Grudem: Predestination Based on Foreknowledge Still Does Not Give People Free Choice
From Grudem’s Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem gives one of the “Misconceptions Concerning Calvinism.”
Predestination Based on Foreknowledge Still Does Not Give People Free Choice:
“The idea that God’s predestination of some to believe is based on foreknowledge of their faith encounters still another problems: upon reflection, this system turns out to give no real freedom to man either. For if God can look into the future and see that person A will come to faith in Christ, and that person B will not come to faith in Christ, then those facts are already fixed, they are already determined. If we assume that God’s knowledge of the future is true (which it must be), then it is absolutely certain that person A will believe and person B will not. There is no way that their lives could turn out any differently than this. Therefore it is fair to say that their destinies are still determined, for they could not be otherwise. But by what are these destinies determined? If they are determined by God himself, then we no longer have election based ultimately on foreknowledge of faith, but rather on God’s sovereign will. But if these destinies are not determined by God, then who or what determines them? Certainly no Christian would say that there is some powerful being other than God controlling people’s destinies. Therefore it seems that the only other possible solution is to say they are determined by some impersonal force, some kind of fate, operative in the universe, making things turn out as they do. But what kind of benefit is this? We have then sacrificed election in love by a personal God for a kind of determinism by an impersonal force and God is no longer to be given the ultimate credit for our salvation.”
HT: Rhett’s Rants
What do you think?
Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Grudem: Predestination Based on Foreknowledge Still Does Not Give People Free Choice
- For those of you interested in the issues of Calvinism and Arminianism
- The Palatability of a Doctrine Does not Determine its Veracity
- Grace and Humility Together: An Illustration
- The Day I Became a Calvinist
Wonders for Oyarsa on 16 Apr 2008 at 11:23 pm #
It seems we are given the choice between one determinism or another. I’ll take door number three.
Luke on 16 Apr 2008 at 11:38 pm #
Oh the dangers and fallacies of philosophical and systematic theology! I’ll take door number three as well!
chartreuse on 16 Apr 2008 at 11:54 pm #
I’m not sure that’s the case for either predestination based on foreknowledge, or predestination simpliciter. What about Molinism? On this view, roughly speaking, there are counterfactuals of freedom that God knows (His middle knowledge), i.e. knowledge of what His creatures would freely do under logically possible circumstances. God could choose to create creatures with a libertarian form of freedom (i.e. people are free such that their actions are not fully determined by antecedent conditions), and then such propositions might be true:
“If Bob had been in circumstance A, he would have freely chosen to accept God.â€
God could choose to create Bob and actualize a world such that Bob would be in circumstance A, and thus accept Him freely. In that way, God does choose Bob, but not in the sense that He determines Bob’s choice, but rather, because He has middle knowledge of Bob’s free choices, and He actualizes the conditions under which Bob would accept Him.
This view, of course, has its shortcomings. But I’m just wondering whether Grudem did consider such a view. (I have not read the book.) Perhaps he’s working under a compatibilist assumption about freedom.
C Michael Patton on 17 Apr 2008 at 1:47 am #
I know people talk about it a lot, but is there really such a thing as skipping systematic theology? What would that look like? I have never heard anyone give reason as to why and how we don’t systematize without having a fairly well-thought out systematic theology!
What is the opposite of systematic theology? What is the middle ground? How does one justify when one holds things in tension and when they don’t? Rambling . . . .
Luke on 17 Apr 2008 at 2:31 am #
I don’t know if it’s systematics in general that I dislike and am against, or if it’s conservative evangelicals method of systematics. From what I’ve read and experienced, it could better be called “proof-text theology”. They make a statement, back it up with a dozen proof-texts, and think they’re right and have made their point clear. They rip verses from their context with no discussion of that context. Also, when you start philosophizing, as Grudem did above, you’re treading on dangerous ground b/c you’re going way beyond exegesis and what the text ever states. I can philosophize and make God an absolute monster (which I believe is close to Grudem’s view, not quite there, but close) or you can make God an un-sovereign wimp. While you can say it’s impossible to skip systematics by a basic definition of it, you certainly can skip the systematic approach and method taken in many circles. I’ll say more tomorrow b/c I have to go to bed.
I will say though, I am personally thrilled with the rise of biblical theology in the last couple of decades. It does much more justice to the text and is much more healthy and less error-prone. You, CMP, being an NT studies guy from DTS, should appreciate that about as much as anybody
C Michael Patton on 17 Apr 2008 at 3:14 am #
Luke, that is understandable.
britphil on 17 Apr 2008 at 6:00 am #
“I don’t know if it’s systematics in general that I dislike and am against, or if it’s conservative evangelicals method of systematics. From what I’ve read and experienced, it could better be called “proof-text theologyâ€. They make a statement, back it up with a dozen proof-texts, and think they’re right and have made their point clear. ”
Luke my friend..I am with you all the way..(by the way…are you “European” Luke?.. I sure do hope so..I am feeling very Euro-isolated at present! I am also in agreement with Michael to an extent.
“I know people talk about it a lot, but is there really such a thing as skipping systematic theology? ”
No there isn’t, definitely not..but I think we need to go much further than this! One of the greatest need in the church today there , is to have pastors and teachers, dare I say it trained and equipped in thelogical colleges and seminaries, of skipping APPLIED systematic theology! (I had to put it in capitals - I normally have a real aversion to posts where the main points are capitalised to stress the point - as I have not found a facility to bold the letters yet - apologies)
I heard a story which is so true of many churches where a man shook the hand of the vicar/pastor and said something familiar like “I really enjoyed your sermon. I was brilliant in fact, (ie brilliant expounded, wonderfully exegeted, hermenutically outstanding even!)…the only problem was that it did not help me at all in how I should go about making the seven people in my company redundant that I have to do tomorrow!”
On the subject of predestination and free will…do the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament preclude us from loving the non-elected ones? Or is it a case of loving them so that they may one day realise that they are in fact one of Gods elected ones?
There is another question I have which does concern me deeply and which I feeel quite passionate about This site is deeply impressive, but it has one major weakness in my view. There is a plethora of postings under the category “Evangecalism” yet not one posting/thread under the category of “Evangelism” or “Mission”. I am honestly trying not to think the worst, but I have yet to hear any Calvinist on this site define their stance on evangelism and mission. If it is to be carried out at all (ie if God has predestined, and foreknows those who he shall bring to himself…why should we bother…it is all his doing anyway…) is it merely a way of sniffing out the elect and shunting them over from the non-elect column to the elect column in the eternal spreadsheet?
To finish with I would like to go back to my original point about Applied Systematic Theology. I would be far more encouraged if theological colleges/seminaries were a bit more creative in their approach to student placements. As well as placing a student in a church setting for a term, I would be far more encouraged if, whether as part of the placement or as a separate placement altogether, seminary students were compelled to shadow several members of the congregation in their workplaces so that they can see the kinds of pressures/challenges which those on the receiving end of their teaching/ministry face day in day out., and the difficult decisions they have to make. Maybe there are colleges/seminaries that do this already…if not maybe someone needs to pioneer a more flexible and relevant approach to theological training for prospective pastors.
JoanieD on 17 Apr 2008 at 6:26 am #
I am still winding my way through all this theological stuff, but I don’t think I believe in predestination. I think God may KNOW how people are going to act and choose, but I don’t think it is predetermined just because he knows it. (Of course, there are those who believe God does NOT know the future…he only knows the possibilities. Kind of like Dickens’ Scrooge seeing what the future COULD hold if he kept on the track he was going, I guess.)
Joanie D.
Scooter on 17 Apr 2008 at 7:02 am #
I pretty much agree with Grudem but there is one issue that makes me curious. If God foreknows all [and the Bible teaches that He does] then He must know His own future actions infallibly. If one carries out the logic then we could argue that God’s actions in the future are not really ‘free’ because they have already been ‘determined’ from eternity past. I think Augustine dabbled with the idea but I don’t know that he resolved it.
Minnowspeaks on 17 Apr 2008 at 7:35 am #
Oh my, How’s the water feel today, BritPhil? “Fine, Come on in!” Okay! Sure this isn’t something other than water?
If predestination is truly a Biblical principle then I do not see how free will can be. Especially if total depravity is also thrown in the mix. We are completely unable to pick God thus God must turn us toward Himself. He “knows” who is going to turn ahead of time–funny how that works when He is the one who has to do the turning. Sounds like puppetry to me. Sorry Calvin, CMP, TT, TU…&D. Who else am I offending? Oh yeah, Greg.
By the way BritPhil–how many are usually on a firing squad?
britphil on 17 Apr 2008 at 7:50 am #
Good morning minnowspeaks…I really am in awe of your ability to rise way before the rest of the P&P universe!
