, restless reformers are spreadind day after day (in fact there are littrle theology inside most churches here in Brazil).
Another thing: I have a question about the expression "from the foundation of the world" and "before the foundation of the world." What are the possible meanings of it in the Bible?
Thankz in advance, and sorry my bad English :-/
Yes, you may translate any material on my Blog here and either quote it or use it as your own, and I'd be glad to help answer questions.
The phrase "from the foundation of the world" implies from the time of Genesis until and indefinite time, such as through the present, whereas "from before the foundation of the world" signifies pre-Genesis. I hope that helps. That's a discussion that is very relevant to the Book of Life in Revelation. Let me know if you have other questions.
There is really only one ground rule that matters. Scripture and Scripture alone is the final authority, not your rationalism.
Scripture speaks for itself. If "all" always means "all" without any attention to context or exegetical considerations then you have basically decided what the text must mean without doing any historical/grammatical exegetical work or comparison of Scripture with Scripture.
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Ro 5:18.
I guess all men will be saved--literally:)
So God sobers and then makes drunk again. Looks like God hardens after all?
Ok, I'll take the bait. So please explain to me how it is that God sets all men free from sin but all men are not actually free from the bondage to sin? If God really wills to save all, why are they not all saved? A God who could save all and does not do so is not off the hook of culpability. In other words, it does not solve the problem of evil.
If a life guard sees people drowning and does nothing, wouldn't we call that person responsible for allowing some to die? So how does "free will" absolve your god?
Charlie,
I don't think any theological position "solves" the problem of evil. God is eternal, and evil exists. Whether Calvinist, Arminian or other, there's only one way evil came into existence, and that is somehow through the Sovereign hand of God, be it the decree/causation view of Calvinism or by the permission view of Arminianism. Of course causation and permission (and decree, sovereign, etc) are all loaded words with different connotations, but regardless evil exists and God is the ultimate cause of all things.
Thanks for feedback, Gene. However, permission or free will does not solve the problem of evil. The late Dr. Gordon H. Clark said:
. . . Is the theory of free will, even if true, a satisfactory explanation of evil in a world created by God? Reasons, compelling reasons, will now be given for a negative answer. Even if men were as able to choose good as evil, even if a sinner could choose Christ as easily as he could reject him, it would be totally irrelevant to the fundamental problem. Free will was put forward to relieve God of responsibility for sin. But this it does not do.
Suppose there were a lifeguard stationed on a dangerous beach. In the breakers a boy is being sucked out to sea by the strong undertow. He cannot swim. He will drown without powerful aid. It will have to be powerful, for as drowning sinners do, he will struggle against his rescuer. But the lifeguard simply sits on his high chair and watches him drown. Perhaps he may shout a few words of advice and tell him to exercise his free will. After all, it was of his own free will that the boy went into the surf. The guard did not push him in nor interfere with him in any way. The guard merely permitted him to go in and permitted him to drown. Would an Arminian now conclude that the lifeguard thus escapes culpability?
This illustration, with its finite limitations, is damaging enough as it is. It shows that permission of evil as contrasted with positive causality does not relieve a lifeguard from responsibility. Similarly, if God merely permits men to be engulfed in sin of their own free wills, the original objections of Voltaire and Professor Patterson are not thereby met. This is what the Arminian fails to notice. And yet the illustration does not do full justice to the actual situation. For unlike the boy who exists in relative independence of the lifeguard, in actuality God made the boy and the ocean, too. Now, if the guard – who is not a creator at all – is responsible for permitting the boy to drown, even if the boy is supposed to have entered the surf of his own free will, does not God – who made them – appear in a worse light? Surely an omnipotent God could have either made the boy a better swimmer, or made the ocean less rough, or at least have saved him from drowning.
Continued:
Not only are free will and permission irrelevant to the problem of evil, but, further, the idea of permission has no intelligible meaning. It is quite within the range of possibility for a lifeguard to permit a man to drown. This permission, however, depends on the fact that the ocean’s undertow is beyond the guard’s control. If the guard had some giant suction device which he operated so as to engulf the boy, one would call it murder, not permission. The idea of permission is possible only where there is an independent force, either the boy’s force or the ocean’s force. But this is not the situation in the case of God and the universe. Nothing in the universe can be independent of the omnipotent Creator, for in him we live and move and have our being. Therefore the idea of permission makes no sense when applied to God.
Such subterfuges must in all honesty be renounced. Consider two quotations from Calvin: Here they recur to the distinction between will and permission, and insist that God permits the destruction of the impious, but does not will it. But what reason shall we assign for his permitting it, but because it is his will? It is not probable, however, that man procured his own destruction by the mere permission, without any appointment, of God; as though God had not determined what he would choose to be the condition of the principal of his creatures. I shall not hesitate therefore to confess plainly with Augustine, “that the will of God is the necessity of things, and that what he has willed will necessarily come to pass.”
God is very frequently said to blind and harden the reprobate, and to turn, incline, and influence their hearts, as I have elsewhere more fully stated. But it affords no explication of the nature of this influence to resort to prescience or permission…. For the execution of his judgments, he, by means of Satan, the minister of his wrath, directs their counsels to what he pleases and excites their wills and strengthens their efforts. Thus when Moses relates that Sihon the king would not grant a free passage to the people, because God had “hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate,” he immediately subjoins the end of God’s design: “That he might deliver him into thy hand.” Since God willed his destruction, the obduration of his heart therefore was the divine preparation for his ruin.[5]
Gordon H. Clark. Religion, Reason and Revelation (Kindle Locations 4587-4626). The Trinity Foundation.
Visit my blog at Reasonable Christian
Post a Comment