Can God change his mind?

[Skandelon]

Nope, sorry I don't think God is culpable in man's sin, anymore than you do, even though I could throw up the same charge against you and say God is culpable in man's sin because He decided to create man with the full knowledge (and the power to stop it) that men would sin and sin badly. I just don't follow your argument. Sorry, I just don't see it. Guess I'm either just blind or dumb from your point of view. It would be so nice if we could all agree on these things, but that just ain't the case.

How do you think God foreknowing someone will freely choose to sin is equal to God making someone, from birth, unable to willingly do otherwise than to reject God's appeal to be reconciled?

Never said that. Where did I say that? The entire 'package' of salvation is by God's grace, including all those things.

Your answer implied it.

I asked: "Could you have wanted to repent and believe in light of the revelation of the powerful Gospel truth?"
You answered: Not without the grace of God.

So, you are implying by your answer that the powerful Gospel is not a work of grace. What I think you meant to say was, "Not without the effectual work of grace by which God regenerates man." Right?

The usual suspects that we Cals misinterpret, take out of context, or mangle like the devil; John 6, Eph. 2, Romans 1-9.

And where exactly do any of these passages explicitly show that you didn't have that ability in the light of the grace that brought you the gospel truth?

 

[Andy T.]

How do you think God foreknowing someone will freely choose to sin is equal to God making someone, from birth, unable to willingly do otherwise than to reject God's appeal to be reconciled?

Sure, there is a difference between what you stated above, but that's not what I believe. I don't believe God makes us unwilling, anymore than you believe God makes us sin, even though you also believe that man has a sin nature.

Your answer implied it.

I asked: "Could you have wanted to repent and believe in light of the revelation of the powerful Gospel truth?"
You answered: Not without the grace of God.

So, you are implying by your answer that the powerful Gospel is not a work of grace. What I think you meant to say was, "Not without the effectual work of grace by which God regenerates man." Right?

Essentially. The whole package of salvation - the things you listed plus the effectual call is all by the grace of God.

Seeing as we have already gone way off track from the OP, I suggest you start a new thread on the effectual call, total dep. or whatever aspect of TULIP you would like to discuss.

We started down this trail with my objection to the whole God makes men sin assertion you made. I think we have presented both sides and neither of us have anything else of substance to add, and neither of us has convinced the other (surprise, surprise), so it is probably best to move on.

 

[Skandelon]

Sure, there is a difference between what you stated above, but that's not what I believe. I don't believe God makes us unwilling, anymore than you believe God makes us sin, even though you also believe that man has a sin nature.

You keep telling me what you don't believe, but you never tell us what it is that you do believe. How do you believe that God chose to make all men born with a nature that cannot be willing (Total Depravity) and not believe that God makes us unwilling? Please explain, I do not understand what you believe.

Essentially. The whole package of salvation - the things you listed plus the effectual call is all by the grace of God.

But the problem you have is to establish the "effectual call" from scripture. That term, nor the term "irresistible grace" are ever mentioned. I know that doesn't disprove it because word's like "trinity" are mentioned either. But the concept must be established and in order to do that you need to establish the NEED for the effectual call. If you can't show in scripture that man is born unable to willing respond to the grace of the gospel itself, why do you need the so called effectual call?

 

[Andy T.]

You keep telling me what you don't believe, but you never tell us what it is that you do believe. How do you believe that God chose to make all men born with a nature that cannot be willing (Total Depravity) and not believe that God makes us unwilling? Please explain, I do not understand what you believe.

How do you believe that God chose to make men with a sin nature inclined towards sin and not believe that God makes us sin? I don't see how you escape the same charge based on your views of man's sin nature.

(And to clarify, I don't believe it is God who directly infuses us with a sin nature - He essentially allows man to himself (absence any grace, effectual or common), so that man's nature and man's sin are his own doing and not God's.)

 

[Skandelon]

How do you believe that God chose to make men with a sin nature inclined towards sin and not believe that God makes us sin? I don't see how you escape the same charge based on your views of man's sin nature.

But I don't believe that the "sin nature" is such that a man cannot do otherwise. I believe man CAN be willing to be reconciled when the appeal from God is made. How is that distinction not clear?

(And to clarify, I don't believe it is God who directly infuses us with a sin nature - He essentially allows man to himself (absence any grace, effectual or common), so that man's nature and man's sin are his own doing and not God's.)

So if mans nature is not created by God, then who creates it? He either created man's nature with ability or without ability, I don't see any in between, do you?

 

[Andy T.]

So if mans nature is not created by God, then who creates it? He either created man's nature with ability or without ability, I don't see any in between, do you?

