Just a quick thought to inspire some discussion.
If God knew, before He created everything, who would and wouldn't choose Him, then by creating that reality, did He not foreordain who would be saved and who would not? He could have ordered the cosmos in any infinite configuration that would have differed and created a reality where different men and women would choose Him. He chose this reality, which necessarily means He chose who would be saved and who wouldn't. This does not negate free will within the reality that ultimately is, but it does hold the sovereignty of God as supreme in choosing to bring this one about.
Yes? No? Thoughts?
Is it possible to rile up both Calvinists and Arminians in one post?
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
The whole topic of free will is a messy one because everyone has a different definition of free will. Most people say that free will is the ability to choose what you want. Calvinists agree with this but we add that because man is corrupt, because of our sin that we are so entrenched in as we enter the world (we are dead in our trespasses and sins Eph. 2:5; Col. 2:13), we do not want anything to do with God and in fact suppress the truth about Him (Rom. 1:18). Also Rom. 3 describes the human condition, quoting Psalm 14, saying that no one does good, no one seeks for God. So yes, free will means you choose what you most desire. The problem is that without the special work of the Holy Spirit in the spiritually dead heart, our highest desire is for things of the flesh and never for God.
And onto your post... lol
I thought you said this post was going to make your reformed friends all disagree and make us angry? lol. You sound like you are coming out of all your study as a Calvinist.
So did you fix it so we can see our comments?
Ok, I got it, lol. Learning a lot about html and theology at the same time.
In any case, this isn't the post I was talking about. Just the result of some thinking on it. Somewhere between last week and now I decided that, rather than starting out trying to argue against something, I would be best served by clearing the slate and starting from scratch, trying to leave any bias behind. The result has really been more questions than anything. On both sides of the debate.
In regards to the issue of free will and the desire of the heart that you mentioned: that's the efficacious vs. prevenient grace debate. My understanding of both, however, is that they are complete works of God and so, apart from either position, one cannot come to God. Either God wills your will, or God wills you to be able to will. They really aren't as different as centuries long debate would indicate. Both require God to be the initiator.
I believe they actually are as big though because of what is implied with the outcome. One way all the praise and honor go to God, efficacious grace. The other way, God does not get all the praise and sinful man has some degree of boasting because he was smart enough or more spiritual enough to chose the ultimate good, being God. When God asks, "why are you here in heaven and your brother so and so isn't?" The person has to ultimately say, "you enabled both of us to choose you but I was smarter, not as wicked, or (fill in whatever reason you want)". God says explicitly in 1 Corinthians 1:27-31, "[27] But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; [28] God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, [29] so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. [30] And BECAUSE of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, [31] so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
You are right. God is the power behind both efficacious and prevenient grace, the only problem is that I don't see prevenient grace taugh in the scriptures. Why would God give people enough grace to be able to choose whether or not to follow Christ when He knows whether or not they will follow Christ? If He knows that this one will follow Christ, why not just give this person a new heart and cause him to walk according to God’s ways(like Ez. 36:26-27, “26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.) ? This is why I don’t believe in prevenient grace if by it you mean that this grace does not ensure the salvation of the person, but that it only makes it possible and now its up to the person to decide their fate.
"Why would God give people enough grace to be able to choose whether or not to follow Christ when He knows whether or not they will follow Christ?"
Why wouldn't He?
"If He knows that this one will follow Christ, why not just give this person a new heart and cause him to walk according to God’s ways?"
Foreknowledge does not necessitate action.
The Ezekiel passage does not teach that He does this unconditionally. It does not mention a condition, but to infer that that automatically means it is unconditional is a logical fallacy.
We can find promises in the Bible that are unconditional and other ones that are made without immediate reference to a condition. However, can you name one passage regarding conversion that states that one gets saved unconditionally? The Bible, numerous times, describes faith as the condition ordained by God for receiving salvation. If we are going to assume something, shouldn't we assume what is actually stated?
I can't, at this time point you to a reference that teaches prevenient grace, but it is also understood as the reason for the unregenerate being capable of any good, or the existence of a conscience in the unsaved. I think the Calvinist attributes this to "common grace" which I'm not sure can actually be supported by Scripture.
Look, I'll admit, I don't know. I see merit on both sides. But I'm trying to understand, and I believe God will honor that. It's a joy to work out my faith with you. Don't think my arguing the other side necessarily means I'm sold on it.
