godrulz37

Again, detailed research that is appreciated. Jn. 3:16 vs Jn. 3:36. Those who believe become part of the corporate elect. Those who continue to reject His grace (which is not irresistible) will remain condemned. God convicts and convinces by the Spirit/Word/believer, but He does not cause or coerce reciprocal love relationship.

In the Calvinistic proof texts about POTS (perseverance of the saints), and other TULIP points, there is often a conditional, manward element. A deterministic, decretal view that does not recognize genuine (libertarian) free will, reciprocal love relationships, etc. will fall short of sound interpretation (exegesis). We all must guard against reading a wrong paradigm into the texts (Calvinists and Arminians can read the same text and come up with opposite conclusions, so sometimes the paradigm is where we need to work, not just one proof text). As always, all relevant verses must be considered to form a balanced, biblical doctrine. Cheryl is to be commended for exegeting in light of word studies and context.

Total depravity is not total inability. God’s love is not partial, limited. The grounds for salvation (reason by which we are saved) are grace and the person and work of Christ (objective). The conditions of salvation/perseverance (not without which) include repentant faith and continuance in the faith. The objective provision must be subjectively appropriated. His death is intended for all and sufficient, but only efficacious for those who freely respond to His non-coercive/non-causative conviction/convincing (draws, woos, influences, not causes). Receiving a free gift is not a work, but a response to the work of God (cease resisting His grace). Salvation is more a reciprocal love relationship than a mechanistic change foisted arbitrarily on some, but not others.

No translator has suggested ‘teaching’. Drag/causation/coercion is not right, but what is wrong with a concept of drawing, persuading, wooing, influencing, etc.? The Holy Spirit does convict and convince, even through teaching, but I do not see how ‘teaching’ is a legit word study here.

Another good article/exegesis. Calvinism is deductive, proof texted, eisegesis, wrong paradigm, not based on sound exegesis. God draws, influences, woos, persuades. He does not cause or coerce because He is loving, relational, not deterministic. A wrong view of sovereignty (meticulous control) and free will (compatibilism) is much of the problem with Calvinism. It is also an exegetical fallacy to assume one use of a word with a semantical range of meaning has to mean ‘drag’, as Cheryl points out. All relevant verses show that God’s will can be rejected/resisted, by His sovereign choice (hence evil, hell, suffering, Satan, Fall, etc. cf. Lk. 7:30; Matthew 23:37). The broader context of Jn. 6 also shows there is a conditional, manward element in justification/perseverence (vs TULIP/unconditional).

The debate does have implications for sanctification. So many struggle with sin despite conversion. There are sinless perfectionism theories, exchanged life theories, Wesleyan eradication of sin nature as second work of grace, etc. See, another can of worms….sanctification. I agree there is a difference pre and post Adamic fall, but the question is one of nature and degree (not explicitly revealed on the details). For free will theists like us (vs determinists), it is a legitimate question why we will not sin in heaven or rebel. I can’t say I have all the answers, just musings. One bottom line question for me is if we sin because we are born sinners (tradition) or are we sinners because we sin (Rom. 1-3)? As well, for sanctification/justification, what about monergism (Calvinism) vs synergism (cooperative element, conditions, choices, etc.). I don’t have a problem understanding why all sin, but I am more perplexed why so many believers still sin, are in bondage to sin, etc. despite the indwelling Holy Spirit, victory of the cross, etc. My underlying assumption is that sin is volitional, not a substance or nature (though increasing patterns of bondage/nature develop as we habitually sin).

Nothing like a keen mind and a good heart/character, truth on fire, more light than heat.