You've already stated above that you believe man's fallen nature is inclined towards sin - that he is not morally neutral, correct? So if God creates man's sin nature to be inclined towards sin, then by the same argument you make against me, you believe God makes men sin.

 

[Skandelon]

You've already stated above that you believe man's fallen nature is inclined towards sin - that he is not morally neutral, correct? So if God creates man's sin nature to be inclined towards sin, then by the same argument you make against me, you believe God makes men sin.

Don't you agree there is a big difference between being 'inclined' toward sin or 'influenced' by sin while still having the ability to do otherwise, verses being blinded, deafened, and unable to willingly do otherwise? I still don't understand why that is not a clear distinction. Please explain.

 

[Andy T.]

Don't you agree there is a big difference between being 'inclined' toward sin or 'influenced' by sin while still having the ability to do otherwise, verses being blinded, deafened, and unable to willingly do otherwise? I still don't understand why that is not a clear distinction. Please explain.

Sure, there is a difference between the theologies, but not to the point that one makes men sin while the other escapes such [baseless] charge. It all appears to be an attempt (a rather poor one) to put one theology in the heresy camp, while ignoring the fact that your theology has the same 'problem' to deal with.

 

[Skandelon]

Sure, there is a difference between the theologies, but not to the point that one makes men sin while the other escapes such [baseless] charge. It all appears to be an attempt (a rather poor one) to put one theology in the heresy camp, while ignoring the fact that your theology has the same 'problem' to deal with.

What "problem" to deal with? The problem is INABILITY to do otherwise and I don't believe that. If a man sins, he could have done otherwise. If a man rejects Christ, he could have done otherwise. Can you say the same thing? If not, YOU are the only one with a problem to deal with.

 

[Andy T.]

What "problem" to deal with? The problem is INABILITY to do otherwise and I don't believe that. If a man sins, he could have done otherwise.

So man is morally neutral? You're a Pelagian now? If you are not a Pelagian, then your charge sticks to you, as well. Because if sin is inevitable due to man's sin nature (the non-Pelagian view), then God must make men sin.

Question: Is this your attempt to put Calvinism in the heresy camp? If not, what would you call a theology that says God makes men sin? The reason I ask, is I saw you post on another thread that you think Calvinism is not heresy. So which is it?

 

[Cypress]

Andy, is it your view that moral neutrality is enough to make one a Pelagian? Or do you think that holding that view will necessarily lead one to Pelagianism?

 

[Andy T.]

Andy, is it your view that moral neutrality is enough to make one a Pelagian?

Yes, at least in regards to the doctrine of sin. It is a grave error and has no basis in Biblical theology.

 

[Skandelon]

So man is morally neutral? You're a Pelagian now? If you are not a Pelagian, then your charge sticks to you, as well. Because if sin is inevitable due to man's sin nature (the non-Pelagian view), then God must make men sin.

Not true. Pelagianism taught men were born innocent and that Adam's sin was just a bad example. I don't believe that. I simply believe that in each specific circumstance when a man chooses to sin that he could have done otherwise...in that NOTHING prevented him from being able to choose to do otherwise. That is libertarian free will. Now, don't confuse that with being saved. Man cannot be saved without an act of God's grace...thus the means God selected...Christ, apostles, scripture, church --->GOSPEL.

Question: Is this your attempt to put Calvinism in the heresy camp? If not, what would you call a theology that says God makes men sin? The reason I ask, is I saw you post on another thread that you think Calvinism is not heresy. So which is it?

Calvinists are typically careful to say God is not the "author" of sin but that he does "decree" sin. They attempt to separate themselves from this issue of divine culpability with these semantics, but I'm attempting to point out that they really are just that, semantics. It may sound better to say God decreed sin rather than God authored sin, but the ultimate cause and conclusions are the same regardless of what word is used. I admit that I may be pressing you to hard on this issue because I just left a discussion with this Calvinist on another board. If you read what he argues, you will see my point a little more clearly.

 

[Andy T.]

Not true. Pelagianism taught men were born innocent and that Adam's sin was just a bad example. I don't believe that. I simply believe that in each specific circumstance when a man chooses to sin that he could have done otherwise...in that NOTHING prevented him from being able to choose to do otherwise. That is libertarian free will.

Here is an article that discusses the moral neutrality found in Pelagianism:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/pelagiannatural.html

Up above you said man is inclined towards sin, but now you seem to be saying man is morally neutral. Which is it? Is sin inevitable for every man? If so, then according to your reasoning, God is the author of that sin, since He rigged the game, so to speak. If sin is not inevitable, then you have to deny vast amounts of Scripture and simply admit that you are a Pelagian.

