« Why Did Jesus Call Her a Dog? |
Main
| A Pastor Who Ended Up In Prison »
On the fall of man
I’ve been wrestling lately with what I understand to be the Calvinistic proposition that our salvation rests purely upon God’s predestination of our fate, i.e., our being chosen by Him either for glory or destruction, according to Romans chapter 9. Having not studied Calvinism thoroughly, I allow that I may not be understanding (or representing) it properly. But I have understood enough, I think, to raise some questions. Not all of them can be covered in a blog post, but I would like to raise a few aspects of them and get some feedback.
What I cannot reconcile is that being chosen equates with being predestined. A major sticking point for me is that God created (by choice, of course) Adam and Eve with the ability to choose between good and evil, and called that “good.” Or, did He predestine them to choose evil, and call that “good?” I don’t think that this can be gleaned from Genesis 2:17: “but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat [says the Lord], for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” God must have made Adam and Eve with the capacity to obey, i.e., to choose to obey or to disobey, as well as to be deceived, as is written in Genesis 3:1-6.
Did mankind lose the ability to choose for himself between good and evil after the Fall? Was this part of the curse? Genesis 3 doesn’t say. In Genesis 6:5, however, the Lord observes that “every intent of the thoughts of [man’s] heart [is] only evil continually.” My question here is, does man’s depravity of heart necessarily mean that he lost his ability to choose between good and evil, or merely that he lost all desire (will) to choose good? So that, after God started over with Noah’s family and still their descendants continued man’s prideful legacy, He began showing His goodness to them in various ways so as to restore to their hearts some of that desire to choose good.
Perhaps if God has indeed continued to grant humankind the freedom, since the Fall, to choose good or evil, He also influences this choice to varying degrees as He, in His sovereignty, may. Perhaps it could be compared to the laws of nature – God has created (and sustains) the laws of nature but can (and does) suspend them, “supernaturally,” any time He chooses.
Now I realize that’s an oversimplification and all the serious theologians out there are rolling their eyes. But bear with me: there has to be a way to reconcile Romans 9 with passages that seem to indicate that we have a choice. For example:
Luke 13:3, 5 – Jesus’ words to those who reported to Him that Pilate had mingled the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices, and asked whether these Galileans had perished because their sin was greater than other Galileans): “I tell you...unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
Jesus could merely have been speaking a truth, and could have qualified His statement by saying, “Unless God elects to call you so that you therefore repent, you will perish.” But He didn’t. His words seem to indicate that the persons to whom He was speaking had a choice in the matter. This is not to say that anyone can repent without being called by God, but surely someone can be called by God and choose not to repent, can they not? This would not mean that God is not sovereign, because He can change mens’ (and women’s) minds if He so chooses. But what if He chooses, in His sovereignty, to allow people choice in the matter of receiving Him?
John 3:14-18 – Jesus says, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life. [Why didn’t He say here, “...that whoever is elected by God to receive His calling may have eternal life?”] For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
Acts 13:39-40 “...through Him (Jesus) everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses. Take heed, therefore, so that the think spoken of in the Prophets may not come upon you: ‘Behold, you scoffers, and marvel, and perish; for I am accomplishing a work in your days, a work which you will never believe, though someone should describe it to you.’” (emphasis added)
Why would anyone need to be exhorted to take heed, if they had no choice in the matter?
Colossians 1:21-23 "And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach -- if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven..."
Hebrews 2:1-3 “For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the work spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience receives a just recompense, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?” (emphasis added)
Hebrews 3:12-15 “Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart, in falling away from the living God. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called ‘Today,’ lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end; while it is said, ‘Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts, as when they provoked Me.’” (emphasis added) (Those who came out of Egypt, led by Moses, hardened their hearts and were disobedient, which provoked the Lord.)
Titus 2:11-12 “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously, and godly in the present age.” (emphasis added)
What need is there to be instructed not to deny ungodliness unless it is indeed an option that we may choose?
Here’s what C. S. Lewis had to say about the fall of man:
According to [the doctrine of the Fall], man is now a horror to God and to himself and a creature ill-adapted to the universe not because God made him so but because he has made himself so by the use of his free will. To my mind this is the sole function of the doctrine. It exists to guard against two sub-Christian theories of the origin of evil – Monism, according to which God Himself, being “above good and evil,” produces impartially the effects to which we give those two names, and Dualism, according to which God produces good, while some equal and independent Power produces evil.
Against both these views Christianity asserts that God is good; that He made all things good and for the sake of their goodness; that one of the good things He made, namely, the free will of rational creatures, by its very nature included the possibility of evil; and that creatures, availing themselves of this possibility, have become evil. Now this function – which is the only one I allow to the doctrine of the Fall – must be distinguished from two other functions which it is sometimes, perhaps, represented as performing, but which I reject. In the first place, I do not think the doctrine answers the question, “Was it better for God to create than not to create?”...Since I believe God to be good, I am sure that, if the question has a meaning, the answer must be Yes. But I doubt whether the question has any meaning: and even if it has, I am sure that the answer cannot be attained by the sort of value judgments which men can significantly make. In the second place, I do not think the doctrine of the Fall can be used to show that it is “just,” in terms of retributive justice, to punish individuals for the faults of their remote ancestors. Some forms of the doctrine seem to involve this; but I question whether any of them, as understood by its exponents, really meant it.
.....It would, no doubt, have been possible to God to remove by miracle the results of the first sin committed by a human being; but this would not have been much good unless He was prepared to remove the results of the second sin, and of the third, and so on forever. If the miracles ceased, then sooner or later we might have reached our present lamentable situation: if they did not, then a world, thus continually underpropped and corrected by Divine interference, would have been a world in which nothing important ever depended on human choice, and in which choice itself would soon cease from the certainly that one of the apparent alternatives before you would lead to no results and was therefore not really an alternative. (emphasis added) The Joyful Christian, pp. 48-50.
(This is an excerpt from one of his other books -- which one I don’t know but maybe someone will tell me)
Lewis is indicating here that the whole point of choice is that it bears consequence. That is the whole basis of morality. Here is the other problem I have in my (no doubt deficient) understanding of Calvinistically-understood predestination: if God is controlling the entire board, and man has been given no steam to run with on his own, how can he possibly be held accountable for his choices, the moral compunction for which lies in the result of a choice, i.e., it either promotes life, or death, spiritually-speaking? How can it be possible that the first two humans, Adam and Eve, had this type of choice, but, after making the wrong one, deprived the rest of humankind of the ability to choose for themselves forever?
It seems to me that we can still credit God with mercy, lovingkindness, longsuffering, and justice, and sovereignty if we allow that He allows us to choose between good and evil, the truth of which He Himself defines, except in some situations in which He may choose to override our choices. We can choose to be open to what He offers or to reject it. Otherwise, obedience has no meaning. If He can make us obey Him, as a general rule, then what point would there be in His demanding of us that which He chooses or denies for us anyway? Making us obey Him is not the same as causing us to obey Him. He can cause us to obey but we’ve still made the choice. If He makes us obey, though, then the choice is His, not ours.