“By the way BritPhil–how many are usually on a firing squad?”
I don’t know but I guess I am going to find out!!
Yes…the water is getting a touch steamier today. Wait until you read my reply to Thomas on the “Grace and Rewards” thread..it will make my thread here seem veritably tame!
…and somehow a link on this site took me to a site called “The Irish Calvinist” where Shane, who hails from Des Moines in Iowa (what on earth is an Irish Calvinist doing in Des Moines, Iowa - the birthplace of one of my all tinme modern literary heroes Bill Bryson!) Bill has described Des Moines in his book on America as “the most boring place to grow up on earth” Now I know why…it is probably full of Irish Calvinists! (well I have already offended the Americans, the Scots and occasionally even the English..time for the Irish now!)
He, and a few others posted a rather unfair and unirenic article on Rob Bell so, much to Michaels’ displeasure, I replied in similar vein. See, I’m wading in deep on two sites in one day.. I just can’t help it!
You are so right Minnow…I must have a death wish… they are polishing their rifles as I speak!!
Dylan on 17 Apr 2008 at 8:19 am #
That God predestines those who are saved is a fact based on the direct teaching of Scripture (Romans 8:28, 30; Ephesians 1:5, 11). How God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility coincide in the process of salvation is perhaps less clear and worth considering. I think Grudem’s quote above is on the money and points out how a common philosophical explanation for God’s predestining people falls short.
Chuck on 17 Apr 2008 at 8:37 am #
Britphil;
The Irish Calvinist is Erik Raymond, from Omaha, Nebraska. Erik is actually a native of Leominster, Massachusetts. I have had the pleasure of meeting Erik and hearing his preaching. Perhaps you should invite him to your church and invite him to preach the gospel.
Regarding Pat Abendroth’s review/critique of Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis, I have noticed that any article that criticizes an emerger in anyway is automatically labeled as “unirenic”.
Irenically Yours,
Chuck
britphil on 17 Apr 2008 at 8:48 am #
“That God predestines those who are saved is a fact based on the direct teaching of Scripture (Romans 8:28, 30; Ephesians 1:5, 11). ”
I am about to do a Thomas here and, not before time I hear you all cry, bombard you with some Scripture:
“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,[a] who[b] have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”
Now I know this passage has been taken from the Never the Infallible Version (NIV) but I am afriad I make no apologies for that!
What I would love to hear more stressed in this predestination/election/free will debate is not whether or not we are predestined, but, a far greater emphasis on the primary purpose of our being predestined…namely “to be conformed to the likeness of His Son”!
Marvellous though these blogsites, theological colleges, seminaries and even churches are, if the end result of all this fascinating debate on predestination/election v freewill is a group of people who are becoming less conformed to the likeness of Jesus instead of being more conformed to His likeness then questions need to be raised. I would like to hear as much if not greater stress laid on the middle part of verse 29 as is laid on the first few words of the verse.
“How God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility coincide in the process of salvation is perhaps less clear and worth considering. ”
A double if not triple Amen to this statement Dylan. We need far more discussion and help on understanding the interaction between God’s sovereignty and our responsibility. There appears to be too little emphasis on this area and a healthy, constructive and irenic discussion on the subject would be helpful.
Josh on 17 Apr 2008 at 9:01 am #
If God doesn’t incline the human will to “open his eyes to the glory of Christ”, what is the point of praying to God for someone to come to Him and be saved?
After all, what can God really do for a person who’s will He cannot or does not effect?
But then, if God already “elected” that person, is prayer really going to alter God’s decision on the matter?
It appears, both biblicaly and logically that the two (Gods sovereign will & human “free will”) make sense, the real disputes come from the extent in which they relate and interact with one another.
britphil on 17 Apr 2008 at 9:09 am #
Hello there Chuck.
“Regarding Pat Abendroth’s review/critique of Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis, I have noticed that any article that criticizes an emerger in anyway is automatically labeled as “unirenicâ€.
I think that cuts both ways my friend”
Surely Chuck this cuts both ways. I do not know of any emerger who has scrupulouslly kept a three year dossier/log on every statement that has been made during that period of time by those on the wackier conservative right! There are a number Calvinists on this site who have publicly disacssociated themselves from with the manner and attitude with which Ken Silva regularly conducts himself! Also I notice you did not comment on the issue of the Calvinistic Orange Lodge Order who pride themselves more than anything else on “preaching the gospel” but have done far more damage to t he cause of the gospel than Rob Bell or any of the emerging church folk are likely to do.
Also if I were to invite Erik to speak I would ask him to teach, equip and build up the faithful and not just merely “preach the gospel”. Does the latter approach not just end up in someone preaching to the same message to the already converted time and time again? Preaching and teaching are two completely different ministries in my view.Given that I minister in a poor urban parish he would have to also agree to not only teach as well as preach, but to pay all his own expenses!
Just to put your minds at rest (not) you will all undoubtedly be appalled to hear that I shall be teaching on one of the most controversial Bible passages of them all on Sunday morning, namely John Chapter 14 verses 1-14.
There, the cat is well and truly out of the bag now…I managed to keep that one quiet longer than I thought!
Mike B. on 17 Apr 2008 at 9:13 am #
Grudem’s conclusions do not follow from his argument. He seems to fail to grasp the very position he is addressing. Divine foreknowledge equals determinism only if you contrast if with open theism. The idea of predestination being related to divine foreknowledge simply states that man makes choices, but God already knows the outcome of those choices. It implies no other force ultimately determining man’s destiny than man’s own volition. The idea is that from God’s ultimate perspective, the matter is settled, whereas from our perspective, we are still in the process of making those choices. Meanwhile, in the same temporal sphere, God is acting within time and space to influence those choices, acting powerfully to draw mankind to himself. But he still knows the outcome of all of those interactions.
There are many problems with this view, both biblically and philosophically, but the problem that Grudem brings up is not one of them. Where he gets the idea of some powerful being influencing man’s destinies from the idea of God’s divine foreknowledge is a mystery to me.
britphil on 17 Apr 2008 at 9:14 am #
Hi there Josh
“It appears, both biblicaly and logically that the two (Gods sovereign will & human “free willâ€) make sense, the real disputes come from the extent in which they relate and interact with one another.”
Go on…Preach it brother!!
PS This is the shortest post I have made so far!!
K-Funk on 17 Apr 2008 at 9:21 am #
Sorry, but I didn’t follow his reasoning at all.
He asks, “But if these destinies are not determined by God, then who or what determines them?”
From a free will perspective, the answer is that each person decides their fate. That’s the whole idea of foreknowledge — God knows what we’ll decide to do even though we haven’t done it yet.
Jugulum on 17 Apr 2008 at 9:24 am #
Luke said,
I agree that it is treading on dangerous grounds to base your theology on such philosophy. But I think you’re missing something: Grudem was responding to the philosophizing of other people. He wasn’t proving his doctrine; he was responding to philosophical objections that lead people to reject his doctrine.
It would be difficult to describe how frustrated I get sometimes, listening to non-Calvinists object to the Reformed articulation of election and God’s sovereignty. “You make us robots!” “The Bible gives us commands, and commands are meaningless unless our wills are unbound to sin–I deduce from those commands that we must have libertarian free will!” “Our love is meaningless if Irresistible Grace is true! It must be that God attempts to woo, and then hopes.”
Faah!
Feel free to criticize Grudem if he bases his theology on philosophy. Don’t criticize him for attempting respond to people who reject theology based on their philosophy.
Jugulum on 17 Apr 2008 at 9:40 am #
Luke,
BTW, I definitely agree with you about the danger of “proof-texting” systematics. It’s an easy trap to fall into.
I was just listening to some interesting lectures on Biblical & Systematic theology; you might like them. Reformed Theological Seminary has a bunch of their class lectures available for free on iTunes. I believe I was listening to the “Pastoral Theology” class. (I don’t have my mp3 player handy, sorry.) In some of the lectures the professor discussed systematic/thematic theology (strengths and weaknesses). Then he discussed the rise of Biblical theology, and its strengths and weaknesses.
Looking at the weaknesses of “Biblical Theology” would be a good balance.
Jugulum on 17 Apr 2008 at 9:47 am #
P.S. It’s particularly frustrating when non-Calvinists argue in the way I described, but think that they’re being “exegetical”. I’ll hear people say that the whole Bible argues against Calvinism, because the Bible is filled with commands and that sure gives the impression that Total Depravity can’t be true!
Robert Jimenez on 17 Apr 2008 at 10:17 am #
My brain hurts. I have been reading/studying this topic for months now. I am preparing to lecture on this topic next month at my church, and to be honest it is one of the more difficult aspects of theology. The reasons are because both are taught, that God is sovereign, and man has free choice (will). Since the bible does not bother to explain how this work, we are left to ponder, wonder, and worry.