Cheryl, excellent insight and exegesis. I think the case is based on principles as much as proof texts. It is cumulative evidence hinted at Scripture, so Ryan is reasonable to not make a big doctrine off any one text that may have alternate understanding. I would say babies go to heaven based on their non-rejection of Christ/gospel, lack of moral/mental capacity, provision in the cross (?). What are your views on ‘Augustinian original sin’? Catholics would say a baby must have the sacrament of infant baptism to deal with original sin and be born again (they are wrong on this). I would say traditional original sin is not biblical because sin is moral/volitional, not genetic/substance/metaphysical. So, the innocent thing resonates with me, but not so much with ‘original sin’. http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbsindex.htm (note: I disagree with Calvin and Pelagius).

I believe there is a distinction between physical depravity (taints the whole human race) and moral depravity (based on individual choices). I think we form a nature as we sin and that we do not have a causative Adamic nature back of the will that makes us sin (Lucifer and Adam fell from innocence without a ‘sinful nature’; NIV has also taken away preconceived ‘sinful nature’ translation to make it more accurate to the Greek ‘flesh’/sarx, a metaphor for sin in some contexts). I did not read your blog on Adam-head, but I think the Augustinian (rooted in his thinking) Federal Headship view is fully correct. Rev. 13 and Rev. 17 have textual variants and those verses are of interest for foreknowledge, perseverance, election, etc.

Adam’s sin is not irrelevant because it introduces sin and death into the human race. Physical depravity gives us a propensity to sin vs causative nature. It leads to death (physical, spiritual, eternal, with the latter two kinds personal, not genetic). Moral depravity and sin is strictly volitional, not constitutional, genetic, etc. (Rom. 1-3 is the primary sin/hamartiology passage). There are other explanations for a child sinning without being taught (relating to having legit needs met on demand, but later retaining a selfish worldview beyond infant dependency on adults. Lucifer and Adam sinned without a sinful nature. The will and mind are the seat of moral choice, not a substance, nebulous nature back of the will, etc. The proof texting is thin to try to retain the traditional view in the face of clear passages on the nature of sin (lawlessness, rebellion, selfishness, missing the mark, etc. vs nature). If this is so, then the incarnation/virgin conception relates to Deity adding humanity, God becoming man in one person with two natures. I think it is a misconception based on wrong transducian theories (sin passed on in the male sperm, blood, etc….if that is not speculative beyond Scripture, what is?!) to say the virgin conception/birth was necessary so Jesus was not born a sinner or tainted with sin (but was not Mary a sinner with flawed genetics?!). Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions. I think the traditional view is tradition, not truth, speculative, not Scripture. Rebellion is not genetic (we can’t blame Adam, Satan, parents, teachers..), but strictly volitional. If you make sin genetic/metaphysical vs volitional/moral, how do you argue consistently against homosexuality being a choice vs innate? Hmmm….. If Jesus just had a human father/mother, He would be human, not God-Man! Having a body does not make one a sinner (unless you are Gnostic/Docetic). Jesus was sinless because He never sinned. We are not sinners because our parents had sex, no fault of our own. Adam is responsible for his sin, we are tainted by it, but we are responsible for our own sin (so babies don’t go to hell because they don’t sin either). The impeccability of Christ is debated. Most say that He could not sin because He was God. Well…. I realize I may be coming across as a heretic, but I don’t take going against the grain lightly and have wrestled with these things for decades (has have you). I risk being misunderstood, but I think there is some food for thought. Thx for your grace and patience.

Yes, the first paragraph is what I and others call physical depravity, a consequence of Adam’s sin. In Romans, it adds the phrase…because all have sinned. We follow in Adam’s footsteps and have moral depravity as we choose to sin. We do not get moral depravity genetically. If we did, we would be no more responsible than having brown hair and gays would have an excuse and no culpability for their sin (same with pedophiles, etc….note that a gay person does not have to have gay lineage). I agree we have a propensity to sin, but sin is still volitional and mental or there is no culpability (like infant or severely mentally handicapped). We all eventually sin and form a sinful nature. We are sinners because we sin, not because we are conceived. We do not sin because we are born sinners, gay, liars, etc. We all eventually, universally sin, but the will and mind with propensity to satisfy self and flesh having some Adamic influence (but not the real explanation since we do not have to act on temptation, desires, etc…or we should not tell same sex attraction people that they can resist giving themselves over with sex, etc.). The soul that sins is the one that dies (Ezekiel), so we agree (and you may disagree somewhat with traditional formulations of original sin doctrine…good). I think we all claim biblical support and there are interpretative issues, even with translations. We want to avoid proof texting, watch our biased paradigms, and strive for exegesis, not eisegesis…we agree.