We can choose to fear, or to act on our fear, or we can choose to put our fear aside and trust in God, based on a belief that He is Who He says He is and can do what He has demonstrated throughout history (including Biblical accounts) that He can do...can we not?
My question here is, does man’s depravity of heart necessarily mean that he lost his ability to choose between good and evil, or merely that he lost all desire (will) to choose good?
I think they are the same thing, really. Choosing is a function of desire, so a warped desire means warped (or not good) choices. We can still choose between good and evil after the fall, but we don't desire the good anymore, so we invariably, left to our natural desires, choose evil.
Perhaps if God has indeed continued to grant humankind the freedom, since the Fall, to choose good or evil, He also influences this choice to varying degrees as He, in His sovereignty, may.
Since the fall, humankind does indeed have a real choice between good and evil. I wouldn't call this real choice freedom, though, because scripture teaches us that the will of the natural human being is in bondage to sin. (Not because God keeps us from choosing good, or because there is some "natural law" that says we must choose evil, but because as corrupt descendents of corrupt ancestors, we have corrupted natures.)
And God does indeed influence choices. But a truly good choice only comes out of a good heart, so while some choices may be better than others, a truly good choice only comes from a heart that loves God and makes that choice out of love for him, and that sort of heart comes only from God's recreative work.
His words seem to indicate that the persons to whom He was speaking had a choice in the matter.
Absolutely, and a Calvinist doesn't disagree with this. Everyone has a choice to repent or not, but left in our natural (since the fall) state, we invariably and intransigently choose to ignore the call to repentence.
But what if He chooses, in His sovereignty, to allow people choice in the matter of receiving Him?
He does allow people a choice--at least to those who hear the gospel. But the choice to recieve Him is a direct consequence of having been born of God.
if God is controlling the entire board, and man has been given no steam to run with on his own, how can he possibly be held accountable for his choices, the moral compunction for which lies in the result of a choice, i.e., it either promotes life, or death, spiritually-speaking?
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying here, but Calvinist's believe that God "controlling the entire board" does not mean that man has been "given no steam to run with on his own". Man has all the steam he needs to run on his own, but that's a problem for him, because "on his own steam" invariably means "following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Ephesians 2 ESV) You see the choice in those verses, but the results of the choice is not good choices, but nasty ones. Until God's intervention.
And that intervention by Gid isn't simply putting us in some sort of neutral place (I don't think there really IS a neutral place), but it's making "us alive together with Christ", even when we were dead in our trespasses.
We can choose to fear, or to act on our fear, or we can choose to put our fear aside and trust in God,
Sorry, I missed this. I'm not sure that we choose what we're afraid of--what we're afraid of comes instinctively (or naturally) and as long as we're afraid of something (or someone) we can't (or won't) trust it.
based on a belief that He is Who He says He is and can do what He has demonstrated throughout history (including Biblical accounts) that He can do...can we not?
The thing is, the demons believe God is who he says he is. I think they probably also believe he can do what he has demonstrated he can do. But they respond to that with trembling--either of fear or revulsion, I'm not sure which. It isn't knowing the right stuff that saves, it's loving and trusting the right One, and the hostility toward God that we have naturally prevents us from responding to him in love and trust.
Rebecca, thanks for your comments. What you write does not sound like Calvinism to me, though, and I would pretty much agree with what you say. It’s a matter of whether the cart is before the horse (or vice-versa...)
Since the fall, humankind does indeed have a real choice between good and evil. I wouldn't call this real choice freedom, though, because scripture teaches us that the will of the natural human being is in bondage to sin.
I didn’t mean freedom on its own; I meant freedom to choose as opposed to lack of the freedom to choose, as some verses of Romans 9 have been taken by some to indicate.
And God does indeed influence choices. But a truly good choice only comes out of a good heart, so while some choices may be better than others, a truly good choice only comes from a heart that loves God and makes that choice out of love for him, and that sort of heart comes only from God's recreative work.
I don’t think God instantly changes a “bad” heart to a “good” heart (though He could, of course :-) ); He may show someone a way that is a good way, so that the person can recognize this and recognize that s/he can choose the good way or a bad way. Through this recognition, which amounts to a receiving of love, his/her heart may be transformed. S/he can choose to cast this aside, however. I think even the “saved” make many choices like this every day. In other words, I’m not sure that God recreates all by Himself; He can only do it insofar as we allow Him to. He has made this recreating possible, though.
Everyone has a choice to repent or not, but left in our natural (since the fall) state, we invariably and intransigently choose to ignore the call to repentance.
How can everyone have a choice to repent if some are predestined, i.e., elected, for glory and some for destruction?
He does allow people a choice--at least to those who hear the gospel. But the choice to recieve Him is a direct consequence of having been born of God.
Can one be born of God without having received Him first, by choice?
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying here, but Calvinist's believe that God "controlling the entire board" does not mean that man has been "given no steam to run with on his own". Man has all the steam he needs to run on his own, but that's a problem for him, because "on his own steam" invariably means "following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Ephesians 2 ESV)
By “steam” I meant impetus, energy, ability, or whatever you want to call it to make choices outside of His will. If God elects some and doesn’t elect others, then He’s controlling, rather than managing, the board. God obviously allows people to follow the course of this world and the prince of the power of the air, but does He purpose them for this, as certain verses of Romans 9 would seem to indicate?
I'm not sure that we choose what we're afraid of--what we're afraid of comes instinctively (or naturally) and as long as we're afraid of something (or someone) we can't (or won't) trust it.
I didn’t say that we can choose what we’re afraid of; I said we can choose to follow our fear or to put it aside and step out in trust.
The thing is, the demons believe God is who he says he is. I think they probably also believe he can do what he has demonstrated he can do. But they respond to that with trembling--either of fear or revulsion, I'm not sure which. It isn't knowing the right stuff that saves, it's loving and trusting the right One, and the hostility toward God that we have naturally prevents us from responding to him in love and trust.
No, it’s not knowing; it’s believing. The demons couldn’t possibly believe Him, or believe in Him in the sense of having faith in Him, or they wouldn’t be demons!
What you write does not sound like Calvinism to me
I have my official Calvinist card here somewhere... :)
I didn’t mean freedom on its own; I meant freedom to choose as opposed to lack of the freedom to choose, as some verses of Romans 9 have been taken by some to indicate.
I don't know any Calvinists, actually, who say that the natural human beings don't have freedom to choose. Some Calvinists say that humankind doesn't have free will, but by that they don't mean that people can't choose whatever they desire. They just mean that the natural person's desire (or will) is in bondage, so they never desire what they should.
I don’t think God instantly changes a “bad” heart to a “good” heart (though He could, of course :-) );
Bad choice of words on my part. "Dead heart" to "alive heart", then, or hard heart to soft one. New creation. Born again. A new nature. I think those terms are scriptural ones. Not that we are sanctified instantaneously, but that there is some real fundamental change in new creatures, a change wrought by the Spirit of God.
How can everyone have a choice to repent if some are predestined, i.e., elected, for glory and some for destruction?
(No one is "elected" for destruction. The word "elected" is always used in regards to salvation.)