I think I am going to take the easy way out and just become an open theist
;-)
If this leads us to ponder the mystery of God, and causes us to deeply appreciate how Great God is, then it is good. But to often this topic leads to heated debates with Calvinist leading the way with heretical accusations if one does not embrace their views. One good thing about this is that it forces us to take a hard look at our position and to rethink and that usually leads to understanding the position a bit better.
Now I know that is not what happens here, that is why I visit often, and applaud Michael for this. This subject is so difficult that I really cannot even put a label on what position I hold. Maybe a Classical Arminian is the closest to what I understand it to be, but even then I am not 100% sure.
I really like Boethius position and that seems workable. In simple terms he stated that if God sees all time all at once, as one eternal NOW, then his knowing or seeing no more impacts what choice you make or don’t. For example I am at home watching my son do his homework, just by me watching him does not make him or predetermine what choices he makes. I can see every choice that he is making but just by seeing (knowing) what he is doing does not equal that I am making him chose what he does or does not. Now I can step in and influence, guide, direct, and in this case even order him to do something.
My views on this is some sort of hybrid of Calvinist/Arminian/Boethius/Molinist position. The truth is buried somewhere in all of these teachings.
If you want to read more on this subject I recommend the following books:
How much does God foreknow - Steven C. Roy (rebuttal to open theism)
The God who Risks - John Sanders (open theist position)
Arminian Theology - Roger Olson
I did not recommend any Calvinist books, because just about everything you read now a days is written from a Calvinist position so they are easy to find, and they are the loudest. Ok, here is one Wayne Grudem.
Josh on 17 Apr 2008 at 10:33 am #
Jugulum aren’t you changing the discussion when you move from election to total depravity (at least in the Arminian vs. Calvinism sense) because both Arminian (at least in the “tradition” or historical sense of that word) and Calvinists hold to the doctrine of total depravity they just differ on the effectual calling of God?
It seems that the resolving point of this “issue†comes to head to the degree in which you can hold the two things (Gods sovereign will & and human free will) in tension. The problem arises because people don’t want to hold things in tension, which in some sense is understandable because most people don’t want to respond to questions or objections to their faith with “it’s a mystery of God†because they often see it as a cop out answer. But it seems impossible to escape this answer in many things relating to nature of God simply because He is an infinite God not bound by the same limitations of time and space that we are.
So ultimately what really needs to be discussed and decided upon by the individual is: what can I hold in tension and what can’t I hold in tensions (because there is going to be tension in finite beings trying to understand an infinite God). Then, why or why not can I hold these things in tension as oppose to the others.
While I would certainly enjoy Jesus coming back and explaining the Truth of the matter, it seems, at current, we are left with this “post-modern†understanding, where if Scripture is True (as we believe it is) we are left with the truth (we see through a glass dimly) that God is both Sovereign Commander of the Universe and requires that we actively believe in Christ for salvation. I wish there was another way around this, but I’m not sure what else we are left with. Maybe you can give some suggestive routes to take.
Ruben on 17 Apr 2008 at 10:42 am #
Scripture speaks about God’s election and also about the weight of man’s choices and God being patient waiting for us to return to Him. I think the best approach is to leave it at that, not to try to harmonize or explain and understand what God has not made clear. We can’t possibly take it in, God’s ways are far above us and it (Calvinism/Arminianism) causes so much division and hurt!
Jugulum on 17 Apr 2008 at 10:55 am #
Josh said,
Sort of.
I was talking about how philosophy plays into the way that people think about Calvinistic theology. That was in response to what Luke said, and you’re right–it’s not quite the same discussion. It’s related, though.
You’re also right that “Arminians” believe in Total Depravity. But Grudem wasn’t responding to true Arminians–he was responding to non-Calvinists in general. And non-Calvinists aren’t all Arminian, strictly speaking. “Arminian” ends up being a catch-all word. Even people who think of themselves as Arminian might not fit the historical definition very well, in some ways.
In my examples, I did go broader than just election. Because I was talking about how people tend to use philosophical assumptions when evaluating Calvinism, without even realizing it.
britphil on 17 Apr 2008 at 11:15 am #
“My brain hurts. I have been reading/studying this topic for months now. I am preparing to lecture on this topic next month at my church, and to be honest it is one of the more difficult aspects of theology.”
Robert my man….talk about a short straw!! What on earth have you done to deserve this!! Did you insult the pastor!!??…oops sorry…maybe you are the pastor!! I suggest that you take to the lecture floor floor wearing both a hard hat and a bullet proof vest!
“My views on this is some sort of hybrid of Calvinist/Arminian/Boethius/Molinist position. The truth is buried somewhere in all of these teachings.”
Robert…Robert… Robert…and once more again for good measure…Robert….Truly a man after my own heart.
We have in the UK a department store called Woolworths where the candy section (as you call it over the other side of the pond) is called Pick N Mix! Now before you all immediately go off on one, load the rifles and furiously retort that I am nothing but a syncretist in Arminian clothing…please let me explain. Did God really intend that the formation of every aspect of Christian faith and doctrine for all time should be solely in the hands of just one or two men? Can we not take the best of Calvinism, Luteranism, Zwinglism (if there is such a word), Arminianism and come up with a balanced cohesive theological whole which is much better than the fragmented sum of its more constituent parts? I am wholly with Richard on this point.
” But to often this topic leads to heated debates with Calvinist leading the way with heretical accusations if one does not embrace their views. ”
It certainly does.. because it feels to me that in some Calvinist eyes, you are not allowed to read anyone or anything else but the Bible and Calvin (I think it is in that order but I might be wrong)!…and if you are it must be on an “approved list” and if you do read anyone else’s work on doctrine ywoe betide you if you find yourself agreeing with them!
“I did not recommend any Calvinist books, because just about everything you read now a days is written from a Calvinist position so they are easy to find, and they are the loudest. Ok, here is one Wayne Grudem.”
They certainly are the loudest…and in some cases the least gracious if I may be permitted to say so!
“We can’t possibly take it in, God’s ways are far above us and it (Calvinism/Arminianism) causes so much division and hurt!”
Ruben…can I just reach across the Atlantic and pat you encouragingly on the back, or even give you a warm manly hug! Well said that man!!!
By the way, is it just me, or are a few more of those of us with a more Arminian mindset being emboldened to crawl out of the woodwork and nail our colours just a little bit more firmly to the doctrinal mast? If this is true, I hope I am not considered to be too much to blame for the Arminian revival which may be about to “emerge”!!
Jugulum on 17 Apr 2008 at 11:24 am #
That is slanderously untrue!
It’s “the Bible, Calvin, and Piper”. Or “the Bible, Calvin, and MacArthur”, depending.
britphil on 17 Apr 2008 at 11:26 am #
“While I would certainly enjoy Jesus coming back and explaining the Truth of the matter, it seems, at current, we are left with this “post-modern†understanding, where if Scripture is True (as we believe it is) we are left with the truth (we see through a glass dimly) that God is both Sovereign Commander of the Universe and requires that we actively believe in Christ for salvation. I wish there was another way around this, but I’m not sure what else we are left with. Maybe you can give some suggestive routes to take.”
Josh..I’m beginning to really warm to you…this is exactly what I have been trying to postulate for the last fortnight but nowhere near as eloquently as you have just done!
britphil on 17 Apr 2008 at 11:30 am #
Actually Jugulum what I am about to say may truly astonish you!
When I get to the “I am the Life” part of my sermon on John 14 on Sunday, I am thinking this time of exhorting my fellow Brits, those who by then are not asleep, comatose, or deceased to embrace the Piperian doctrine of “Christian hedonism” and to “live the Christian life” to the maximum of its potential.
That should at least wake a few of them up…if only to protest and shout me down!
Robert Jimenez on 17 Apr 2008 at 11:33 am #
Ruben,
I understand where you are coming from, but if you learn nothing else about this blog/site is that we should take a cataphatic method, rather than starting out apophatic. All done in an irenic manner. “I have actually been paying attention for once”
I do believe that it is worth our efforts to think and to discuss this issue. If nothing else to protect ourselves against heretical views that may arise. Open Theist (not heretical maybe heterodox) have caused Calvinist and Arminians to join forces “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” both hold that God has exhausted knowledge of the future, but Open Theist has presented us with some solid questions, and a different position, that is causing all of us to take a second look at how we understand this position. Had it not been for the Open Theist, I for one would not have taken another serious look at how I understand this position.
We just need to be respectful and not hurtful since no of us really knows how this works - Irenic!
Jugulum on 17 Apr 2008 at 11:42 am #
brit,
Would you make more headway if you presented it as an “Edwardsian” doctrine instead?