I do not hear anything you are saying as argumentative, believe me. If someone read our conversation, they might read into it that we are arguing. I just love talking about this stuff because I believe Jesus when He says that He is the Truth, and so if He is the Truth, I want to get to the deepest level of the Truth (Jesus) with the greatest accuracy as possible. This happens through deep thought and good conversations like this one. You hit the nail on the head, God will honor your pursuit of who He really is and what He has done, is doing, and will do.
Anyways... (sorry this is so long but please read all of it. This is part 1)
As for common grace, we can point to passages such as Matt 5:45b "For he(God) makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." Also other passages that talk about how God through the Son "upholds the universe by the word of his power" (Heb. 1:2-3; John 1:1-4). This is common grace. There is also a lot more involved with common grace but hopefully this helps a little.
Onto the evidence regarding conversion that states a person gets saved unconditionally...
Without being born again, no one can see the kingdom of God (John 3:3). So this means that unless one is born again they cannot even see/understand what the kingdom of God is let alone choose to have faith in it. Jesus confirms this when he says in verse 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." One's natural question is then, "what do I have to DO in order to be born again?" People taught me when I was at the assemblies of God that you must earnestly repent, have faith (believe) and pray the prayer of salvation, then I'd be born again. The problem is that this goes counter what Jesus says. He does not say this to Nicodemus, but counter-intuitively says in verse 8 "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." He says, if you get born of the Holy Spirit, you had about as much control of that event as you do of the wind. (You have no control of it.) And then 1 John 5:1 states, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ HAS BEEN (past tense) born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him." That first part I believe to be reversible as well. "Everyone one who HAS BEEN born of God believes that Jesus is the Christ." There are no people that are born of God and then do not believe that Jesus is the Christ. Arminians will say that they get born again when they have faith, but, as I just stated, the bible says that a sinner will have faith only after the sovereign "wind" of the Holy Spirit (funny play on words by God considering pneuma means both "spirit" and "wind" or "breath") has "breathed" on them, making them born again. This is what I believe 2 Cor. 4:4-6 is talking about. Even more so, Ephesians 2:4-10 “4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, MADE US ALIVE together with Christ--by grace you have been saved-- 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. AND THIS IS NOT YOUR OWN DOING; IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD, 9 NOT A RESULT OF WORKS, SO THAT NO ONE MAY BOAST. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
(Last part of this comment!)
You are completely correct by saying that, “The Bible, numerous times, describes faith as the condition ordained by God for receiving salvation.” As we can see from Ephesians 2 though, the very faith which is a condition that needs to be met in order to have eternal salvation is given to us (God’s elect) as a free gift, because of God’s grace, so that no one can boast in the presence of God as to why he is saved, unless their boast is in the LORD alone, (1 Cor. 1:31)
In short, God requires faith in order to be saved. The problem is that unless we are born of God we cannot choose to have faith because of our blind eyes (2 Cor. 4:4), stone hearts (Ez. 36:26), we are spiritually dead, children of wrath (Eph.2), we “loved the darkness rather than the light because [our] works were evil.” (John 3:19) and so on and so forth. Because of what Christ accomplished on the cross, He purchased everything we needed in order to be saved; including the right to give us (God’s elect) saving faith, therefore meeting the condition that God requires in order to be saved (faith). (This is a lot to put together so you may have to reread it a couple of times and really ask God if this is correct or not. I believe to be so.)
Augustine really opened the can of worms and began the whole debate of man’s depravity by praying this prayer, “Lord command what you will, and grant what u command.” In relating this to our discussion, he’s essentially saying, “command that I have faith in order to be saved, and give me that faith in order that I be saved.” This seems to be completely biblical although it is hard for us to understand sometimes. Let me know if any of this makes sense. Lol. I’m loving this conversation though and I am thanking God for it.
Ok. The question at hand then is whether faith precedes regeneration or regeneration precedes faith.
We are justified by faith, the Bible is clear on that. Claiming that regeneration precedes faith, is claiming that God can give life apart from the blood of Christ, our justification. It claims that God gives life before the removal of our sin. It is our sin that causes spiritual death, so our sin must be removed through Christ's blood before God can give us life. As long as sin remains, death remains. If God can give life (regenerate us) before the application of Christ's blood (justification), then the atonement becomes less than what it is: the necessary means by which a holy God reconciles sinners to himself. This makes "irresistible grace" insufficiently Christocentric in my estimation.
