Core Essentials of Calvinism/Arminianism

[Paul33]

The reason I asked my question about Calvinists and Arminians identifying the elect in the same way, (the persons is believing), is to ask another question along the line of Brother James.

Can Arminians and Calvinists (evangelical, inerrantists, etc.)serve and work in the same church and/or denominational setting?

 

[koreahog2005]

Yep. They're doing it in the SBC. Our most recent confession of faith, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, leaves room for five-pointers and non-five-pointers.

 

[koreahog2005]

I'll elaborate a bit on what I just said above. There is room under our current confession of faith (the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message) for both five-point Calvinists and non-five-pointers. There is no room, however, for the belief that one can lose his salvation. Here's an analysis of the five points according to our most recent confession:

First, both groups can agree with the most recent confession’s description of depravity: “Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin.”

Second, both groups can agree with the most recent confession’s description of election: “Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end.” (Five-point Calvinists see free agency as different from free will.)

Third, both groups can agree with the most recent confession’s description of the atonement of Christ: “He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin.” The description of the atonement in the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message would be unacceptable to some five-point Calvinists: “The blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel. It is the duty of all to accept them by penitent and obedient faith. Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Jesus Christ as teacher, Saviour, and Lord.”

Fourth, both groups can agree with the most recent confession’s description of saving grace: “Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” In this case many non-five-pointers would say the sinner’s response is to “conviction of sin,” and the five-point Calvinist would say the sinner’s response is to the “change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit.” The 1925 Baptist Faith and Message has a description of regeneration that is unacceptable to five-point Calvinists because it says that faith is a requirement for regeneration: “Regeneration or the new birth is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit, whereby we become partakers of the divine nature and a holy disposition is given, leading to the love and practice of righteousness. It is a work of God's free grace conditioned upon faith in Christ and made manifest by the fruit which we bring forth to the glory of God.” Notice in the 1925 version that regeneration is “wrought by the Holy Spirit” but is “conditioned upon faith in Christ.” Thus, in logical order, faith precedes regeneration in the 1925 version, an order that conflicts with the order espoused by five-point Calvinists.

Finally, both groups can agree with the most recent confession’s description of perseverance: “All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end.”

Five-point Calvinism is making a comeback these days in the SBC, but I think most SBC folks are still non-five-pointers.

 

[Southern]

Korea,
The verse says that they are given before they come. So election in John 6:37 is "unto" faith and not because of forseen faith. Do you agree with this?

Thanks for your time and interest

 

[koreahog2005]

Southern, first of all, congratulations on Ole Miss winning this past Saturday. You said:

The verse says that they are given before they come. So election in John 6:37 is "unto" faith and not because of forseen faith. Do you agree with this?

Let’s look at John 6:37 again:

“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.”

The elect sheep have been given to Jesus by the Father (John 10:29; 17:9), and the elect sheep will certainly come to Jesus. The elect sheep have always been given to Jesus, but they must come to Him by surrendering their lives to Him in repentance and faith. I agree that election is not based on foreseen faith. God’s foreknowledge did not precede His election. I also believe that God’s election did not precede His foreknowledge. God’s election and foreknowledge are both from eternity. One did not precede the other in either logical or temporal order.

Just as God has always been good, He has always had foreknowledge and a perfect sovereign plan in accordance with His foreknowledge. His knowledge has always been infinite. That is, God has always known exactly what an infinite number of imaginary people would choose to do under an infinite number of imagined circumstances in an infinite number of different, imagined worlds. He has also always known that out of that infinite number of imagined persons and worlds, He would create a finite number of people in one, finite, actual world. Because He has always known about every possible freewill decision that could and would be made by an infinite number of imagined people under an infinite number of imagined circumstances, it is evident that He could also have always known every detail about our actual world in which every freewill decision perfectly fits into His sovereign plan. That is the compatibilism we discussed earlier. Let’s compare the logical orders of three different theological systems.

Five-Point Calvinistic:

1) Election 2) Foreknowledge 3) Elect come to Jesus

Classic Arminian:

1) Foreknowledge 2) Election 3) Elect come to Jesus

Three-Point (TUP, not TULIP) System:

1) Election/Foreknowledge 2) Elect come to Jesus

 

[Paul33]

Korea,

I understand what you are saying in paragraph two.

Therefore, why isn't foreknowledge (all possible worlds, etc.) before election.

God foreknows all possibilities, decides on an actual universe that he would like to create according to the counsel of his will (election), then determines beforehand that what he has chosen will come to pass (predestination).

Therefore your Three-Point TUP:

Foreknowledge, Election, Predestination, Creation, Elect come to Jesus.

Some additional thoughts:

Election is conditioned in the foreknowledge of God before time, and is unconditional in that it isn't based on foreseen faith or merit.

Grace is resistable before time in the counsel of God's will in regards to all possibilities, but is efficacious to the elect.

Christ died for the sins of the world, taking upon himself the penalty for all sin, but only makes intercession for the elect at the Father's right hand. Forgiveness for the elect comes through regeneration, faith, and repentance as Christ intercedes on the elect's behalf.