Some is semantics, some speculative, some significant differences. The nature/nurture, environment, genetics, choice stuff has been debated in secular circles. Propensity is not causation. There is a distinction between easy (Pelagian), difficult (my view/semi-Pelagian perhaps), and impossible (Calvinism). Total depravity is not total inability. Since it only takes one wrong thought, motive, word, deed to sin and become a sinner, we do not need theories that are not strongly supported by Scripture to explain why all eventually sin and need a Saviour. This is academic unless people blame shift and do not see why God would hold them responsible for something they cannot help (cf. hair color). Denying that we sin or are in need of a Savior (some religions and philosophies) truly is a problem. I think there is some room to debate nuanced details in doctrinal disputes as long as we don’t blatantly deny core truth (so, those who deny the impeccability of Christ still strongly affirm that He was, is, always will be sinless). Thomistic (Aquinas) views on being, etc. were philosophical and I am suggesting confusing being vs choice issues is a mistake leading away from clear, biblical teaching.

I concur. The objective, perfect provision intended for all must be subjectively appropriated (freely) to be efficacious individually.

Jn. 3:16 vs Jn. 3:36; I Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; I Jn. 5:11-13; Jn. 1:12; Rom. 10:9-10

Do Calvinists say that some babies who are aborted or die before moral/mental capacity go to hell (double predestination, even of babies)?! I do not believe that Judas the individual was specifically prophesied or named in the Old Testament. There are many e.g. of OT verses, even about Jesus, being applied by way of parallel situation or illustratively (while others are explicitly predictive prophecy relating to the Messiah).

If Judas would have repented (possible) or not gone rogue, I believe the prophecy could be applied to someone else or not at all (if it was illustrative application vs predictive; the NT would have been written differently since history would have unfolded differently). I believe the future is not fatalistically fixed in all detail (and this is how we all live regardless of our theoretical views). If you believe in unconditional election and limited atonement, there is no way to avoid double predestination, something Calvin believed yet recoiled from (odious). This alone is a good reason to reject Calvinism since it limits the love of God and makes His choices arbitrary vs good, righteous. Defaulting to mystery, antimony, paradox loopholes in the face of a conundrum is not a way out of the negative implications that impugn God’s character and ways.

Babies go to heaven with Jesus, not old Catholic limbo, purgatory, etc. They do not go to hell since they lack mental and moral capacity (non-rejection of Jesus/gospel).

Why cannot an omnicompetent God macro vs micromanage? Why can’t He deal responsively with creation rather than meticulously? There is nothing in the narratives to think that God decreed or predestined Pharaoh/Judas in eternity past vs providentially worked them into a real space-time plan as history unfolds. This takes more ability and intelligence than making things happen.

Am I correct to assume that Derek believes God predestined Judas in particular ?by decree in eternity past to be the betrayer; that Cheryl denies this predetermination, but God still knows based on simple foreknowledge and that Judas could have been good due to free will (but if God knows this as a certainty in the past, then is Judas the originator of his own choices and can the future really be changed if foreknowledge fixes it?). My view is that history freely unfolded with God actively intervening at times, but not all times. Judas, Hitler, Pharaoh, etc. were desired by God to be righteous. When they set their own course, God responded providentially and allowed things, mitigated things, used things in His wisdom and intelligence. So, a chessmaster analogy has more merit than a cause-effect one.

I agree again with the gist of your view on Judas. I do not believe that foreknowledge determines choices in the Arminian view, but I do believe there are problems with the view (simple foreknowledge is the generic name for God seeing the future and is usually associated with eternal now/timeless views).