I guess I don’t know the general British perception of Jonathan Edwards.
Robert Jimenez on 17 Apr 2008 at 11:43 am #
BritPhil,
thanks for the kind words. I am the assistant pastor at my church and director of our Bible Institute. In addition to teaching I decided to do a series of lectures that deal with contemporary theological issues. I’ll see how that goes, and don’t mind asking for all of your prayers!
I have been truly inspired by the guys here Reclaiming the Mind, and they are to blame for this bold step I am taking
RJ
Robert Jimenez on 17 Apr 2008 at 11:47 am #
BritPhil,
one more thing you are from the UK, right? I know it’s a big place, but I happen to be good friends with a fellow UK brit, the head of Elim Pentecostal Church - John Glass. When you bump into him say hello for me
JohnT3 on 17 Apr 2008 at 11:51 am #
Let us not get side tracked here.
The issue is Predestination, Foreknowledge and Free Will. Sorry with no disrespect we should not concern ourselves to Systematic or Biblical Theology methods.
Is God soverign? Yes
Does he choose those who are saved? Yes
Did he know believers personally (which is what
Foreknowledge means) before the foundations of the word? Yes
Is man responsible for his actions? Yes
Is man a slave? Yes either to God or to sin.
Do the scriptures reveal this to us? Yes
Do the scriptures show us how all this works and fits together? Absolutley Not!
We are dealing with a concept that is easier to grab then the doctorine of the trinity but how it works is also beyond our comprehension.
There are things we need to take on faith and one day we will see as He does and will come to understand more fully than we do now.
Our freewill always falls within the confinds of our slavery. We are either a slave to sin and we freely choose to sin becaue we desire it. Or we are a slave to righteousness and will freely walk in the light and obey our Master’s commands becasue we desire to obey him.
C Michael Patton on 17 Apr 2008 at 12:01 pm #
Grudem says,
“For if God can look into the future and see that person A will come to faith in Christ, and that person B will not come to faith in Christ, then those facts are already fixed, they are already determined.”
I have never really taken a ride on this train. I think that the conclusion does not necessarily follow in the way that some Calvinists suggest. Obviously some Calvinists, such as myself, do not agree with the party line here (if it be such).
To say that the facts are fixed and determined is somewhat odd. The past is also fixed and in some sense determined, but this does not militate who determined it. By the time I send this comment, it will be fixed that I did it and, now, could not do otherwise, but this does not mean that I did not use my will to do so. I believe that this argument, in my opinion, is a bit of a non-seq.
Don’t get me wrong…I certainly don’t believe in libertarian freedom
as it presents many more problems than it solves, but to argue against it based upon God’s foreknowledge being the instrumental cause of an event is to mix things up.
I agree with you who say that there is a definite tension between predestination and the human will that makes free choices (different than “free will”).
I also must echo the comments that Predestination is not something that a Christian chooses to believe or not believe. It is in the Bible. It is just how we define predestination that is the issue.
The comments here, btw, are great. Thanks for taking a hard subject and keeping things robust but charitable. Those two can exist together!
britphil on 17 Apr 2008 at 12:10 pm #
Robert
“one more thing you are from the UK, right? I know it’s a big place, but I happen to be good friends with a fellow UK brit, the head of Elim Pentecostal Church - John Glass. When you bump into him say hello for me”
I am a Lay Minister in an inner-city evangelical church and have been for the past 15 years or so (the title is officially Lay Reader but nobody outside the Anglican church tends to know what it means!). I therefore don’t know John Glass personally, but I certainly know someone who might know him quite well. I shall ask him to pass on your regards to John next time he sees him.
Unlike your good self, I would never dream of being theologically qualified enough to head up a Bible Institute! In truth, I probably wouldn’t be allowed near one for fear of the damage I might do!! You will be very much in my prayers as you prepare for your lecture. It sounds as though you might be in need of every prayer you can get! You are a braver man than I am!!
We work very closely with two other churches in our town, one an Open Brethren assembly, the other an Elim Pentecostal church. I shall ask the pastor of the Elim church (who is a top bloke) to pass on your regards to John Glass.
I hope you don’t mind me asking and I don’t mean to pry , but your surname indicates that you may be of Hispanic background. Do you or your forbears originally hail from South of the border?
Robert Jimenez on 17 Apr 2008 at 12:12 pm #
Thanks Michael,
and don’t worry I am going to spend the rest of life trying to figure this out, and when I do you will be the first to know.
Jugulum on 17 Apr 2008 at 12:19 pm #
Josh said,
I tend to agree…I just hate the way that the term “free will” is used.
Specifically, I don’t like the way people throw it around as though it has an accepted definition!
If someone asks “do you believe in free will”, I really have no idea how to answer them–because they could mean half a dozen things. And if we start asking the question, “What makes free will ‘free’?”, then people will come up with different answers. By some definitions, I would affirm free will–by others, I wouldn’t.
As Greg Koukl put it a couple months ago, “free will” is not an unambiguous term.
The Bible does teach that we make choices. That they’re our choices. That we’re responsible for them. But when people ask, “Ah, but are those choices free?”, I wonder, “What are you talking about? What kind of distinction are you trying to make? What kind of categories are in your mind when you ask that, and where do you get them? Why do you think that question makes sense? Why do you think that distinction is a biblical distinction?”
C Michael Patton on 17 Apr 2008 at 12:23 pm #
Rob, nice. We will keep pushing, but take rest when it does not more.
Jug, could not have said it better. I have tried, but couldn’t.
britphil on 17 Apr 2008 at 12:35 pm #
“brit,
Would you make more headway if you presented it as an “Edwardsian†doctrine instead?
I guess I don’t know the general British perception of Jonathan Edwards.”
Hi there Jugulum
I certainly would, but I could end up in even deeper water than I usually find myself!
The reason being that I would have to explain myself very clearly.
Unfortunately the “general British perception of Jonathan Edwards is of a man who loves to do nothing more than hop, skip and jump his way to an Olympic Gold medal!
As soon as I mention the name Jonathan Edwardes, most if not all of those present who have not lost the will to live once they have discovered that I am undertaking the teaching slot, will probably not grasp that I am encouragiing and exhorting them to emulate the great reformer of centuries past, and not to eagerly join the present day Jonathan on a journey of honest soul-searching doubt!
The matter will be even more complicated by the fact that the passage in John Chapter 14 from which I will be teaching involves Jesus interacting by a certain disciple who goes by the name of Thomas, well known and not a tad unfairly criticised in my own humble opinion for a bit of honest doubting and soul-searching of his own!
So I shall have to tread a bit carefully on Sunday morning
If I inadvertently encourage them to emulate the wrong Jonathan Edwards it might just be the last teaching engagement I ever undertake!
JohnT3 on 17 Apr 2008 at 12:36 pm #
The thing I wanted to say about Grudem’s comment “For if God can look into the future and see that person A will come to faith in Christ, and that person B will not come to faith in Christ, then those facts are already fixed, they are already determined.â€
Appears to miss the mark in regards to foreknowledge. He seems to be saying that if God looked (note that it is if God can look into the future) into the future and saw that person A would choose salvation. That is not what foreknowledge means.
This is almost Open Theism teaching. It makes it seem that even though God has no control over it just based on the possibility he may see it makes it determined.
God determines the future. He just doesn’t see the future. He knows it from the sense he wrote the future. So he sees person A choose salvation becuse he determined it before it happened before the foundation of the world.
The idea of determination form this excerpt from Gruden is a subserviant determinism. God is subserviant and not in control totally.
George C on 17 Apr 2008 at 12:36 pm #
Grudem’s logic train is seriously flawed. Did the prophets of the OT make the fulfillments happen? Obviously not. They just “saw” it happen. It could be the same with God (in Grudem’s scenario).
I agree with many here who say that it is difficult if not impossible to understand how human choices and God’s working within and among men works. We just don’t have enough information to go on, so we should get used to saying what seems to be the three most feared words in all of theology: “I don’t know.”
Could it be that the point of the statements about God’s sovereignty in scripture are there more to cause us to see God as powerful and deserving of our trust than to give us an undestanding of how this whole thing works?
I don’t know, but it is certainly a possibility.
Seth R. on 17 Apr 2008 at 12:38 pm #
In my own faith, we have this same theological problem. For most lay members, the response is to ignore the issue, call it “a mystery” and focus on Christlike living. Those who think about it a bit often try to make the distinction that knowing an outcome is not the same as controlling it. Under this view God may be like the person on the 5th floor of an office building who sees a person step out into the street in front of an oncoming bus - he knows the result, but that doesn’t mean he caused it…
Obviously, that analogy has a lot of problems with it.