Some out of the already fallen and already headed for destruction humanity are elected to be brought from their stubborn and willful (choice words, BTW) rejection of God. Those who are not elect keep on choosing to reject God, or not to repent. In those whom God elects, the Spirit takes the initiative to give them a new nature, and out of that new nature they choose willingly to repent and believe. Both elect and nonelect make real choices in regards to God, but the nonelect keep on making the same choice they've always made, while the elect at some point, in response to the work of the Spirit, makes a different choice--the choice to repent, to come, etc.
Can one be born of God without having received Him first, by choice?
Absolutely. And you've put your finger right here on one of the key differences between the calvinistic and the noncalvinistic views of our experience of salvation. Most Calvinists believe that being born again is a sovereign work of the Spirit, and is not accomplished in response to anything the person does. John 1:12,13 says that those who receive were born. The tenses put the "being born" prior to the receiving, and says they were born "not out of human will." Ephesians 2 says it's while we are dead in trespasses--following the prince of the power of the air, etc.--that God makes us alive again. John 3 says that the Spirit, in the work of rebirth, is like the wind, going where it wishes, "out of the blue", so to speak.
It's because of this sovereign work of the Spirit in our rebirth that we understand the value of the things of God, that we want what God offers us, that we see the utter sinfulness of our ways and desire to repent, etc.
God obviously allows people to follow the course of this world and the prince of the power of the air, but does He purpose them for this, as certain verses of Romans 9 would seem to indicate?
Yes, he purposes them for this, but God can accomplish what he purposes by allowance (or permission) as well as by direct influence. This seems to be a sticking point in many people's understanding of Calvinism. You've undoubtedly heard the WCF statement that "God decrees everything that comes to pass." But everything that happens that's not obedient, not morally right, etc, while certainly decreed by God, comes to pass by way of God's permission.
I didn’t say that we can choose what we’re afraid of; I said we can choose to follow our fear or to put it aside and step out in trust.
But if we fear (or hate) God, why would we want to (or choose to) have anything to do with him, let alone trust him? Wouldn't our opinion of God have to be changed first? Wouldn't we first have to understand that God is trustworthy?
I'm enjoying this discussion, ladies! If either of you miss anything important, I might chime in with my little voice, but it looks rather unlikely at this point.
Bonnie, are you familiar with Thomas Aquinas's idea of secondary causes? If not, I can explain, but that helped me quite a bit with this issue.
Hi Rebecca, thanks for taking the time to discuss this.
I'm short on time but here are a few things:
I don't know any Calvinists, actually, who say that the natural human beings don't have freedom to choose.
I am not specifying natural human beings when I speak of freedom to choose. I’m speaking of human beings to whom God has brought salvation, which, according to Titus 2:11, is all men. Has God, therefore, brought salvation to all but chosen not to elect all for this salvation? If this is the case, then some men aren’t given the option of choosing salvation. God says to some, in effect, “I brought you a wonderful gift – but you can’t have it; because I, for the glory of my sovereign power over my creatures, have ordained you to dishonor and wrath for your sin, and choose to withhold my saving grace from you.” (I borrowed a bit from the Westminster Confession there :-) ).
Bad choice of words on my part. "Dead heart" to "alive heart", then, or hard heart to soft one. New creation. Born again. A new nature. I think those terms are scriptural ones. Not that we are sanctified instantaneously, but that there is some real fundamental change in new creatures, a change wrought by the Spirit of God.
Yes – but can this change be thrown out? Can it be rejected? Can it be turned away from? (Even to the point that salvation is lost?) Would a Calvinist not say that such a change is irresistible, due to the sovereign power of God? That His election cannot be rejected? If His election can be rejected, then is it still election, in the irresistable sense? And if it can’t be rejected, then mankind has no choice in the matter. Or are you saying that there are different levels of choice? Salvation can't be chosen, but working it out or not can be? We are elected or not to salvation but not elected to further work for God?
Both elect and nonelect make real choices in regards to God, but the nonelect keep on making the same choice they've always made, while the elect at some point, in response to the work of the Spirit, makes a different choice--the choice to repent, to come, etc.
Meaning that the work of the Spirit in this regard is not available to all. Meaning that Christ died for all, but the Spirit does not bring the regenerating power of this to bear on the heart of every person, but only upon the elect...
Would you interpret the Hebrews passages that I quoted as referring to the elect whose salvation is sealed but yet can choose to fall away or be hardened, not to the point of losing salvation but to not bearing fruit or accomplishing evil instead of good? What about the “if” in the Colossians passage – that [the elect] are reconciled to Him via Christ’s death if they continue in a firmly established faith and not moved away from the hope that they have heard? Does this mean that they can have salvation without reconciliation, or does it mean that they are not saved unless they are reconciled? The verses before the ones I quoted state that "it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in [Jesus], and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself"... Are there different aspects to this reconciliation -- that which is accomplished in Christ, for all; that given only to the elect; and that appropriated by those elect who choose to receive it?
Wow, two comments came in while I was writing that last one (contrary to what the posting times are -- must be our time zones?)
Anyway -- Hannah and anyone else who would like to contribute -- please do :-)
Manders -- no, I'm not familiar with that. Feel free to explain or recommend some reading.
Thanks, all :-)
I'm also reading and appreciating the conversation, but there seems to be a thousand different (but related) questions and issues on the table :-)
Bonnie, when you use the term "choice," what do you mean? Does it carry, in your view, the assumption of the moral ability to choose the contrary (liberty of indifference)? In other words, is contingency of will essential to "freedom" in your view? And if so, what do you make of God's "freedom" and the scriptural teaching that God "cannot lie" or "deny himself" (not merely that he will not)? It seems that if the presupposition "contingency of will essential to freedom" (the power of contrary choice) is valid, then God is not free in this sense. There is at least one counterfactual to that presupposition of the notion of "freedom".
A distinction between the liberty of indifference and the liberty of spontaneity must be made in order to clarify the debated issues, and to make sense of how each party comes to controversial passages in scripture. Ron Nash says this about the distinction, "Human beings may be said to be free in two quite different senses. The liberty of indifference explains human freedom as the ability either to do something or not...In order to be free in the sense of indifference, a person must have the ability either to do something or not. The liberty of spontaneity, on the other hand, explains human freedom as the ability to do whatever the person wants to do. On the second view, the question of the person's ability to do otherwise is irrelavant; the key question is whether he is able to do what he most wants to do." The sense of "freedom" and "ability" taken by the Calvinist is the view of the liberty of spontaneity.
We may also add the distinction between natural/constitutional ability vs. moral ability. No one denies that human beings, even those fallen, do have a choice making faculty called a "will." They are so constituted by God as creatures of option. But, as one author says concerning the debate between Calvinism and non-Calvinistic systems, "It is not the reality of the will which is in question, but its independence from the rest of our fallen nature, and its capacity to choose autonomously against God's eternal purpose."
The debate is not between either 1) the liberty of indifference or 2) that human beings don't make choices. This would be a false dilemma fallacy. Rather, the debate concerns the two senses of liberty, and how each view makes sense of the scriptural and theological data.