 

[koreahog2005]

Don, you asked:

Therefore, why isn't foreknowledge (all possible worlds, etc.) before election. God foreknows all possibilities, decides on an actual universe that he would like to create according to the counsel of his will (election), then determines beforehand that what he has chosen will come to pass (predestination).

The three-point Baptist concept I described above is in some ways similar to the middle knowledge concept first made popular by a Spanish man, Luis Molina (1535-1600). I think you were referring to that concept. The middle knowledge term comes from the view that, if one put things in logical order, God first considered an infinite number of imagined worlds and circumstances that determined what an infinite number of imagined persons could do. Second, He knew exactly what free choices would be made by an infinite number of persons in those imagined worlds and circumstances (a second type of knowledge), and thus, He knew exactly what any imagined person would do. Next, He decided to actually create the imagined world with the imagined beings and circumstances that glorified Him the most. After that decision, God had a third type of knowledge—a complete knowledge of the world He actually created. The “level two knowledge” is called “middle knowledge” because it logically occurred between the other two types of knowledge. Middle knowledge makes God’s election dependent on the imagined freewill actions of imagined beings, so it is incompatible with unconditional election. Three-point Baptists like me believe that God’s election is in accordance with His foreknowledge, but we do not believe that God’s election is determined by His foreknowledge. Thus, a better term for three-point Baptists to use to describe God’s knowledge of what persons would do under non-actual circumstances is “counterfactual knowledge.”

Three passages (1 Peter 1:20; Ephesians 1:4-5; Revelations 13:8) tell us that both God’s foreknowledge and election (choice) extend back through eternity. Thus, we can conclude, in terms of temporal order, that His election did not precede His foreknowledge, and His foreknowledge did not precede His election. There was never a time when Christians were not both foreknown and elected. Because of the eternal existence of both aspects, we can also conclude, in terms of logical order, that God’s election was not dependent on His foreknowledge, and His foreknowledge was not dependent on His election. Rather, His election has always been in accordance with His foreknowledge. Many people want to know what caused His election or what caused His foreknowledge. It’s sort of like asking what caused Him to be good. He has simply always been good. It’s His essence. He is an uncaused cause. God also has always had infinite foreknowledge of all things, actual and imagined. He also has always known His sovereign plan—who is elect and who is non-elect.

Arminians often use 1 Peter 1:1-2 to say that God’s choice is dependent upon His foreknowledge (conditional election), but the phrase “according to” (the Greek preposition katá ) can also mean “in accordance with, corresponding to.” An example of this usage is 1 Peter 1:15: “But like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior.” The word “like” is the Greek word katá . The same preposition is found in Romans 15:5: “Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus.” Paul wanted their perspective to be in accordance with Christ’s perspective.

 

[Paul33]

Korea,

Thanks. I've read "Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views" so I'm familiar with Molinism.

How do we know that election and foreknowledge are eternal in regards to this universe?

What you said seems to imply that God is not complete without the imagined universe that he is eventually going to create. In other words, it seems that the universe must be created because God is eternal and he eternally knew us in Christ, etc.

But is that true? Could God have decided not to create anything?

 

[koreahog2005]

Don, you said:

How do we know that election and foreknowledge are eternal in regards to this universe?
What you said seems to imply that God is not complete without the imagined universe that he is eventually going to create. In other words, it seems that the universe must be created because God is eternal and he eternally knew us in Christ, etc. But is that true? Could God have decided not to create anything?

To answer your first question, the three passages I mentioned (1 Peter 1:20; Ephesians 1:4-5; Revelations 13:8) all speak of this universe, not a different one. Both 1 Peter 1:20, which speaks of foreknowledge, and Ephesians 1:4-5, which speaks of election, use the phrase “before the foundation of the world” which indicates eternality. The same phrase also occurs in John 17:24 that says the Father loved the Son “before the foundation of the world.” Obviously, the Father has always loved the Son. He has also always known which elect people He would create and exactly what they would do. There could only be one perfect sacrifice of His son, and thus there could only be one universe in which that sacrifice would occur. Other imagined universes were imperfect in some way. Our universe perfectly displays God’s glory and goodness.

God could imagine an infinite number of imagined persons and universes, but He is under no obligation to create them. He created the universe that was best for His purposes.

Your last question could be interpreted two ways, so I will answer both.
First, could God have decided to create nothing at all? No. God is perfectly good, and to create nothing at all (rather than creating our universe) would be less than a perfectly good decision. In other words, God always makes perfect decisions. If He had decided not to create our universe, it would have been an imperfect decision, which is impossible.
Second, could God have decided not to create some of the persons and universes He could imagine? Yes. Again, God is perfectly good, and to create universes other than ours would be less than a perfectly good decision. If He had decided to create other universes with other imagined people, it would have been an imperfect decision, which is impossible. Our universe is imperfect in the sense that sin exists in it, but compared with other imagined universes, our universe most perfectly represents God’s perfect goodness as He triumphs over the sin in it.

 

[Paul33]

Korea,

I don't think that I can agree with your statement regarding God not creating this universe.

God is complete within himself. He doesn't need to create anything to be good. He is good.