As I’ve thought more and more about it, I’ve slowly started to adopt a different position. God is fully capable of forcing outcomes, but chooses not to do it in order to preserve a universe with free will (or faith, if you like). Therefore, He allows us true freedom to choose Him or not (which is what I think all choices ultimately boil down to).
The problem comes when you ask whether God knows the outcome.
Now, I don’t speak for anyone but myself here, but I think it is logically impossible to know the outcome of a truly free choice. For it to be free, it has to be able to choose one way or the other. If it were not that way, it wouldn’t be “free” but rather predetermined. It seems a logical impossibility, quite apart from scriptural proof-texting and such.
It follows that even an omnipotent and perfected being cannot ultimately know the outcome of truly free will. Simple law of non-contradiction at work here. The conclusion is - if truly free will exists (and not just the illusion of it) - God cannot know its outcome.
And that’s the conclusion I’ve been coming to. God has truly made us free, and He is waiting to be surprised by us.
There, I said it. You may fire when ready.
Seth R. on 17 Apr 2008 at 12:41 pm #
Just to save someone else the trouble of pointing it out - We Mormons have a pretty hard-core adherence to the idea of free will or “free agency” as we call it.
I’ve heard some describe us as Arminian in this respect, but I don’t know enough about it to say for sure. Perhaps we go beyond that tradition on this topic.
britphil on 17 Apr 2008 at 12:50 pm #
“And that’s the conclusion I’ve been coming to. God has truly made us free, and He is waiting to be surprised by us.
There, I said it. You may fire when ready.”
Seth it seems that this “death wish” thing is catching!!
I have always believed that God, almost by definition, is a God of surprises,(hence some of my earlier postings cautioning against insisting who we are sure will or will not be in heaven). I think that we often try to put him in a box and limit him to behaving in a way which conforms to the constraints of our finite minds.
But the thought of a God who may occasionally be caught by surprise, as well as being the one who is solely responible for surprising us is a fascinating concept which I shall mull over with pleasure!
I for one will not be preparing the gunpowder, I shall raise my cap to you for helping us to think in a slightly more creative way!
Jugulum on 17 Apr 2008 at 1:21 pm #
Uh, the OT prophets received a heads-up from Someone with perfect exhaustive foreknowledge. God doesn’t receive knowledge from someone with perfect exhaustive foreknowledge. There’s no way to make that parallel.
The OT prophets knew things based on God’s foreknowledge. You can’t figure out how God’s foreknowledge works by looking at how theirs worked!
Robert Jimenez on 17 Apr 2008 at 1:45 pm #
Michael,
“Rob, nice. We will keep pushing, but take rest when it does not more.”
I was just joking, once I am done lecturing on this subject, I am going to leave it alone for good while, and move on to other fun subjects - like did Robin have to die? Why weren’t Batman and Robin able to reconcile their differences? Is Batman’s method right? Or should he be more irenic when approaching his enemies?
RJ
Luke on 17 Apr 2008 at 1:55 pm #
Well JohnT3 just solved all of our problems for us, thanks John! I didn’t know it was that easy!
I think the distinction between terms “free will” and “free agency” or “humans that make free choices” is just semantics at best and a way for the Calvinist to not come to terms with what it actually is…free will. Also, CMP, though you say predestination exists, the danger lies in your side extrapolating that and saying he has predetermined every single thing that has come to pass. This is Greek thinking and actually very Islamic and a common fallacy in my mind.
Here’s a question for you, did God predetermine from before time began that 50 million babies would die by abortion? I would love to know your (or any other Calvinist’s) answer to that.
Jugulum on 17 Apr 2008 at 2:05 pm #
Luke,
I agree that distinctions between “free will” and “free agency” and “humans that make free choices” are effectively meaningless.
And I repeat that “free will” is itself very close to being a meaningless category, unless you provide the definition.
If you want to ask, “How is human responsibility compatible with the idea of total depravity?”, then that’s a meaningful question. So is “How are we responsible if and when God predetermines that we will sin?” But “How is ‘free will’ compatible with…” is not—not until you’ve created a definition of “free” will, and defended that definition.
Jugulum on 17 Apr 2008 at 2:16 pm #
Luke said,
Speaking for myself:
That’s a question on which I do not speak. I affirm that God predetermines some things, including sinful actions and saving faith; I think the Bible’s testimony is clear there. I don’t know if God predetermines everything in the same way; the Bible’s testimony isn’t as clear to me on that.
To my Calvinist brothers & sisters: I also don’t reject it. I understand the logical arguments, I’m just not sure about the Biblical warrant for that conclusion. I’m just…still studying that one. Maybe I haven’t seen all the Biblical arguments yet.
As for me, I don’t know.
I would ask a return question: Did God have a purpose from before time began in deciding to allow 50 million babies to die from abortion? Or is that decision without a purpose?
I suspect that the answers to a lot of our questions about God’s sovereignty will be found in our own confusion in this area: The differences (or lack of differences) between “predetermining”, “intending”, and “intending to allow”.
Wonders for Oyarsa on 17 Apr 2008 at 2:40 pm #
The Bible does teach that we make choices. That they’re our choices. That we’re responsible for them. But when people ask, “Ah, but are those choices free?â€, I wonder, “What are you talking about? What kind of distinction are you trying to make? What kind of categories are in your mind when you ask that, and where do you get them? Why do you think that question makes sense? Why do you think that distinction is a biblical distinction?â€
In partial answer to this question, I would say that man has the freedom to have meaningful engagement with God. Meaning that, though God’s purposes are not thwarted, he does give man the option of what part he will play in these purposes. I wonder if it is possible to be a Calvinist and hold to such a thing - that a man can chose to play the villain rather than the hero in the divine drama, and that he might really have done otherwise but for his own agency. That Jeroboam the son of Nebat might have been another David, but for his own choice.
From my understanding of Calvinism, the Calivinist must say that God stacked the deck - that we are loaded dice - with our nature completely determined to chose the one side, until the spirit interferes and irresistibly compels us to chose the other. With this naive popular picture, I just can’t see how this makes the universe anything ultimately more meaningful than the materialist’s deterministic framework.
Furthermore, it seems to me to render void the imago dei - and what it means for a man to be the exact representation of the divine being. For the analogy of the potter and the clay becomes absolute - and that of the father and the son (or lover and beloved) becomes mere anthropomorphism. What potency does the promise of the human being exalted into the triune fellowship of God, when every move made by the human is understood as only the cause and effect automation of the initial conditions and direct action of the divine clockmaker?
I know these are deep mysteries, and doubtless I unfairly caricature the depth of much Calvinist thought. But the caricature is real - I’ve encountered it certainly on the lay level. My point, as far as I have them, is that it is better to leave these things mysteries - to know in our hearts both that God has the power to dislocate Jacob’s hip by a mere touch, AND that Jacob had striven with God and man and had prevailed in what somehow is presented as a fair fight.
Josh on 17 Apr 2008 at 2:49 pm #
Since it’s relating to the discussion, what do you guys think of John Pipers analogy on the doctrine of irresistible grace and the resurrection of Lazarus? Piper holds to total depravity (i.e. the idea that we are all born dead into sin), so that is assumed in his illustration.
He asks the question: could Lazarus have chose to not rise from the dead when Jesus said, “Lazarus come forth!”?
He extends this idea to the doctrine of irresistible grace (yes, this is different than the topic of election, but it is clearly very close if not an inseparable part of election).
Thus inferring the next question: is it possible for an “elect” person dead in sin, to “resist” the Holy Spirits call to repentance and faith in Jesus (thus receiving eternal life)?
While I am pretty confident in it both biblically and in the reality of my life, it seems that systems of theology dealing with mans free will and Gods sovereignty are all “laced†with doctrine of total depravity and it steers where the discussion will travel.
I have a few thoughts on Pipers illustration, but let me know what you think.
Jugulum on 17 Apr 2008 at 2:58 pm #
And from whence do you derive your definition of what makes engagement “meaningful”?
GaryS on 17 Apr 2008 at 3:11 pm #
Just some food for thought that I think bears on the question of predestination. Is God “everyWHEN” as well as “everywhere”? If God exists within time as we do and experiences events sequentially, then I think a good case could be made for Arminianism. But if time as we experience it is a property of the physical Universe, and God as the creator of time is not limited to experiencing just one moment after the next but is capable of knowing and experiencing every moment that has been and every moment that will ever be simultaneously, then things would seem to tip strongly toward the Calvinist view. My understanding of Scripture leads me to hold with the “God is everywhen” position, and the differences between the predestination passages and the freewill passages reflect God’s viewpoint (predestination) vs. man’s experience (freewill). Maybe that’s a cop-out, but it’s where I am at the moment. Comments?
Jugulum on 17 Apr 2008 at 3:33 pm #
Gary:
“Everywhen” doesn’t seem to settle enough of the questions, as far as I can see.