Greg Bahnsen has a helpful lecture on "Foreordination and freewill" at WordMP3.com He makes an effort to dissect the senses of "ability" in order to clarify the issues. Also, click on the Ron Nash link I provided above to listen to my reading of his chapter on Divine Omniscience and Human Freedom.
Bonnie, regarding Hebrews 6 and other passages where the apostles speak in the conditional - I've been given to think that this is done for two reasons. First, it is a way to avoid giving false assurance to those who are hiding within the church, enjoying the benefits of the elect but only storing up wrath for themselves in, for example, their unworthiness to take the sacraments - and, of course, it is important that a church identifies these in keeping with Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 ("Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. 'Purge the evil person from among you.'").
Second, I don't think that use of the conditional is logically a problem for perseverance of the saints. There are two things at work here - primarily, the will of God that all his elect should be saved, and secondarily, the means by which he has ordained us to participate in that salvation by our perseverance, which is itself already established by God, but which requires work at the same time. Yeah, I think Manders should explain second causes here. :) But I think it is clear all over the NT that salvation is in one sense definite (justification) and in one sense progressive (sanctification), so I see passages like that as a means of exhorting true believers to pursue sanctification (which accords with the level of assurance of faith).
Has God, therefore, brought salvation to all but chosen not to elect all for this salvation?
With the advent of Christ, the offer of salvation (or the command to repent) goes out worldwide. I would quibble a little with the way the second half is stated, and would prefer that it read something like this, “God has chosen some to actually bring to salvation.” The others are simply left as they already are, although the offer of salvation still stands for them. They will not take it, however, because of their opposition to God.
The command to repent (or believe) in order to be saved is universal, but not everyone is actually saved. Those who obey the command to believe and are actually saved are those whom God has chosen to bring to salvation through the work of the Spirit.
If this is the case, then some men aren’t given the option of choosing salvation. God says to some, in effect, “I brought you a wonderful gift – but you can’t have it; because I, for the glory of my sovereign power over my creatures, have ordained you to dishonor and wrath for your sin, and choose to withhold my saving grace from you.”
No. Everyone who hears the gospel is given the option of salvation. They could be saved if they believed. The cause of their damnation is not that God elected others, it’s that they choose to remain in their sins. Notice that the direct cause of their damnation is given to you: “for their sins”. This particular ordaination--the ordaination to wrath for sins--is accomplished by God’s permission. The direct cause of their damnation is not that God chose to withhold saving grace from them, but that they are sinners.
Yes – but can this change be thrown out? Can it be rejected? Can it be turned away from?
The question is not “can it?” but “will it?” I don’t know if it can be rejected or not, but I don’t think it ever will, because this recreative work is a “calling out of darkness and into God’s marvelous light.” It is an “out of nothing” work just like the first creation when God called light out of darkness. This same sort of creative command shines in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. If we see and know the glory of God in Christ’s face, why would we turn from that? It is also the new covenant writing of God’s laws on the heart of his people, which Hebrews tells us is the solution to unfaithfulness of covenant people under the old covenant.
Would a Calvinist not say that such a change is irresistible, due to the sovereign power of God?
The change is effectual. It does it’s job. It keeps people willingly faithful.
If His election can be rejected, then is it still election, in the irresistable sense? And if it can’t be rejected, then mankind has no choice in the matter.
It seems to me that you are equating election and being born again. They are not the same thing. Election is simply God’s choice of those he will work salvation in. Election, being God’s choice, does not depend on any choice we make.
However, this doesn’t meant that those God chooses (elects) to save aren’t saved willingly--they want to be saved. They repent willingly because they see their own sinfulness clearly; they trust willingly because they understand that God is trustworthy, they come because they see “the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”
Meaning that the work of the Spirit in this regard is not available to all.
This work of the Spirit is not given to everyone. I’m sure if someone desired it, they’d recieve it, so in a sense it’s available to everyone. However, people left as they naturally are since the fall don’t want it.
Meaning that Christ died for all, but the Spirit does not bring the regenerating power of this to bear on the heart of every person, but only upon the elect...
There is a real sense in which Christ died for all. However, Christ didn’t die with the intention of saving everyone through his death. If he had, then everyone would be saved.
Would you interpret the Hebrews passages that I quoted...
Here’s my interpretation of Hebrews 6.
What about the “if” in the Colossians passage – that [the elect] are reconciled to Him via Christ’s death if they continue in a firmly established faith and not moved away from the hope that they have heard?
Paul doesn’t say anything about the elect. We--not even Paul--know who the elect are. That’s God’s choice, and he’s the only one who knows for sure exactly who is elect and who is not.
Paul is talking to people whose faith seems to be genuine enduring faith, and says that (or if) they continue in the faith is proof that they were reconciled. He, being human, doesn’t know who all has been reconciled and who hasn’t.
YnottonY,
Thanks for reading, and commenting.
Yes, the issues do seem to get awfully complicated. It becomes extremely difficult to maintain distinctions among the many inter-related factors involved. It makes me wonder whether such theological macrame is really necessary – isn’t it enough for a person to just respond to the call of God and to pass on His love?
(Yet inquiring minds want to know things...so here I am :-) )
On choice – forgive me; I am not seeing the relevance of what you define as liberty of spontaneity, i.e., persons having the ability to do what they most want to do, to my questions about election. Obviously, if someone is not elect, or is not given the option of being saved, s/he will not want to be saved. Besides, I think that people often do not have the ability to do what they most want to do. But this too may or may not be related to salvation.
I also would not say that the human will has the capacity to choose autonomously against God's eternal purpose. Yet I do not see how God’s calling all to salvation yet allowing some to reject it amounts to Him lying or denying Himself – more explanation of what you mean by that (the argument that would require Him to be lying or denying Himself) would be helpful to me :-).
Do people truly only choose what they want to, insofar as they are able? It seems to me that choice is much more complicated than that. There may be competing options with a multitude of factors each; each option may carry a multitude of different degrees and natures of compulsion. “Choice” doesn’t mean merely choosing something or not; it also means choosing something over something else. There are factors of thought and emotion involved, with spiritual factors underlying them all. Is fear based merely in thought? Or does it involve emotion as well? Is hatred merely a thought? Or does it involve emotion as well? Is choice itself based merely in thought?
*******
I am truly interested in answers to some of the specific questions I’ve raised, before delving into yet more complicated philosophical and theological writings. Did man’s essential ability to choose between good and evil change from before the Fall to after, and, if so, how? And how do we know? Did God remove this choice from mankind? And, is this choice restored to the elect, or is the choice gone forever so that only those whom God specifically elects can choose to obey God?
Were those persons that Jesus spoke to in Luke 13:3-5 elect? Did Jesus know who was elect and who wasn’t?
And what of John 3? I don’t see that there is a clarity of meaning that can be drawn from the tense in that passage; for it to say definitely what Rebecca states, the passage would need to read, “But to all who did receive him, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” instead of, “12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” The order of clauses seems to indicate that it is the ones who have the right to become children of God, by virtue of receiving Him and believing in His name, who are born of God. But the definite meaning of the tense and wording is unclear.