We should never limit God. I would not embrace a view that limited God (except if God voluntarily self-limits Himself as He does at time…He could lock Satan up, but He has not…yet, but He will). I AM supports the eternality of Christ. He is Alpha and Omega with no beginning, no end. He is uncreated. Some claim this phrase for eternal now timelessness (I don’t think you do), but that would not be legit. It does not resolve whether God is timeless or experiences endless time, but it does affirm Jehovahistic identity/uncreatedness.

I have been/I was (JW mentality) could imply pre-existence (as they argue), but not eternality/Deity. I AM is the self-existent one, GOD. The Jews understood His claims and went to stone Him for blasphemy, claiming to be equal with God. JWs do not understand His claims and reject them (making the Pharisees getting it more than they do as modern Pharisees)…but you know all this. Omnipotence is being able to do the doable. God cannot do the undoable (create square circles, married bachelors, etc.). The incarnation is an e.g. of the voluntary self-limitation of the eternal Word. Adding humanity to His Deity (without ceasing to be Deity; Jn. 1; Phil. 2) created inherent limitations not previously experienced by Him. Being able to snuff Satan, but not doing so, is a limitation of His exercise of His all-power….which is still subject to His will and mind…He can do many things that He does not do. He limits His intervention against evil at times (even Christians are raped and murdered). He cannot limit His inherent attributes. He cannot cease to be eternal, uncreated, triune, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. I would argue (against Aquinas, etc.) that His character qualities are more volitional (loving, good, faithful, etc.). So, we can be like God in some ways (character), but not like Him in other ways (Creator, omni, eternal, etc.)….this relates to the image of God (Imago Dei) and gets messed up in the maze of Mormonism and their finite godism/polytheism (which is a straw man argued in the book you gave me to read from Robert Morey, Battle of the gods…many years ago…he wrongly confused Open Theism with Process Thought, an unfair caricature…just as Calvinistic accusations that Arminianism is Pelagianism is also unfair….I have to be careful to not lump all Reformed/Calvinistic views in with hyper-Calvinism). I appreciate your good hearts and heads. Iron sharpens iron. As a reminder, our time and energy should primarily be with those in the kingdom of the cults who deny essential, salvific truths. Equally capable, godly believers have had doctrinal disputes on peripheral, but important issues for centuries. These merit our time and talents, but should be kept in perspective. Right beliefs (orthodoxy) and practice (orthopraxy) do matter, of course. God bless. It is the glory of a king to search out a matter (Proverbs).

This is one reason I am also engaged with the Calvinistic issue. It is a barrier to belief for the thinking lost and divisive with negative consequences to many believers. Having said that, some are leaving the shallow fluff of some of our evangelical circles for a more intellectually robust view (New Calvinism, young, Reformed, restless). It is interesting we have a similar heart on cults and Calvinism (the latter is not cultic). In fairness, there are many fine Reformed thinkers (though wrong on key points….Edwards, Spurgeon, Sproul, Piper, Packer, McArthur, Lloyd-Jones, etc.) who have something to contribute.

I appreciate the good overall summary with minor quibbles. Jesus Christ Superstar portrayed Judas as a predestined puppet, but this is not biblical. A careful look at the chronology shows him to be chosen as an apostle after a night of prayer, but only later becoming a son of perdition and filled with Satan, contrary to God’s intention. Some free will theists believe in once saved always saved (OSAS), while Calvinists believe in POTS/perseverance of the saints. I personally see conditional vs unconditional perseverance in Scripture. I think Judas illustrates apostasy/falling away from truth (genuine believer vs fake becoming unbeliever and forfeiting salvation). What is your view on OSAS, Cheryl? I agree with you contra-determinism/predestination/decree in the case of Judas (God wanted Judas to repent instead of just remorse).