Now, don't confuse that with being saved. Man cannot be saved without an act of God's grace...thus the means God selected...Christ, apostles, scripture, church --->GOSPEL.

Please clarify whether or not the means God selected includes enabling/drawing/wooing grace (not irresistible grace in the Cal sense, of course, but in the typical non-Cal/Arminian sense)? And if so, does God give the same amount of enabling grace to everyone; does He give everyone the same opportunity to be saved?

Calvinists are typically careful to say God is not the "author" of sin but that he does "decree" sin. They attempt to separate themselves from this issue of divine culpability with these semantics, but I'm attempting to point out that they really are just that, semantics. It may sound better to say God decreed sin rather than God authored sin, but the ultimate cause and conclusions are the same regardless of what word is used. I admit that I may be pressing you to hard on this issue because I just left a discussion with this Calvinist on another board. If you read what he argues, you will see my point a little more clearly.

You didn't answer the question - is Calvinism heresy? Don't you think a theology that has God authoring sin is a grave heresy?

 

[Skandelon]

Here is an article that discusses the moral neutrality found in Pelagianism:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/pelagiannatural.html

Up above you said man is inclined towards sin, but now you seem to be saying man is morally neutral. Which is it?

How many times and in how many different ways do I need to answer this question? I could be inclined toward smoking because my grandfather smoked and I like the smell, right? Does that mean I MUST smoke when tempted? Of course not. I have the ability to choose. If I do smoke, I had the ability to do otherwise. That prior "inclination" was just that, an inclination" it wasn't a "determination." I'm will be tempted by smoking, unlike my wife who is repulsed by it. She is NOT inclined to smoke so its not even a temptation for her...she is inclined NOT to smoke. This can apply to all kinds of sins...overeating, lust, anger, gossip, etc.... You can be "inclined" to do any or all of these, but you don't have to do them. Do you now understand?

Now, you may object saying, "Well, then man technically might resist all temptations then and live morally perfect and would need Christ's atonement." Not so. Why?

First, we born guilty because of Adam's sin as our representative, so whether we choose to sin or not we are still guilty and in need of redemption. Second, I think it's even RC Sproul who argues that it might be "technically" possible for someone to resist all temptation, but because of the amount of temptation and the condition of our world that would never really happen (as I explained more fully in a earlier post). But, if you pointed to any one particular sin of a man it could be argued that he might have been able to do otherwise....though inclined to do it, he might have resisted and done otherwise. If not, he was "determined" to do something by his programming and this is no different from the instinctive choice of an animal.

Please clarify whether or not the means God selected includes enabling/drawing/wooing grace (not irresistible grace in the Cal sense, of course, but in the typical non-Cal/Arminian sense)? And if so, does God give the same amount of enabling grace to everyone; does He give everyone the same opportunity to be saved?

The word of God is drawing, wooing and enabling, yes. How will they believe unless they hear? Faith comes by hearing. Does everyone hear? NO. This is not because of God, but because of disobedience. And I can anticipate your next question. What about those who never hear, are they held accountable. I believe the response to this question by this author.

You didn't answer the question - is Calvinism heresy? Don't you think a theology that has God authoring sin is a grave heresy?

If Calvinism blatantly made that claim, yes (as the Calvinist I linked to does), but if they attempt to separate themselves and explain the distinction then no. I just consider them making a mistake but with good intentions. It's like the whole anti-evangelism accusation toward Calvinists. It can be argued that your views could tend toward that false teaching, because that is the "logical conclusion." However, I know that many Calvinists are very evangelistic and teach others to evangelize and do missions. Just because one might argue that the "logical conclusion" of a particular system seems to support a particular view doesn't mean they necessarily hold to that view. I just may disagree with the explanations and reasons, but at least they still hold to the correct teaching. Make sense?

 

[Andy T.]

So we both believe sin is inevitable with fallen man. Therefore, your "logical conclusion" argument applies to both of us (in actuality, it applies to neither of us). God rigged the game, after all, so He is responsible. He put the tree in the garden, He lets Satan run wild. And all of that guarantees that sin and rebellion will flourish. We agree on all those things, so we are in the same boat with your logical conclusions.

However, you keep defining sin in terms of outward actions. And I stated above that T.D. does not teach that men will sin 100% of the time or be is bad as they could be. But let's look at sins of the heart. In fact, let's look at what Jesus said was the foremost commandment - love Lord God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. I assume you would agree to break this commandment is a sin. Does the natural man have the "ability to do otherwise" and obey this commandment at all times?