What about the passage in Acts 13? What need is there to “take heed?” What exactly are those individuals exhorted to take heed of? Is their salvation already secure?
Ugh, my head hurts!
My goodness. Did you ever stir up a hornets nest. Anyway, well said. Someone recently said in essence that we have no choice in the matter of salvation. If God chooses us, we are in. If not, we are out. If that were the case, then nothing we do as parents will have any effect upon the salvation of our children. -- Neil
Neil, you're bringing in a whole other issue -- the issue of covenant. In the Bible it appears that on the whole God saves families (think of how the covenant is passed down from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob etc; there are also NT examples where whole households were saved, e.g. Cornelius'). (Of course there are exceptions with a whole lot of wayward sons throughout the Bible -- but often we don't know the end of these stories either). But for Reformed Christians, we baptise our infants as a sign and seal of the covenant that God has made with us -- to usher our children into the community of faith. This doesn't mean that they are in fact from that moment saved -- baptism is in no way salvific -- but it does mean that we shall raise our children in the faith and expect that God will fulfil his promises to His people and bring that child to faith in his time.
We live in faith as parents that God has elected our children and thus we raise them as a part of the Church (and thus we give the sign of belonging to the Church in baptism), ministering to them and teaching them of the gospel in word and deed. It is a parent's duty to live and teach the gospel to his/her children, and in faith trust that God will bring that child to salvation.
It's not all that different from any other context of preaching and living out the gospel (except for this idea of covenant I've mentioned, but in its practical effects both cases of "gospel living" might look very similar). It's true *we* can't do anything to "have any effect" on the belief of our children. Now let me clarify. We do raise our children *as if* they are elect because we expect that they are elect and that they will profess their faith in Christ -- so our lives as a testament to the gospel does have an effect in the sense that we are showing them Christian faith and thus it provides one of the possible means whereby they are "in Christ". On the other hand our actions have no *effectual* effect in bringing children to Christ -- it comes back to if grace is irresistable -- it is only the saving work of Christ which calls them out of darkness and into his glorious light.
Rebecca,
I appreciate your responses very much and read them with great interest. I am still seeing contradictions, however:
Everyone who hears the gospel is given the option of salvation.
But if they’re not given the means (i.e., the Spirit, the election) by which to receive it, then they are not truly given the option.
They could be saved if they believed.
But they won’t believe without being elected for salvation.
The cause of their damnation is not that God elected others, it’s that they choose to remain in their sins.
Bingo – that’s what I’ve believed (rightly or wrongly) up to this point: that people, all people, have a choice to receive or reject God’s saving grace. But if, as the Calvinist holds, God’s election of people to salvation cannot be denied, then what you are stating here cannot be true. And if the only way they can be saved is to be elected for salvation, then the cause of the others' damnation certainly is being allowed to meet the fate which they deserve because of their sin as a result of, not only their sin, but God’s not electing them for salvation! It has to be one or the other; it can’t be both: either God’s sovereignty includes determining, at His pleasure and for His purposes, who will be given the Spirit that changes the heart so that it receives Him and His salvation and who won’t, or His sovereignty includes creating the plan for salvation and ultimately working things for His purposes, yet still providing the means to all people by which salvation can be accepted, and allowing them to choose it or not.
This particular ordaination--the ordaination to wrath for sins--is accomplished by God’s permission. The direct cause of their damnation is not that God chose to withhold saving grace from them, but that they are sinners.
If God decides who will be elected and who won’t be, meaning that, ultimately, He decides each person’s fate, then the direct cause of the sinners’ damnation is that God chose to withhold saving grace from them. The ones He did not choose to withhold saving grace from are sinners too, of course; therefore, the only difference between the saved sinners and the damned ones, according to Calvinism, is that God has elected the saved ones for salvation and provided the means to them only, via the Spirit.
me: “Yes – but can this change be thrown out? Can it be rejected? Can it be turned away from?”
R: The question is not “can it?” but “will it?” I don’t know if it can be rejected or not, but I don’t think it ever will, because this recreative work is a “calling out of darkness and into God’s marvelous light.”
If the Calvinistic doctrine of irresistible election is true, then the question is “can it?” A la Hebrews 2 and 3.
me: “Would a Calvinist not say that such a change is irresistible, due to the sovereign power of God?”
R: The change is effectual. It does it’s job. It keeps people willingly faithful.
If it’s effectual, then it's not rejectable, as I said.
It seems to me that you are equating election and being born again.
No, my issue is the question of choice.
There is a real sense in which Christ died for all. However, Christ didn’t die with the intention of saving everyone through his death. If he had, then everyone would be saved.
This sounds like a contradiction to me. Either He died for all, or He didn’t. Either His salvation is for everyone, or it isn’t. His death reconciled all to God. (Colossians 1:19-20) God’s grace has appeared, bringing salvation to all men. (Titus 2:11-12) If this is in fact true, and everyone is not saved, then what is the missing link? Either it’s that God somehow leaves something out of the reconciling and bringing of salvation to some, or some choose to reject God’s grace, reconciliation, and salvation.
Bonnie says:
"On choice – forgive me; I am not seeing the relevance of what you define as liberty of spontaneity, i.e., persons having the ability to do what they most want to do, to my questions about election. Obviously, if someone is not elect, or is not given the option of being saved, s/he will not want to be saved. Besides, I think that people often do not have the ability to do what they most want to do. But this too may or may not be related to salvation.
My reply:
The advocates of free will (as over against free agency) or the liberty of indifference work with this basic definition of freedom, as given by one libertarian:
"An agent is free with respect to a given action at a given time if at that time it is within the agent's power to perform the action and also in the agent's power to refrain from the action."
A critic of this view, defines this free will position as:
"the belief that the human will has an inherent power to choose with equal ease between alternatives. This is commonly called "the power of contrary choice" or "the liberty of indifference." This belief does not claim that there are no influences that might affect the will, but it does insist that normally the will can overcome these factors and choose in spite of them. Ultimately, the will is free from any necessary causation. In other words, it is autonomous from outside determination."
As John Frame says, "On the libertarian view, our character may influence our decisions, as may our immediate desires. But we always have the freedom to choose contrary to our character and our desires, however strong. This position assumes that there is a part of human nature that we might call the will, which is independent of every other aspect of our being, and which can, therefore, make a decision contrary to every motivation."