Grace/call/drawing: Do all men receive “prevenient grace” (a “wooing” call), and we Christians are those who responded? Or did God draw us Christians in a way that was guaranteed to overcome our resistance?
Election: Conditional or unconditional? Did God choose me because he foresaw that I would respond in faith to his grace? Or did he choose me as an intractable rebel sinner, deciding to overcome my hostility, giving me a new heart so that I want to follow him? (Did God choose based on faith, or did I find faith based on God’s choice?) Or is election not about individual salvation at all?
As far as I can see, those questions are still there regardless of how God relates to time. (Some people might say that the election questions could be solved by “God is outside time”. I’m not so sure. But at the very least, the grace/drawing questions don’t go away.)
JoanieD on 17 Apr 2008 at 3:47 pm #
I am so confused, I no longer even understand the question, never mind the answers. Sigh…
As I think about it, though, I am not sure it even MATTERS what I believe about this. Will I live my life differently if I decide the answer is one way or the other once I know what the question is? Not that I can see, but I could be wrong.
Joanie D.
Jugulum on 17 Apr 2008 at 3:49 pm #
Wonders for Oyarsa said,
Isn’t that exactly what a Calvinist might say in response to the objections you just raised?
Ruben on 17 Apr 2008 at 3:50 pm #
Robert said: “I do believe that it is worth our efforts to think and to discuss this issue. If nothing else to protect ourselves against heretical views that may arise.”
I don’t think views on this subject qualify one for heresy, in my definition a heretic is someone who denies one or more of the basic principles of Christian faith. To me the basic principles can be found in the Nicene creed, and that gives us tremendous freedom. I just don’t think we should be arguing and separating over something that is not straightforward and explicitly clarified in Scripture.
Robert Jimenez on 17 Apr 2008 at 4:26 pm #
Ruben,
I did not say this subject was heresy, if you keep reading along you will see that is not what I meant. Heretical or heterodox views have always caused the church to defend and articulate it’s position.
Yes I agree with you. But one reason that that I can think of as to why we discuss this particular topic is because non-Christians will ask us “how can a God who knows the future allow suffering, and if he knows the future then all of our decisions have already been made”. If for nothing else to try and give a response to these questions for non-Christians.
Within Christian circles, well it’s a matter of which philosophical position one chooses. I think that you can see here at this blog that these topics can be discussed without arguing or seperating over.
Cadis on 17 Apr 2008 at 4:50 pm #
I quickly read Michael’s post (quote) this morning and had to leave for the day. I must admit I’m glad I’m not the only one that found this puzzling. I’m not sure of the connection with forknowledge and some outside force other than God. The only other outside force that could be sugested is if man’s will were totaly free.
Thinking on ChuckSwindoll message of bringing ourselves under control of the Holy Spirit.
As born again , indwelt believer’s this is a tough fight (war). What was it before the indwelling of the Spirit? How can a choice be free when all our choices are contaminated by our desires to sin? To really be able to choose God (choose good), I would have to be good (totally) That is the only way it could be a free choice. This (literal) moment I choose God (good)
The very next moment I choose Sin(evil)
and even as I’m choosing good I have evil motives.
There is no way I could have chosen good over sin, while being contaminated with sin itself. (I hope that makes sense)
If our choices are free (totally free), our future is uncertain. No matter what time zone God is in or if he is in all of them.
But at the end of it I have to agree with JohnT and a few others here. God is soveriegn, Man is responsible…We will never figure it out
Cadis on 17 Apr 2008 at 4:56 pm #
Oh Like Joanie, I’m really not sure what the question is, but unlike Joanie it didn’t stop me from commenting:)
Jugulum on 17 Apr 2008 at 5:07 pm #
Cadis said,
I would add:
God is not the author of evil… And God (at least sometimes) plans and determines that evil will occur.
And though I don’t think we’ll ever have it all figured out completely, I also don’t want to be too quick to throw up my hands. I think we can have some notions about how things go together.
Cadis on 17 Apr 2008 at 5:16 pm #
“I would add:
God is not the author of evil… And God (at least sometimes) plans and determines that evil will occur.
And though I don’t think we’ll ever have it all figured out completely, I also don’t want to be too quick to throw up my hands. I think we can have some notions about how things go together.”
I agree totally
Luke on 17 Apr 2008 at 5:16 pm #
I’m sorry, but “sovereign” does not mean “causes all things to happen” or “predetermined who would and would not be saved from before time began”. If you believe this is what sovereign is, then you need to redefine it. If also you believe this insults God’s sovereignty, you need to reevaluate your view of it.
It just means one who is in control and supreme in authority or one who is great in power. How in the world it came to be viewed that one who is sovereign causes and controls the actions of those he is sovereign over is beyond me.
Luke on 17 Apr 2008 at 5:18 pm #
Jugulum,
How can God ordain all events and things to pass and not be the author of evil? There is no avoiding this if this is what you hold to (which I’m not sure it is). It’s very simple, a God who has caused and ordained all events and actions that come to pass is also the author of evil and there is no way around it, regardless of what the Westminster Confession says.
Josh on 17 Apr 2008 at 5:26 pm #
To be fair Luke, that problem isn’t limited to those who hold to the idea that God ordains all events. It’s the main problem in any theistic religions, irregardless on the relationship between the sovereignty of God and the human “free will”.
Jugulum on 17 Apr 2008 at 5:37 pm #
Luke,
Short answer: As Josh said, that problem isn’t limited to Calvinists. You have to deal with the evil events that the Bible talks about God planning. (Also, I already said that I try to keep silent on the question of whether/how God ordains all things.)
Longer answer:
I said, “And God (at least sometimes) plans and determines that evil will occur.”
I base that on the explicit statements of Scripture. God intended that Joseph would be sold by his brothers into slavery, that He would punish Israel using various evil nations committing horrific acts of evil (and subsequently punish those nations for their evil), and that the incarnate Son would be crucified.
When we try to understand how this is compatible with “God is not the author of evil”, we must start with those cases. (You might want to tweak to a small detail or two about how I worded those–but I stayed very close to the Biblical wording.)
When I hear non-Calvinists “solve” those cases, it often hinges around something like this: God did not make good men be bad. God did not put evil into their hearts. He allowed them to act out evil, according to his plan.
Oddly enough, they don’t realize that’s pretty close to what lots of Reformed folk would say! (Hmm…Actually, I have no idea whether “lots of” is true. It might just be some. I don’t know how many. One of the challenges is always figuring out whether people are saying the same thing with different words!)
That, I suspect, is at the core of how God ordains evil to occur without being the author of evil.
However, that explanation only works for fallen sinners. I have no idea what to think about the Fall. That gives me pause.
But I don’t worry too much about it, because I don’t try to describe how God’s will interacted with the Fall. I don’t know how, without speculation.
Wonders for Oyarsa on 17 Apr 2008 at 5:59 pm #
To be fair Luke, that problem isn’t limited to those who hold to the idea that God ordains all events. It’s the main problem in any theistic religions, irregardless on the relationship between the sovereignty of God and the human “free willâ€.
The difference is that the Calvinist (as I understand him) cannot use the free will defense, which in my view is the only thing that comes close to an adequate theocidy. For, if Calvinism says anything, it says we are not free to chose in matters relevant to our salvation. We are constrained by our totally depraved natures, and utterly incapable of responding to the gospel in faith without a supernatural act of God already doing the work of changing our nature. That God does this to some and not others, for no reason other than “his pleasure”, is, from what I understand it, basic Calvinism. Therefore I don’t see how the Calvinist can but say of evil, “it exists for the glory of God” - something that strikes me as downright blasphemous.
JohnT3 on 17 Apr 2008 at 6:19 pm #
Luke,
Sorry to upset your apple cart but free will is always in context of our slavery. We are either slaves tosin or we are slaves to righteousness.
I am honored that you call me a Calvinist. Thank you.
Wonders for Oyarsa:
Do you forget that God allowed Satan to just absolutley abuse and torment Job? God allowed all that evil to happen to him to bring him to a better understanding of who He is and to have a closer rel;ationship with him.
Or how about Joseph? God allowed an evil act buy his brothers to be used to bring about the care for Isreal in time of famine.
Let us not forget the ultimate ordained act of evil, The murder of Jesus as our atonong sacrifice.
Cadis on 17 Apr 2008 at 6:46 pm #
Is it a safe or niave statement to say
God decreed and ordained all the good he would do with all the evil he foreknew that we would do?
Luke on 17 Apr 2008 at 6:49 pm #
I’m still awaiting an answer to my abortion question from the Calvinist’s side. What say you?