God has perfect past and present knowledge because these are fixed realites to be known. He can also predict much of the future based on available knowledge or things He will unilaterally bring to pass apart from creaturely freedom. Examples that involve proximal knowledge cannot be extrapolated as proof of exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all future free will contingencies. I am all for a biblicist approach unless it takes statements like ‘all things are possible for God’ (context relates to salvation, not logical absurdities like square circles) or ‘God knows all things’ (context relates to the heart, not the entire non-existent future) out of context or proof texting a preconceived view contradicted by other verses or principles. Modal logic is difficult, but relevant to the discussion. Even if we have ideas that are not in a proof text (and we all do), it should stand up to sound thinking and will not be contradicted by the cumulative evidence. I would say that all views have some difficulties and objections, but which are less problematic and reasonably defensible in light of Scripture (final and ultimate authority) and sound thinking? Your two verses are not usual objections to Open Theism and I do not find them problematic or supportive for or against either view, per se. As with Calvinism vs Arminianism, we all claim biblical support for our views, but are not immune to reading our paradigm into the text. Some Calvinistic verses reflect a Calvinistic bias of the translators, so I agree with Cheryl to do original language research (which still creates disputes among experts and amateurs alike).

I would agree that elect would generally refer to corporate vs individual issues and that we should interpret Rom. 9-11 and other Calvinistic proof texts in light of this. God has intentions and plans, but these can be rejected/resisted (Lk. 7:30; Mt. 23:37). Individuals ultimately make up the group, but are not arbitrarily pre-selected in eternity past as to who will believe or not (Calvinists would say these things are irresistibly decreed, while Arminians would say it is based on simple foreknowledge/eternal now; Molinists would argue for middle knowledge/counterfactuals of freedom, while Open Theists would emphasize corporate election with individual destiny being unsettled/unknown except as possible until it becomes actual based on libertarian free will/contingency).

How can an all-powerful God not be able to do things? Most atheists and theists would agree that an omnipotent God could not create square circles or married bachelors, a logical contradiction. Likewise, it is not a limitation on omniscience to not know where Alice in Wonderland is right now. So, omnipotence is being able to do the doable (the supernatural God can do anything except logical absurdities) and omniscience is knowing the knowable (there are things that are inherently unknowable due to the nature of creation God sovereignly chose). Words have a semantical range of meaning. The way Christ is elect is not identical to how individuals become part of Him and HIs elect Church.