People like C. S. Lewis are working with the presupposition that genuine freedom presupposes the power of contrary choice (this is just one example of his serious theological errors). This is why he thinks that love between two persons necessarily presupposes the power or ability to not love. What does this view entail with respect to inter-Trinitarian love?! Clearly the persons in the Godhead freely love each other, and yet they cannot do otherwise. What does Lewis' presupposition about the power of contrary choice make of the biblical statements that God cannot lie or deny himself?! This is what I was saying, and not that "God’s calling all to salvation yet allowing some to reject it amounts to Him lying or denying Himself." That was a misinterpretation of my point. My point is that the free will advocate, every time he or she speaks of "choice," "ability," "freedom," "will" etc., has this fundamental presupposition of the power of contrary choice. God is the paradigm for what it means to be a free being, and yet he does not have this so called "power of contrary choice." It seems biblical to think of freedom in the sense of the liberty of spontaneity (or free agency, compatibilist freedom etc.). That is, a persons nature, affections and strongest motives determine the decisions of the will. This is certainly the case with God. He does what is good because his nature is good. He cannot lie or deny himself because it is contrary to his nature and affections. What about the case of a lost sinner? What does the scripture say? If a person is dead in trespasses and sin (that's their nature), then their affections and will are in bondage. In fact, they love their bondage to sin. One only becomes properly free if the Son makes them free. True freedom consists in the moral ability to do what is good. The saints will never be more free than when they are glorified and confirmed in holiness so that they will no longer be able to sin. Saints in heaven are not able to sin, and what a glorious slavery that will be! We shall be perfect slaves of righteousness.
Sinners, left to their own inclinations, affections, or motives will want to sin. They are slaves of unrighteousness. Their will acts in accord with their nature or heart. In order for a sinner to have any affection toward the good, divine assistance and intervention is necessary. If God does not intervene (and he is under no obligation to help sinners in his grace), then the sinner will inevitably choose evil. Sin has so affected their mind, heart and will that every choice is perverted. Total (or better called "pervasive") depravity is their situation. The church, every since the days of Augustine, has acknowledged the necessity of grace to overcome our natural bondage to sin. The Reformers or "Calvinists" are Augustinian in this regard. They have held to some form of compatibilist freedom (free agency or the liberty of spontaneity) as over against libertarian freedom (free will or the liberty of indifference).
Every time Bonnie or anyone else speaks of "choice," "freedom," "ability," or "will", one of these two perspectives is being assumed or presupposed. If Bonnie says that she "also would not say that the human will has the capacity to choose autonomously against God's eternal purpose," then Judas was not morally able to not betray Jesus. He was eternally determined to do so as the prophets say, yet Judas did exactly what he wanted to do. No violence was done to his will. He was a responsible free agent, but he did not have free will, or the liberty of indifference. It's a shame that people like C. S. Lewis worked with the assumption that contingency of will was essential to freedom. Biblical couterfactuals are legion!
This will probably be my last post in this thread. Far too many questions are on the table, and they deserve more thorough answers than can occur in a comment thread on a blog. I have tried to aim my comments at the heart of the issue. As Bonnie says, "my issue is the question of choice." One could deal with the dozens (the questions may bein the hundreds by now LOL) of other questions, but if this issue is not addressed, then it seems to me that confusion will only follow.
I can't leave this issue unaddressed, particularly since a friend recently called me "Atonyment" instead of Tony :-) Rebecca said:
"There is a real sense in which Christ died for all. However, Christ didn’t die with the intention of saving everyone through his death. If he had, then everyone would be saved."
Rebecca has indirectly picked up Post-Reformational scholastic ideas that intentionality can only be associated with God's secret or decretal will. This is why she thinks that a universal intention to save would necessarily result in everyone being saved. What is minimized here is God's revealed will as being, in fact, a "will." God's revealed will is not thought of as an active principle. A Calvinist might retort to Rebecca, "Is it God's will that everyone repent?" She will have to say yes if she wants to be biblical. "Well then," says the Calvinistic objector, "does not repentance entail salvation?" Once again, she will have to say yes if she wants to be biblical. Then one could say that there is a sense in which God wills everyone to be saved in the revealed will of God. If God wants everyone to be saved in the revealed will of God, then isn't it by means of a blood sacrifice? Isn't Christ death really sufficient for all? If she wants to be biblical, she will have to say yes. Then I ask, was this an ordained sufficiency for all? If so, isn't what is ordained by God an intention in God? I think so and I am a Calvinist. However, this does not mean that God sent his Son to die with an equal intention for all, anymore than it is the case that God has an equal love for all mankind. He does love all mankind, but especially his elect bride. I don't think that Christ died to only save the elect, or that he died to save everyone with the same intent. I believe the biblical position is that Christ intended to die for the salvation of all, but especially for his elect. The only way around my argument by the higher Calvinists is to downplay or deny that the revealed will of God as a distinct motive, active principle and intention.
As over against Rebecca's view, Bonnie says:
"This sounds like a contradiction to me. Either He died for all, or He didn’t. Either His salvation is for everyone, or it isn’t. His death reconciled all to God. (Colossians 1:19-20) God’s grace has appeared, bringing salvation to all men. (Titus 2:11-12) If this is in fact true, and everyone is not saved, then what is the missing link? Either it’s that God somehow leaves something out of the reconciling and bringing of salvation to some, or some choose to reject God’s grace, reconciliation, and salvation."
As
Dabney notes, "Says the strong Arminian: "Since God is sovereign, and also true and sincere, therefore I know that, when he declares his compassion for 'him that dieth,' he has exerted all the power that even omnipotence can properly exert on 'free-will,' to turn that sinner to life." Thus this party sustain God's sincerity at the expense of his omnipotence...The correct answer to the Arminian is to show him that the existence of a real and unfeigned pity in God for "him that dieth" does not imply that God has exhausted his divine power in vain to renew the creature's "free-will" in a way consistent with its nature, because the pity may have been truly in God, and yet countervailed by superior motives, so that he did not will to exert his omnipotence for that sinner's renewal.
Bonnie thinks that there cannot be complex motives in God. If he loves someone, he must love them with the same strength of motive. If he died to save everyone, then it must be with the same intent. I hope she doesn't operate by this principle with her husband while she is seeking to obey Christ's commandment to love all of her neighbors ;-) I hope she is seeking to love all, but especially her husband with the greatest level of intimacy. If she is, then she should understand complex motives and how they can subsist in a virtuous, rational being without contradiction. With regard to the Titus passage, it seems to speaking of Christ's death as applied to believers. These are people living with a hope and desire to see the coming of their great God and savior. They are subjectively redeemed (redemption applied) because they have appropriated Christ's work (redemption accomplished) by faith. This view would be consistent with Paul's idea that Christ is the savior of all, but especially those who believe. This moral ability believe into Christ was granted by God (Phil. 1:29), and we love him because he first loved us. Our salvation is the result of God's sovereign initiating work, and this results in the Christian hearts praising God alone - Soli Deo Gloria!
This article by R. L. Dabney should be mandatory reading for every Christian.
I really need to check my posts before I send them. I trust that the discerning reader is able to see when I have added (or omitted) a letter to a word that doesn't belong. Sorry about those and other mistakes :-)
Rebecca has indirectly picked up Post-Reformational scholastic ideas that intentionality can only be associated with God's secret or decretal will. This is why she thinks that a universal intention to save would necessarily result in everyone being saved. What is minimized here is God's revealed will as being, in fact, a "will."
Ummm....not really. I just was trying to avoid using the word "purpose" because that sounded technical, so I went with "intent". Probably not a good choice.
I do indeed believe that God has what you might call "conditional intentions", but even with a conditional intention, the purpose is not toward every single person, but rather toward every single person who meets the condition. Bonnie's statement seemed to be objecting to the idea that even though Christ died to save everyone, the Spirit didn't work to bring everyone to salvation. My point was simply that it wasn't God's purpose to actually reconcile every single person in Christ's death. If it had been, everyone would have been saved.