Michael Operacz on 17 Apr 2008 at 6:53 pm #
Dr. Grudem ends with “…We have then sacrificed election in love by a personal God for a kind of determinism by an impersonal force and God is no longer to be given the ultimate credit for our salvation.â€
I think that his concern…
(independent of your current and hopefully continually reforming theology [based upon your own systematic analysis of the doctrines contained within the Bible])
…is that if we deviate from ultimately giving God credit for our salvation we are in trouble. Therefore any position which rests outside of this singular criteria must be incorrect.
Fairly simple and straightforward.
JoanieD on 17 Apr 2008 at 6:58 pm #
Cadis asks in #71 “Is it a safe or niave statement to say
God decreed and ordained all the good he would do with all the evil he foreknew that we would do?” I don’t know if it is safe or naive, but I think it sounds pretty good, Cadis! I can at least read it and by the end of the sentence know what I read and what it means. And it allows us to have God remaining GOOD and KNOWING at the same time.
Joanie D.
Wonders for Oyarsa on 17 Apr 2008 at 6:58 pm #
John,
What is this language of God “allowing”? Let’s not back peddle here, or dilute the message. Say that God “planned”, “caused”, “predestined” every bit of evil we’ve ever seen. After all, there is no “allowing” with regard to slaves. We are slaves to our God-ordained sinful nature or our God-ordained redeemed nature, for which he actively chose us to glorify him either by having eternal glory or suffering eternal torment.
Anyway, I did not forget about them. God, of course, turns evil on its head, trampling down death by death. But this is a very different thing than saying that God planned the Fall and evil to begin with.
If you will submit to mystery, I can honor that. But I take little comfort from those who defend the justice of God by calling evil good.
Cadis on 17 Apr 2008 at 7:19 pm #
Joanie,
Well that has been my resting spot on this issue for the last year or two, but you know how that goes, all the sudden a complication that you had not thought of and out the window with that thought. One thing I do know is God is not the author of Evil, and there is no darkness in him and man is responsible for evil
Luke on 17 Apr 2008 at 7:24 pm #
No Michael, it’s not simple and straightforward at all. Simply making a decision to follow God or not is not “contributing” to your salvation. It is God who saves, and the choice is ours if we want to follow Christ or not. This logic is extremely flawed. How in the world can you choosing to accept something “contribute” to your salvation? It sounds pious guys, but it’s not true and bad hermeneutics.
C Michael Patton on 17 Apr 2008 at 7:53 pm #
(I have not read 1/4 of the comments, so please understand if you have addressed anything to me, I am sorry I cannot get to it).
Luke, concerning your question about abortion, this is very loaded. Not that you are loading it, but it is not easy to answer. If I say yes, God did predetermine that all these babies would die, then it sounds off. But do the alternatives sound any better?
God knew the babies were going to die, could have prevented it, but allowed it anyway? Not much better in my opinion.
God knew the babies were going to die, could not have prevented it, but wanted to. Do we really want to go there.
God did not know the babies were going to die, could have prevented it, but decided not to. Do we REALLY want to go there?
God did not know that the babies were going to die and could not have prevented it. Do we REALLY, REALLY want to go there?
The last three don’t present God, but simply a really powerful and smart being, but, by definition, not God—kinda like the Mormons.
The first is the only alternative.
I do choose to believe that in some sense God predestines all things and everything works after his will (Eph 1:11). But I also understand that God only has a fallen world to work with. In such circumstances, in a world where EVERYONE dies, we must see God as redeeming the whole world according to his wise plan and sovereignty.
OK, done.
Josh on 17 Apr 2008 at 7:55 pm #
Wonders for Oyarsa,
The “free will defense” doesn’t help at all, God is still responsible for the creation of human beings.
If God is God, then He had both the power and the foreknowledge to stop the Fall from happening, yet it still happened.
I don’t see how this “gets God off the hook” any better than a Calvanistic view.
The real questions to ask are: Why did He allow it? And why hasn’t evil been completely done away with yet?
Cadis on 17 Apr 2008 at 8:11 pm #
Joanie,
“but you know how that goes, all the sudden a complication that you had not thought of and out the window with that thought.”
Enter stage right..Michael Patton
“God knew the babies were going to die, could have prevented it, but allowed it anyway? Not much better in my opinion.”
Cadis on 17 Apr 2008 at 8:49 pm #
I’m back in Duet
Duet 29:29
Deu 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Cadis on 17 Apr 2008 at 8:59 pm #
Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Back track and look at the the first verse Duet 30:1
Deu 30:1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee,
I find this amazing that God sets before them a choice but has already made it known that they will be driven from the promised land and scattered through the nations.
back track and look at Duet 29:29, the last verse of Ch 29
JoanieD on 17 Apr 2008 at 9:19 pm #
Cadis in #76 says, “One thing I do know is God is not the author of Evil…” I agree with you, Cadis. I don’t know that humans are “responsible for evil” though. I think that they will be held accountable for the evil that they do, but I think the Bible shows that evil entered the world due to the lies and deception of Satan, the evil one. Ruth Tucker in her book “Women in the Maze” points out that Eve was deceived by the devil but that Adam was not…Adam chose knowingly to do evil. But it was still Satan who introduced the thought to go against what God said to do or not do. Satan is the “accuser” the one that would say to God, “Punish them forever! They have done what you told them not to do.” But God pulls a good one on the devil and rescues humankind from the pit that they dug for themselves (with help from the devil). (This can “work” only IF you think that Adam and Eve actually existed and are not an allegory for how humans came to be the way they are. Otherwise, you can maybe make it work, but in an allegorical way.)
Some may say that God could have avoided evil entering the world if he had not created the angel that became the evil one, the devil, and that if God knows all, he would have known that the angel would have become evil. Again, here is a case where maybe Open Theism has some answers. (Remember, I haven’t read any books about Open Theism yet. Just some webpages.) If God knows all that can be known and decisions made by intelligent creatures like humans and angels cannot usually be known until they make them, then God could have created all beings to be good and yet gave them the freedom to choose evil. Why would he create them that way? Because he wants intelligent creatures to CHOOSE to love him. One may ask why God doesn’t remove evil in the world as it manifests, but Jesus explains in Matthew 13:24-30: (NIV) “Jesus told them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ” ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ” ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ”
I think Jesus is telling us a LOT about God, good, evil, how to deal with evil in this parable. (I made a couple things in bold.)
Joanie D.
Cadis on 17 Apr 2008 at 9:39 pm #
Joanie,
I read what you said, but I’m pretty sleepy right now. I will re-read it again in the morning, I’m not making the connection, that you see, but like I said I’m sleepy..so I’ll sleep on it
Seth R. on 17 Apr 2008 at 9:42 pm #
It is said that nothing is ever truly yours until you are willing to cast it upon the waters and see if it will return to you.
This is how I see God. He will have a truly free people. And when they choose Him, He wishes them to freely choose Him. For the accomplishment of such free relationships, He allows the evil necessary for that choice to even be possible.
Wonders for Oyarsa on 17 Apr 2008 at 10:03 pm #
The “free will defense†doesn’t help at all, God is still responsible for the creation of human beings.
If God is God, then He had both the power and the foreknowledge to stop the Fall from happening, yet it still happened.
On the contrary - it makes all the difference in the world if God creates agents with genuine will and choice, and the plan is to bring out a good creation of image-bearing selves, rather than mere autonama. It makes quite a bit of difference whether God is creating something “other” than himself, with the ability to create, to which he can have genuine engagement with - a true give and take, an actual dance.
Luke on 17 Apr 2008 at 11:38 pm #
CMP,
Thank you for your response regarding my question. I must say you are the first reformed brother who has taken a stab at it. I agree it’s a loaded question, but with the venom we preach about ridding abortion through political processes and yet preach that God ordains all things that come to pass, it’s kind of tough to connect the dots between the two.
I agree that there’s not an easy answer to it, and all of the options you provided fall short to satisfy humanity (at least western Americans that is, not all of humanity). However, I do strongly believe that the first option you gave would be correct…in my opinion of course! People reap the consequences of their sinful actions, and other people reap the consequences of those people’s sinful actions. God does have a heart for the helpless and broken, but we hardly ever see him directly preventing injustice in and of himself without using other humans to do it. Then again, if he does tell other humans to do something about it, they could be disobedient and not do it. It sounds chaotic, but sin is chaotic. I could say much, much more, but will leave it at that for now. I honestly wish western Christians didn’t spend so much time on some of these issues. They need to be brought up and discussed, but it’s like it’s all some people care about and preach.