Some issues not dealt with explicitly in Scripture are resolved by godly philosophy. The exact nature of God’s relation/experience of time/eternity is one such thing. There are many Scriptures where God does not seem to know as a certainty future free will choices that may or may not happen. God has voluntarily limited His knowledge by creating a universe with free moral agents. A free choice must be made by the agent. If God knows the future exhaustively and definitely, then one must appeal to determinism (at the expense of free will) or theories such as eternal now where God just somehow sees something that does not exist (4th dimension, etc.). These are far more problematic than to recognize that some aspects of the future are indeterminate and left to be settled by the agent. They may or may not happen and there is an element of uncertainty/unknowability just by the nature of this. So, God knows these things as possible, probable, but actual/certain awaits the choice in real space-time. Even if God knew the future perfectly, this offers no providential advantage because God would not be able to change the fixed future even if He wanted to (it would make His foreknowledge false, so you end up more fatalistic than free). As to Scripture again, there are hundreds of openness texts (Hezekiah is a good narrative) relating to God changing His mind, God saying ‘now I know’ after a test, etc. The problem will be paradigm vs proof text, hermeneutics, etc. The classic response is to dismiss these as anthropomorphic (yes, there are those in Scripture but take it at face value unless context demands it). The strength of Open Theism is that it can take countless verses at face value as revelatory of God’s nature and ways that are rationalized away by other views to retain a preconceived theology (that is wrong in my opinion). So, if we take a normative literal approach to Scripture (while recognizing figures of speech), we see two motifs: God knows and settles some of the future (First/Second Coming of Christ, etc. Is. 46 and 48 shows how God declares and brings to pass….it is by His ABILITY, not a supposed prescience/foreknowledge…these proof texts also are specific in context and cannot be extrapolated to prove exhaustive definite foreknowledge), while other aspects of the future are open, unsettled, indeterminate and known as such until they become certain objects of knowledge. Any limitation of God’s power or knowledge is a self-limitation by the sovereign God. If He wanted exhaustive definite foreknowledge, He would have to create a deterministic universe or eternal now would have to be true (but still problematic in light of seeing choices before the agent even exists to make a choice). So, we are both stuck with having to exegete Scripture (and Open Theists call on 100s of them to support the view) AND to wrestle with philosophical issues not resolved in Scripture: nature of free will (compatibilism vs incompatibilism vs determinism, etc.), nature of time/eternity (biblical endless time vs Platonic ‘eternal now’ will affect our view of foreknowledge, etc.), providence (God’s sovereignty as meticulous or responsive, etc.), etc. etc. It is a vast, technical subject. I have asked a few agnostics or atheists if there is anything an omniscient God (and I fully believe He is since He knows all that is an object of knowledge or correctly knows reality as it is distinguishing the fixed past, potential/anticipatory future, real present) cannot know. Within a minute they correctly answer ‘the future’. The average church goer has not begun to think about these things and is content at a spoon fed Sunday School level. The thinking Christians also often uncritically accept tradition. As you point out, not all tradition is truth. Even classical theologians are revisiting the doctrine of God on philosophically influenced things like impassibility (it is not fair to say Open Theism is philosophical…all views are a mix of Scripture and philosophy with the Bible appealed to by both…I cannot defend impassibility from Scripture so why elevate Augustine over it?!). We should not compromise truth nor slander other views as liberal, beyond the bounds, etc. (like some do) when they don’t even understand what they are rejecting. I don’t want to side track from the Calvinism debate, but if Open Theism and Molinism are credible views in the free will camp of Arminianism (as good thinkers are arguing), then I think there is some relevancy to consider it. Too often Calvinists control theological societies and politics and ad hominem attacks are the order instead of dialogue such as Cheryl is promoting.

Incidently, which Bible translations do you prefer, value, use (besides original language research)? Biblegateway.com has the key ones. I still appreciate NIV (2011), ESV/despite Calvinistic bent (vs NASB in the past), HCSB. KJV-onlyism irks me. The Message is refreshing, but limited as a paraphrase. NET is interesting on the computer.

The big fish to fry may be Calvinism vs Arminianism, but Open Theism is one of the bigger debate in evangelical circles more recently. There are a few amateur Open Theists that would say that God chooses to not know the future, but this is a denial of omniscience, even by Open Theism standards. The way God voluntarily limits His foreknowledge (the past, present, future are fundamentally different by His creative choice, contrary to Einstein’s error) is to create a non-determinisitic universe. God is not ignorant of anything, but there are somethings inherently unknowable, even to an omniscient God. So, when God sovereignly created a universe with significant others with genuine free will, this introduced an inherent inability to exhaustively know the future (I am assuming eternal now is a false view and unhelpful anyway). He knows reality as it is and knows the future as possible, probable, certain (in some things), but not actual since the future is not there yet and not a possible object of certain knowledge, even for an omniscient God who knows all things. So, it is a consequence of God’s sovereign choice, not a denial of God’s omniscience (we differ on what are possible objects of certain knowledge, not whether God is omnisicent or not, He is). For me, the accusation that Open Theism denies omniscience is like a Calvinist saying Arminians deny the sovereignty of God. No, we deny their wrong view of God’s sovereignty and free will, not the legit concepts. I am denying a wrong view of omniscience, not that God is omniscient. Open Theists would share the same concerns about Calvinism, TULIP, etc. as Arminians and use similar arguments (just as Calvinists will use similar arguments against Open Theism/Arminianism relating to free will, non-decretal views, etc.).