If we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit, it seems to come after faith, as in Ephesians 1:13, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise".
Calvinist theologian Louis Berkhof says,"regeneration is the beginning of sanctification". If that is truly the belief, it seems to present a problem for the doctrine. How can God begin to make us holy (sanctification) while we are still under His wrath, dead in our sins? God must first reconcile us through Christ's blood [justification] before he can give us life and make us holy. For example John 5:40 states "...and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life." Come to me ---> Have life. Not: Have life ---> Come to me.
So on to John 3:3...
John 3:3.
Before I even looked into this at all, my understanding of the phrase "see the kingdom of God" was that it meant "enter the kingdom" or "experience the kingdom" rather than "understand the kingdom", in light of verse 5. So after some research it appears that the word for "see" in this verse, ἰδεῖν, is used in other places in just such a way. Acts 2:27, 31; 13:35 and Hebrews 11:5 use the word to express experiencing death or corruption. It's used in 1 Peter 3:10 to indicate experiencing "good days". Its use in Revelation 18:7 is that of experiencing "sorrow". D.A.Carson says,
"To a Jew with the background and convictions of Nicodemus, "to see the kingdom of God" was to participate in the kingdom at the end of the age, to experience eternal, resurrection life. The same equivalence is found in the Synoptics (cf. Mk. 9:43, 45 'to enter life', parallel to 9:47 'to enter the kingdom of God)." (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According To John)
Considering these uses and how Jesus expounds on his own words in v.5, I have to believe it means "experience". No man can experience the kingdom of God, its blessings, its peace, its power, etc. without first being born again. You quote v.8 but seem to miss v. 14 and 15 where Jesus gives the answer Nicodemus question of "how can this be?" He uses this story as a metaphor. The Israelites were dying in the desert from deadly snake bites. The only way for them to escape imminent death was for them to turn their eyes to the bronze serpent for God's healing. They were dying until they looked to it. Jesus uses this analogy of looking to the snake, to describe believing in Him. When someone believes, His blood is applied and their bondage to sin and death is broken. This is where their new life begins. If your interpretation of John 3:3 is correct, then the analogy is a poor choice to explain how new life starts. That would mean that the Israelites were not given life as a result of looking to the bronze serpent but given life first, so that they could look to it. Meaning they had already been cured of the venom and as a result then looked up to the serpent. Unless you can tell me that that is what happened in the desert, I can't see how it correlates to your interpretation. I think Jesus used this analogy for a reason: to illustrate that we must make a choice in order to "see". The power to effect change isn't in the choice, it's in the object of our gaze. But I think the illustration points to faith preceding regeneration.
Finally 1 John 5:1...
1 John 5:1.
The Greek in 5:1(and you are correct in the proper understanding being "has been" vs. "is") says nothing more than that the one who is presently believing has been born of God. No disagreement from me. The verse does not say whether being born of God came before or after one believed. All that can be concluded is that if one is now believing we can be know that that same person is (and has been) born of God.
Now I have a question.
What do you do with Acts 7:51? Resisting the Holy Spirit.
John Piper gives a really good explanation of this, "There are divine influences which can be resisted, but there are also those which cannot be. The new birth is one of those that is irresistible, because it operates beneath a person's consciousness transforming the root of his affections and thus removing his hostility to God. And finally, this is God's "effectual calling"—not the general call that goes out to all through the gospel, but the creative call of God that brings into being something new by its own power (1 Corinthians 1:24; 2 Corinthians 4:6)."
Here's the link to that sermon.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1981/284_That_Which_Is_Born_of_the_Spirit_Is_Spirit/
It really makes sense to me based on all of the scripture that he supports it with. Any gospel call given by a preacher is truly enabled by the Holy Spirit because as 1 Corinthians 12:3 says, "No one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit." So anytime the gospel is presented and gives the Holy Spirit empowered "general" call of God, if people do not submit to it they are essentially "resisting" the Holy Spirit. In fact, everyone resists the Holy Spirit who is not a believer. This is what Piper is talking about and what I feel like the bible is saying; the differences between the resistible work of the Spirit and the irresistible work of the Spirit.
Post a Comment