Regarding your proof-text (Ha!, no insults) to Ephesians 1:11, Paul is speaking about followers of Christ being predestined according to God’s purpose, which is living to the praise of Christ’s glory (which indirectly is a very missional and people-oriented statement). So Paul is speaking about what God predestined for those who are and would be “in Christ”. I see no way how you get that God predestines all things in this verse, because it never says such a thing. And even the second part of the verse says that God “accomplishes” or “works” all things according to the counsel of his will. I heartily affirm this. Even though evil things may occur that God did not cause or foreordain, he still works and accomplishes these things according to the counsel of his will. I totally believe that God has an end set for all things, and in the past and present he has been working and accomplishing all things that happen according to the counsel of his will. However, this by no means says God predetermined all these things, nor that he caused them to happen. I hope you see where I’m coming from here, because it’s a common verse to use for this line of thinking simply because of the terms involved.
britphil on 18 Apr 2008 at 4:58 am #
“I am so confused, I no longer even understand the question, never mind the answers. Sigh…
As I think about it, though, I am not sure it even MATTERS what I believe about this. Will I live my life differently if I decide the answer is one way or the other once I know what the question is? Not that I can see, but I could be wrong. ”
Joanie you are not so much a breath of fresh air as much as a cyclone whizzing through the blogosphere! That was what I was trying to say before…it is not so much what we beilieve on this subject, but how it is worked out and applied in our daily lives - ie do our views on presdestination/election for all that we espouse, directly affect the way we live our lives- ie is it resulting in us being more “conformed to the likeness of His Son”
“I don’t think views on this subject qualify one for heresy, in my definition a heretic is someone who denies one or more of the basic principles of Christian faith. To me the basic principles can be found in the Nicene creed, and that gives us tremendous freedom. I just don’t think we should be arguing and separating over something that is not straightforward and explicitly clarified in Scripture.”
Ruben - I agree 100%
“Yes I agree with you. But one reason that that I can think of as to why we discuss this particular topic is because non-Christians will ask us “how can a God who knows the future allow suffering, and if he knows the future then all of our decisions have already been madeâ€. If for nothing else to try and give a response to these questions for non-Christians.”
This is the major reason I can see why we should at least try and get a grip of this issue. The issue of suffering is one which affects everyone and which people have a very clear view on and we need to be equipped to try and reply to some of the tough questions we are likely to be
asked on occasions. For example:
“Thank you for your response regarding my question. I must say you are the first reformed brother who has taken a stab at it.
Well done Luke for persisting with an attempt to get a credible reply. I t was hardly surprising that it was Michael who plucked up the courage to respond.
It seems to be me that some of a more Calvinist persuasion need no invitation to produce volumes on a subject with which they feel safe and secure (ie predestination/election), but it also is very interesting to note that there are certain subjects on which they choose to remain extremely reticent.
For example, to take Luke’s statement
“(which indirectly is a very missional and people-oriented statement).”
Is it just me, or is there still appear to be a resounding and deafening silence emanating from the more Calvinist minded folk regarding forming and developing a coherent theology of evangelism and mission?
JoanieD on 18 Apr 2008 at 5:58 am #
Just a little “aside”….the parables of Jesus are my very favorite thing in the Bible. It makes Jesus so real to me and I can imagine listening to him as he tells the “stories.”
And britphil…my being confused about this whole predestination/sovereign thing clearly didn’t keep me from writing a long post in #83!
Joanie D.
britphil on 18 Apr 2008 at 6:04 am #
Goodness me Joanie. I missed the fact that #83 was posted by your good self.
Joanie goes a-wading right in there! Great stuff!
Cadis on 18 Apr 2008 at 6:14 am #
Hi Joanie,
I agree with and understand everything you wrote in the first half of post # 83
All that pertaining to the garden and to Lucifer I won’t say I don’t understand the thoughts after that but I have alot of problems with them.
“If God knows all that can be known and decisions made by intelligent creatures like humans and angels cannot usually be known until they make them, then God could have created all beings to be good and yet gave them the freedom to choose evil. Why would he create them that way? Because he wants intelligent creatures to CHOOSE to love him.”
I think that WAS true of Adam and Eve.
I see how you are lining this up with the parable of the good seeds, and the wheat
and the tares. But it conflicts with so many other scriptures that are not in parable form..i.e. Romans Ch 5, that deal with the sin nature.
I think when a conflict like that arises , I have to wonder if the interpretation of the passage in question might be wrong. What actually is the good seed that is sown? and what is the seed that the enemy sows? If the seed is speaking about individual lives, then we have an enemy(Satan) sowing(creating) individual lives. The seed has to be something else that is being spoken of, what I’m not totaly sure
minnowspeaks on 18 Apr 2008 at 6:14 am #
Seth R. # 45 and Britphil #46 YES!
Jugulum #50 Indeed good questions. So, how is human responsibility compatible with the idea of total depravity? and How are we responsible if and when God predetermines that we will sin? If, as Cadis seems to be saying, God is not the author of evil then who is? Man is a created being. If the Creator is not culpable then how is the creation at fault?
I think Seth R #85 may be on to something. When God created Man with free will He created the potential for Man to choose evil (sin). He did not cause Man to choose evil nor did He cause Man to choose good. To what end? He would have a people who would freely choose Him. Both the experience of our depravity (choices apart from God) and God’s prevenient grace (wooing) stir/reveal in us a need and hunger for God. Perhaps CMP this addresses the abortion question as well–God knew and could have prevented it BUT because in His divine purpose He already determined to allow Man to choose life apart from His best for them (His will) He did not intervene.
I either do not understand the question/comment in #61 or I cannot agree with it. First, the question (”How can a choice be free when all our choices are contaminated by our sin?”) implies that evil or sin so overwhelms the individual that he/she is unable to turn away, unable to choose anything other than more sin. (Is that the essence of total depravity?) Secondly, the statement (To really be able to choose God (choose good) I would have to be good (totally). That is the only way it could be free choice.) suggests that people can only choose freely if they are good and the only free choice is to choose good.
I have other problems with Calvinist/Arminian thinking but total depravity ranks right up there.
I, too, like the thought of a surprised God and in His sovereignty if He chooses to remember our sins no more I have no problem with His truly being surprised when He also chooses to be in the moment with us (remembering not) as we make our choices.
Finally, mission and evangelism become meaningless in a predestined world if predestined is defined as God controls it all right down to what color socks we wear. Sorry CMP but can’t see #4 or even #3 on your other post but maybe I should move that last statement over there.
Cadis on 18 Apr 2008 at 6:27 am #
Joanie,
Phil’s a bad influence. He keeps saying the waters are fine come on in!..I’m getting a little sea sick and since Phil is a good target, I’m going to blame it on him.
minnowspeaks on 18 Apr 2008 at 6:42 am #
Okay I’m as Dyslexic as my children. I just popped over to read the comments on the God is Sovereign post and the numbers I can’t swallow are #1 and #2. Sorry.
britphil on 18 Apr 2008 at 7:58 am #
“Finally, mission and evangelism become meaningless in a predestined world if predestined is defined as God controls it all right down to what color socks we wear.”
Minnowspeaks…thank you for putting it like this. This is exactly what I was trying to say but nowhere nearly as succinctly! That is why I could never be a #1 in a milllion years! Because if I was, I wouild have to posit that evangelism and mission are pointless because it is all down to God ansd we have not got a role to play.
I don’t understand how anyone can hold that position because even the most hardened Calvinist is a product of God working by his Spirit in the heart of a person who has been reached by someone who has “gone into all the world” and preached the gospel.
It would seem to me that the ultra Calvinist beleives the Bible to instruct us to be stay within the safe confines of the church building and preach the gospel 9to the already converted mostly!)and conveniently omits the “into all the world” which I believe is what Jesus said and meant.
Cadis
Joanie,
“Phil’s a bad influence. He keeps saying the waters are fine come on in!..I’m getting a little sea sick and since Phil is a good target, I’m going to blame it on him.”
Cadis….How could you say such a thing!!! Actually you are spot on…I have a lurking fear that it won’t be too long before even Michael’s limitless reserves of patience are stretched and he pulls the plug on me for good!
minnowspeaks on 18 Apr 2008 at 9:05 am #
Britphil, Oh no! If you go I go (and frankly most of the fun comenters on this site would too). Besides, CMP takes a dip every now and again himself. Ahem–did I just say that?
John 14–meaty chapter that!
britphil on 18 Apr 2008 at 9:28 am #
“Britphil, Oh no! If you go I go (and frankly most of the fun commenters on this site would too).”
Minnow sssshhhh “fun commenters” keep it quite…we can’t be having fun on a Calvinist theology blogsite..it’s just not allowed!
“John 14–meaty chapter that!”
Yup..you said it!! However, the sermon is done and dusted as I wrote it last night, which allows God a few days to give me an irenic prod or two to say “you really aren’t going to say that are you?”
Actually it is going to be quite interesting as my last sermon several weeks ago should we say