Sorry.....I meant to respond to Bonnie as well, but something's come up, and that'll have to wait.
Ok, Rebecca. Thanks for your reply. I apologize for jumping to any unwarranted conclusions about your position. If I have done so in Bonnie's case, then apologies to her as well. I look forward to reading further interesting and informative exchanges between both of you, even though I won't be commenting further.
Grace to you,
Tony
I apologize for jumping to any unwarranted conclusions about your position.
It wasn't you jumping to conclusions....it was me mistating.
Everyone who hears the gospel is given the option of salvation.
But if they’re not given the means (i.e., the Spirit, the election) by which to receive it, then they are not truly given the option.
I don’t see how you can argue that someone isn’t truly given an option if the only thing keeping them from choosing one of the options is their hatred for it. If I offer my kids the choice of liver or pizza for supper, they’re going to always choose pizza, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t truly given the option of liver. The only thing necessary in order for something to be a real option is that someone could have had it if they wanted it.
You seem to be suggesting that both options have to be equally appealing in order for them both to be real options--that our position toward them needs to be neutral. I think that’s an artificial definition of “true option”.
They could be saved if they believed.
But they won’t believe without being elected for salvation.
But that the second statement is true doesn’t negate the truth of the first. Just like my kids could truly have liver for supper if they wanted it, even though they won’t ever want it unless someone rearranges their tastebuds. The cause of their choice for pizza instead of liver isn’t that someone didn’t come and rearrange their tastebuds; but rather, it’s that they hate liver.
The only way out of a situation shouldn’t be confused with the cause of the situation. The only way out of our damnation is God’s intervention, but the grounding cause of the damnation is our own sin and our rejection of God.
That's all I have time for now.....
Interesting discussion! Personally, I have always thought that the predestination / free will discussions (and the secular equivalents where divine predestination is replaced by materialistic determinism) tend to get complicated and go round and round like this so often because the issue really is too deep for us to truly appreciate. I think it reaches right down into the heart of what we are as human souls. I think it’s analogous with similar paradoxes of mind and intelligence – if the human mind were simple enough for us to fully understand, we would then be too simple to understand it! When it comes to fundamental aspects of how we are created, we can grasp at it, appreciate parts of it, but not fully – and we may not be able to see how they fit together. Some of us better appreciate different parts than others.
I’m no expert in any of this, but I find it fascinating what happened with the parallel dispute in the Catholic Church. Thomism is similar to, but not identical with, Calvinism (although I must say that some of the points made by Calvinists here are those I thought were points that distinguish Thomism from Calvinism!). Molinism is similar to Arminianism. When the conflict between Thomists and Molinists became heated, the pope told both sides to send a delegation to Rome to debate the issues, which extended over some years. The pope was apparently just about to decide in favour of Thomists when he died. After more debates, his successor decided that until further notice, both positions were safe to teach and both sides were to stop accusing each other of heresy. Things calmed down after that. :)
Tony,
When you refer to all the questions on the table I’m not sure if you are also referring to my questions about specific verses, but will say that those verses provide most of the basis of my main question, which concerns the nature and relation of the will of God to the will of man. Obviously there are interpretive issues regarding those verses and we could probably go around on those for as long as people have historically been doing it already :-). I will also say that, concerning my particular question, you are actually broadening it, philosophically. Perhaps my question does need to be broadened, but if this is the case, then the root issue that you refer to is actually broader than the root of my own question.
Your critic of “free will” enters the concept, “with equal ease,” into the discussion: "the belief that the human will has an inherent power to choose with equal ease between alternatives.” The matter of “ease,” however, is not relevant to my particular question regarding choice. I also do not see how an agent’s having the power to make a choice or its contrary (although use of the term “refrain” in the libertarian’s definition implies a morally superior choice, but I don’t think you mean for that to apply to “the power of contrary choice”) means that the will is necessarily free of causation. Besides, we are not merely speaking of “causation,” in and of itself; we are speaking of the particular influence of God and the nature of that influence, as well as other opposing influences, and the nature of those, upon the will of man.
You seem to be assuming that the nature of the human will must be the same as the nature of the will of God, but I don’t think that it is. God is God, and humans are beings created by God but not of God. I agree that God cannot lie or deny Himself but confess that I do not understand how you are relating that to the issue of His relationship to mankind on the matter of His influence and man’s choice. If you are saying that, if man is free to choose salvation or reject it, then God is not free to choose for him, I understand how that could be seen to deny His sovereignty. But I don’t think it has to. Let’s say that God, in His sovereignty, decides to give man what you are calling “liberty of indifference.” Or, ability to choose a path or neglect to choose it. Is He denying His own sovereignty by so doing? Can He only be sovereign if He can make all the decisions? Why couldn’t His sovereignty mean that He can work with the choices of man to accomplish His purposes?
I can also see how one could say that, if God allows humans the power of choice/contrary choice, then He does not have power over man’s will. But must He, completely, in order to be sovereign? Must ultimate sovereignty be “utter” sovereginty? Did He have power over the will of Adam and Eve? Before the Fall, they obviously were not fallen. Why did He allow them to eat of the forbidden fruit? Why did He even give them a choice in the matter? Was He sovereign over either choice, to eat the fruit or to not?
If Bonnie says that she "also would not say that the human will has the capacity to choose autonomously against God's eternal purpose," then Judas was not morally able to not betray Jesus.
Why was he not? Is it possible that God can and does work the human capacity to choose, for or against, or over, or whatever, into His eternal purposes? I am also not discounting the fact that God may “override” the will of a person at any particular time. Maybe that’s a screwy idea, but I don’t know that it has to be. That aside, though, how do we know that Judas did not have the liberty of indifference?
Bonnie thinks that there cannot be complex motives in God. If he loves someone, he must love them with the same strength of motive. If he died to save everyone, then it must be with the same intent. I hope she doesn’t...
Tony, first of all, I don’t believe we can compare God’s love for mankind to a woman’s marital duty as opposed to her duty to those she is not married to...God is not a married woman! (Oy :-) ). God’s motives and love are in another realm, way outside of the realm of human understanding. Secondly, can you give Scriptural support for your statement that God applies His salvation unequally, or loves unequally?
OK, I know that you’ve said you won’t be commenting further (and I understand, respect, and appreciate that), so maybe someone else can speak to my questions :-). Or not...this discussion is getting quite long, I realize. Thanks to all who have read, and have commented (or will comment!).
Hi Rebecca,
Using your analogy of your kids' taste in dinner choices (and my kids would be right there with yours), it's precisely the "rearranging of taste buds," or re-wiring of taste buds, that must occur in the elect if their wills are to be brought from love of sin to love of God.