 

[Winman]

So we both believe sin is inevitable with fallen man. Therefore, your "logical conclusion" argument applies to both of us (in actuality, it applies to neither of us). God rigged the game, after all, so He is responsible. He put the tree in the garden, He lets Satan run wild. And all of that guarantees that sin and rebellion will flourish. We agree on all those things, so we are in the same boat with your logical conclusions.

However, you keep defining sin in terms of outward actions. And I stated above that T.D. does not teach that men will sin 100% of the time or be is bad as they could be. But let's look at sins of the heart. In fact, let's look at what Jesus said was the foremost commandment - love Lord God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. I assume you would agree to break this commandment is a sin. Does the natural man have the "ability to do otherwise" and obey this commandment at all times?

Well, I disagree with you both. I believe man was created "flesh" and still is. The flesh naturally has desires. These desires are not necessarily evil, in fact they are necessary and helpful. Having an appetite is a good thing, we all need to eat for nourishment and good health. But if we do not control or keep in check our appetite, then we can become overweight and have health problems. It is the same with the natural affection men have for women. It is not wrong for a man to enjoy the physical beauty of his wife, but if a man looks on other women this way it is a sin.

God gave man freedom, but true freedom requires responsibility. If a man were to give himself over wholly to freedom, he is then enslaved by his passions. Freedom requires choice, so even with our natural desires a man must be able to say "no" to them, else he has no freedom.

If you read the account of Eve, it was not only the lie of Satan that tempted her, it was also her natural God-given desires.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Adam and Eve were created "very good". They were sinless, pure, and upright. But they were "flesh" and so had natural desires. God gave them responsibility in that he gave them one command that they could not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Now they had true freedom, they had the choice of obeying or disobeying God. Without this command there could have been no responsibility, no restraint to their natural desires and so they would have been slaves to their desires.

There is only one change in man's nature shown after Adam and Eve sinned, and this is that they now knew both good and evil. But this is not evil, for God himself possesses this ability.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

God did not create man evil, nor does he ever cause or tempt any man to do evil. But necessarily he must give man freedom to choose between right and wrong, else man could not love God. Love requires choice, it cannot be forced or imposed.

God did know in his foreknowledge that man would sin, but foreknowledge is not the same as determination as some falsely teach. We put up speed limit signs along the highway because we know beforehand that men will drive as fast as they possibly can, but knowing this does not cause them to drive over the limit.

 

[Skandelon]

So we both believe sin is inevitable with fallen man. Therefore, your "logical conclusion" argument applies to both of us (in actuality, it applies to neither of us). God rigged the game, after all, so He is responsible. He put the tree in the garden, He lets Satan run wild. And all of that guarantees that sin and rebellion will flourish. We agree on all those things, so we are in the same boat with your logical conclusions.

However, you keep defining sin in terms of outward actions. And I stated above that T.D. does not teach that men will sin 100% of the time or be is bad as they could be. But let's look at sins of the heart. In fact, let's look at what Jesus said was the foremost commandment - love Lord God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. I assume you would agree to break this commandment is a sin. Does the natural man have the "ability to do otherwise" and obey this commandment at all times?

What you seem to be overlooking is that my objection to Calvinism has nothing to do with Adam's representation of ALL mankind when he sins, my objection has more to do with the fact that Christ's (the second Adam) representation when he dies is only for a chosen few. Why do I object? Because I think we all deserve salvation? NO!

Here is why I object:

1. Because the bible says the same all who are represented by Adam are the same all who are represented by Christ on the cross.

2. Because the bible says the appeal to be reconciled (the gospel) is sent to every creature.

3. Because God expresses his longing to gather, his patiences and long-suffering and his genuine desire for all people to be reconciled.

4. Because lost mankind at judgement are not going to be condemned because of breaking the laws of the old covenant, but because of UNBELIEF in Christ's Words (the gospel of reconciliation).

When your system (Calvinism) removes man's ability to willingly respond in faith to this Divine appeal it brings the issue of culpability into question. I'm fine with the idea of God allowing Adam to represent all mankind, because that is what scripture teaches. But, if you accept that, then why not accept that Christ represents those exact same people on the cross?

When Paul says, "God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he might show mercy to all," why would you presume that the same "all" who are condemned by the FALL (bound over to disobedience) isn't the same "all" who are "being shown mercy?" That is my objection. Understand?

 

[Andy T.]

Yes, we have differences with regards to T, U and I, but not so much with other basic issues, as established in this thread. And we disagree on your logical conclusion assertion. I think we have taken this discussion as far as it will go.