My point is that before the foundaton of the world God did decide certain things in regards to a universe he eventually decided to create. But this election and foreknowledge, though occuring before the foundation of the world, does not necesarily have to be eternal. If it does, it implies that God is not complete unless he creates.

But God is independent of his creation in a way that seems to contradict the idea that election and foreknowledge are eternal.

 

[koreahog2005]

Don, I’ll make a few comments before I head out to teach a class. Time is defined by change. Since God is unchanging, time had no meaning before God created the changing universe. Thus, “before the foundation of the world,” there was no time. There was only eternity. Some people believe our universe is eternally old. If that were true, everything would have already happened. There would be no present or future. God’s sovereign plan to create the universe was always in existence. Even though He is “above and beyond time,” He can intervene in time.

God is perfectly good. I think we both agree with that statement. God is an example of a free agent. God can freely act as long as the action does not contradict His perfect moral nature. He is the only being Who has always been infinitely, independently inclined toward good: “And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone’” (Mark 10:18). A totally good free agent cannot make an evil decision. God is immutable (does not change), and thus He is always good:

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever. (Hebrews 13:8)

Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow. (James 1:17)

“For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.” (Malachi 3:6)

Thus, God is a special type of free agent—He always does what He wants to do, and He is never forced to do what He does not want to do, as compared to human free agents who cannot always do what they want to do, and are sometimes forced to do what they do not want to do. God always does things intentionally. Sometimes humans do things unintentionally. God can do all things that do not contradict His essence. God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipresent (present in all places at all times). He cannot, however, make a sinful decision, and thus He does not have true free will. God can never act from a position of moral neutrality because He is perfectly righteous all the time. We can visualize this characteristic of God by imagining ourselves traveling on a road that ends in a “T.” We must turn to the right or the left. If turning to the right represents making a choice for good, then God would always desire to turn to the right. God’s motives are always good.

Don, you said the following:

God is complete within himself. He doesn't need to create anything to be good. He is good.

I agree with every word of what you said. God did not need us. At the same time, however, because He is perfectly good, we must admit that He has always done perfectly good things. Creating our particular universe was a perfectly good thing. Because God was and is perfectly good, He always performs perfectly good actions. Because the creation of our universe was a perfectly good action, it was necessary for Him to create it. God didn’t need us in the sense that He was complete without us, but it was necessary for Him to create us to perfectly fulfill His perfect plan. That’s a paradox, an apparent contradiction that is somehow true.

Don, you also said:

But God is independent of his creation in a way that seems to contradict the idea that election and foreknowledge are eternal.

I agree that God is independent of His creation. God’s election and foreknowledge of that creation, however, are parts of His essence. We cannot separate God’s infinite foreknowledge from God Himself. God is infinite; therefore His foreknowledge is infinite. His infinite foreknowledge cannot exist apart from Him.

 

[Southern]

Korea,
Thanks for the reply.

Your view seems to be identical to Norman Geisler in his “Chosen But Free”. I would encourage you to get James White’s “The Potters Freedom” to see a refutation of this type of reasoning and the following webpage which has relevant sections to this issue:

http://aomin.org/CBFRep2.html

About John 6:37, there is a sequence, and the giving precedes the coming. No mention of God looking to see what would happen.

The following is most helpful on your logical orders:


John Feinberg was quite right to respond:
But, granting God such knowledge does not mean that he does not know the logical sequence and relations among the items that he knows. Moreover, granting that God foreordains all things simultaneously does not mean that there is no logical order in what he foreordains. For example, God always knew that Christ would be born and would also die. But he also understood that logically (as well as chronologically) one of those events had to precede the other. That does not mean that God knew one of those events before he knew the other. It only means that in knowing both simultaneously, he knows the logical and chronological relation between the two events.

Relating to John 6:37 (Which is the topic), God knew the ‘logical’ order, but He also knew the chronological relation between the ‘giving’ and the ‘coming’ in John 6:37.

The verse clearly states that the Father has an elect people that not only ‘must’ but ‘will’ come to the Son. This giving "precedes" the coming the the Son in faith.

May God bless you and me

 

[koreahog2005]

Southern, thanks for the references. I am familiar with James White. I check out his blog regularly on his web site. When we talk about logical order, we are usually talking about cause and effect sequences. For instance, in regard to salvation, five-point Calvinists believe that regeneration precedes faith/repentance in logical order, although the events might happen at the same time in temporal (chronological) order. They believe that regeneration is a requirement (cause) for faith/repentance, and they say that faith/repentance cannot occur without regeneration. As Don earlier said, God has always been complete. There was no cause for His foreknowledge or election, just as there was no cause for His perfect goodness. His election, foreknowledge, goodness, sovereign plan are all eternal. There was no cause for any of them. All are perfectly good and are connected to His perfectly good essence. He is immutable (doesn't change). If He had to formulate a plan or make a decision before creation, then He would be changing (mutating). All His decisions have always been made in advance. He can intervene in our time line, but He is not reacting in a surprised fashion because He has always known that He would intervene.

 

[Southern]

Korea,
As long as we agree that the giving precedes the coming and of course God knew the relation between these, I have no "squabble".

In Christ