Here's another analogy: let's say that Johnny really wants to play soccer instead of T-ball. He's got the equipment to play soccer and loves to practice in the yard. His parents say, "Johnny, would you like to play T-ball? We'll sign you up. But we won't get you a bat or a helmet or anything." Well, he's never played T-ball, doesn't know what it's about, and doesn't have any of the equipment. So, he's been given the option, but not the means with which to be able to actually choose the option of T-ball. Now, if his parents got him all the T-ball equipment so that he had everything he needed to play either soccer or T-ball, and he still chose soccer, then his choice would be merely a matter of preference, and T-ball would have been a true option. But it's not a true option if it's potentially there but he doesn't have what he would need to play.
Bonnie,
Now, if his parents got him all the T-ball equipment so that he had everything he needed to play either soccer or T-ball, and he still chose soccer, then his choice would be merely a matter of preference, and T-ball would have been a true option. But it's not a true option if it's potentially there but he doesn't have what he would need to play.
And this is exactly how it is. Fallen people have everything they need in order to choose God. Our choosing mechanism works. We could choose Him if we wanted. But we are naturally hostile to Him, so we won't. Our problem is not with our "choosers" but with our "wanters".
It is exactly a matter of preference. The problem is that since the fall we are not neutral toward God, but hostile to him.
Rebecca,
I don't think it can be said that fallen people have everything they need in order to choose God because they don't have a heart that desires God, which is something necessary for that choice. No one in the natural, fallen state can get a heart that desires God unless He intervenes.
In my analogy, God's intervention is the supplying of Johnny with T-ball equipment. I was equating soccer to the "natural state," and T-ball with a redemptive choice (OK, so it's not a perfect analogy... my husband would think so, though! ;-) ).
I agree that man, in his fallen state, is most definitely not neutral toward God.
In my analogy, God's intervention is the supplying of Johnny with T-ball equipment.
I don't think the T-ball analogy works then, because as you've noted, the problem is non-neutrality that comes from the heart of the person, not some sort of outside equipment. In order to make the analogy work, Johnny has to be a T-ball hater by nature. He inherited from his father a constitutional hostility toward T-ball. There's no "but we won't buy you equipment," because the only thing Johnny's lacking is the heart for T-ball.
The point I'm trying to make is that non-neutrality in a choice doesn't make both options not real options. Hating one option doesn't make it not a real option. Where that hatred comes from is beside the point in determining whether the choice is real.
And to go a step farther, what the solution is (or even if there is a solution) to the constitutional hatred of t-ball is beside the point in determining whether Johnny's choice is a real one--or whether both options are real options.
In other words, to apply this to the soteriology that we're discussing, if God had elected no one, and everyone had just been left as they are by inherited nature, so that every single person kept on actively rejecting God and refusing to worship him, that doesn't mean that worshipping God wasn't an real option for them. It just means that their inherited nature keeps them from choosing that option.
Well, one more comment (maybe? LOL) and I'll put it to rest:
Rebecca,
The "outside equipment" is the Spirit that God gives to a person to "elect" (choose to bring) them to salvation. The "outside equipment" changes the heart of the person. In my analogy, the presence of the equipment and its effect upon him would change Johnny's heart toward T-ball.
And, I confess, I'm still not seeing how an option is a true option if one hasn't the wherewithal to choose it. Perhaps you and I are defining the term differently. Webster’s dictionary defines option:
1. A choosing; choice
2. The power, right, or liberty of choosing.
3. Something that is or can be chosen.
I am using the term in the sense of definition (2). That an option is an option if someone possesses what is required to choose it. Perhaps you are using it in the sense that it is something that is choose-able whether someone has the power or ability to choose it or not.
I think the option thing goes beyond love or hate, or neutrality/lack thereof, when we're talking about agency of change. I.e., election to salvation. The non-elect are not elected, therefore the agency which would change their hate to love, or neutrality (for argument's sake ;-) ) to non-neutrality, is not given them. That's why I say that an option that someone has no capacity to choose is not an option, regardless of what the substance of that lack of capacity is.
To me, the real option exists at the point at which saving love illuminates the heart of the fallen man via the Spirit. This salvation can be chosen, or not. I think that you are saying that this can't be, because the illuminated heart can do nothing other than receive salvation, right?
Yet if this is the case, then I raise the questions I've listed above.
Here’s something I’m curious about from one of your comments above:
me: What about the “if” in the Colossians passage – that [the elect] are reconciled to Him via Christ’s death if they continue in a firmly established faith and not moved away from the hope that they have heard?
R: Paul doesn’t say anything about the elect. We--not even Paul--know who the elect are. That’s God’s choice, and he’s the only one who knows for sure exactly who is elect and who is not.
Paul is talking to people whose faith seems to be genuine enduring faith, and says that (or if) they continue in the faith is proof that they were reconciled. He, being human, doesn’t know who all has been reconciled and who hasn’t.
So you’re saying something similar to Laura above, that of those who were “acting” saved/regenerated/reconciled, some may not have been? If this is true, though, then why does he use the words “continue” and “not moved away?” He doesn’t seem to be speaking of what will prove itself out here, he seems to be exhorting those who believe – he is speaking to those who were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds. So it seems that the reconciliation of which he speaks has been realized in (most of) those to whom he is speaking and he is assuming that it has.
When he is writing to the Corinthians, Paul says this: “Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, etc. etc. shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.” (I Cor. 6:9-11) If what you are saying about his words to the Colossians is true, why does he speak to the Corinthians as if he knows for sure that some were washed, sanctified, and justified?
Something else you said above:
me: Can one be born of God without having received Him first, by choice?
R: Absolutely. And you've put your finger right here on one of the key differences between the calvinistic and the noncalvinistic views of our experience of salvation. Most Calvinists believe that being born again is a sovereign work of the Spirit, and is not accomplished in response to anything the person does. John 1:12,13 says that those who receive were born. The tenses put the "being born" prior to the receiving, and says they were born "not out of human will." Ephesians 2 says it's while we are dead in trespasses--following the prince of the power of the air, etc.--that God makes us alive again. John 3 says that the Spirit, in the work of rebirth, is like the wind, going where it wishes, "out of the blue", so to speak.
I explained my questioning of your interpretation of the passage from John1 in my comment above to Tony (addressed “Ynottony”). Regarding the Ephesians passage, this too would seem to indicate that Paul knows that the “we” he speaks of are elect. But to your point here, I don’t know that Paul is saying that they were born of God before receiving Him first; it seems to me to be saying that they were simply made alive in Christ – that Christ’s death is their salvation (“by grace you have been saved,” v. 8). He goes on to say that the Ephesians, being Gentiles, had no citizenship in Israel and therefore were not included in the former covenants of promise; but now, in Christ Jesus, they have been brought into the promise.
One more thing from above:
me: If His election can be rejected, then is it still election, in the irresistable sense? And if it can’t be rejected, then mankind has no choice in the matter.
R: It seems to me that you are equating election and being born again. They are not the same thing. Election is simply God’s choice of those he will work salvation in. Election, being God’s choice, does not depend on any choice we make.
Does it not follow that the elect will become born again?
Regarding this entire thread, I just want to say that I view it in the spirit of Atlantic’s comment above, and as Paul says in I Corinthians 1:11-17: “...Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?...” In other words, I consider all of us who have participated in this discussion to be one in Christ, SDG :-) ).
