Do you agree with this definition of......

Jeremiah 32:27 Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

 

The old Calvinist confessions affirmed both the sovereignty of God and the willful choices of man. Would you consider the quotation below an example of "Sovereign Compatibilism"?

 

It is incomprehensible because it is a logical contradiction.

God cannot do all things. He cannot lie. Why? Because God cannot do logical contradictions. God is truth, therefore anything He says is truth. It would be a logical contradiction for truth to be a lie.

Put more simply, He cannot make a boulder so large that He, Himself cannot lift it. It isn't that He can't make a large boulder, it's that He can't do something that makes no sense because it is a logical contradiction.

 

Logic is logic. God's WAYS are higher than man's, but logic is still logic. "A" will never be "non-A" for God or man. In Isaiah 1, God invites man to reason with Him so that man will understand the horror of sin and repent and be cleansed. This indicates clearly that God is dealing with man in terms that man can understand and respond to -- and God is NOT talking to saved people in this passage! So the passage is necessarily God talking to unsaved people and inviting them to reason with him. That involves logic and conclusions based on that logic.

Often those who decry free will seem to think that to want something means that one can accomplish, or help accomplish it. That is in no way implied in 'free will.' Free will simply means the freedom to want, whether it is attainable or not. Sometimes I want to stay in bed all day. I can't. At the very least I have to get up and go to the bathroom! All my life that I can remember, I have wanted to fly -- not in an airplane; me, myself, fly. I have bad legs. I have so often stood on a hillside or high place and looked out over a vista and daydreamed of swooping across it on my own. Does this mean that it is even remotely possible for me to accomplish? Nope.

Every religion in the world is based on the fact that man knows something is not right with him and he wants to change/improve. This by itself shows Calvinism to be wrong, because men are NOT happy they way they are. Many find excuses for what and who they are and harden their hearts, deliberately, to the reality of wrong and evil. Many others, who acknowledge wrong and evil, try desperately to change things or themselves BY themselves, via religion, education, money, power, etc.

But some want the truth and do not suppress it in favor of themselves (see Romans 1). That does not mean they can find the truth for themselves or save themselves or anything else. It does mean, however, that they will respond positively to the truth when presented with it, and follow it. And those are the ones the Father will lead to the Son, who IS the Truth.

But the fact is that EVERY man initially wants to be something other than what he is, or finds himself to be. This is the freedom to want, or free will, which is God's gift to every single one of us. What we do with it is what makes all the difference.

 

When God speaks

When God speaks--as He has clearly done in Romans 9--then we are simply to follow and believe, even if we cannot understand, and even if it seems to be a contradiction to our puny minds. (Edwin Palmer in The Five Points of Calvinism, speaking on reprobation)

This is when I refer to Psalm 131:1 Lord. my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me!

I do know that God is sovereign in all things from His decree before the foundation of the world! To understand all His ways is not possible. He told Job, (paraphrase) You thought you were such a one as I am!
We'll never get all the tiny details straight. Bottom line remains: What will we do with Jesus?

Speaking of 'free will', of course man does have free will but chooses against God, unless having His guidance!
Nebuchadnezzar when he grazed had free will also, to choose which pasture he grazed in! So many great examples of men doing what would ordinarily be against their will yet fulfilling God's will, even as pharaoh heart was hardened to the point that he cast the Israelites from his country to achieve God's will for their exit!

 

Hello IFB Mole, to answer your OP question, yes, you seem to have properly defined the theological terms as far as I can see, but let's wait for more input from some better trained theologians than myself.

But given that the terms are defined properly, are they understood properly? Compatibility, as you've presented it here, is a compromise position on the predeterminate counsel of God. It leaves as its final conclusion that the work of God in determining the end from the beginning is mystery and can not be known. Now we might be able to go along with that, for the secret things belong to God after all. But we can not call something a mystery that is not a mystery. The answers to these questions are in the scripture - not hidden, but in plain view for all to see. No, we do not know everything there is to know about God, for we are finite beings, but nevertheless there are many things we can know if we will receive them.

Truth is both scriptural and logical. Would you say that scripture is ILLOGICAL? I don't think so. Don't confuse human philosophy with sound logic. One plus one must equal 2 or something is askew. That a truth may be apparently contradictory, such as the union of God and man in Christ, does not make it illogical. It may be supernatural, but not illogical. Just as the order of the universe points to an intelligent God, so does the order of thoughts - logic. Logic is our friend, not our enemy. As a matter of fact, in my own posting, I've begun to appeal first to logic and then to scripture due to the fact that I've found that people who claim to be bible-believers are very unimpressed with the number of scriptures I can display in support of my views. When I first came to this forum Rippon had posted over 100 scripture verses which prove unconditional election. The reply from so-called "Biblicists"? "Proves nothing - anyone can quote scripture. So I don't bother posting scripture as much as I used to.

There are no personal definitions of logic. I am no expert, but I have studied logic briefly and I know that it is a hard science, applying a mathematical analysis to verbal expression. Here's an example: If A is trued, and B is true, then both A and B is true. Too simple? Let's look at the implications:

Let A= God's predeterminate counsel
Let B= Man's responsibility

If A is true, and B is true, then BOTH A and B are true.

Therefore, that God has determined the end from the beginning, and man is responsible for his own actions, are both true.

In which theological system to we see this born out?

Arminianism: A is not true, B is true, so BOTH can not be true. Only B is true.

Arminianism teaches that man, in order to be responsible, must have an absolutely sovereign will, so therefore God's sovereignty is limited and therefore not truly sovereign.

Compatibilism: A is true, B is true, But both are not true.

How is that? Look at the statement: "God’s Sovereignty and man’s free and responsible will are harmonious in God’s eternal decrees."

You've used the word "harmonious" here. Do you mean that these "truths" are both true in a complimentary sense or in a supplementary sense? Are they separate but true, but never meet together into one unified truth? If they do not unify together into a single truth, then you are logically saying that the union of the truths (BOTH A and B) is not true. By "harmony", you imply, maybe unintentionally, that they are separate truths, as the two singers sing different lines, not in unison. In order for man's responsibility and God's sovereignty to be BOTH true, they must sing in unison, not harmony. They are not separate but equal truths; they are subsets of a greater truth.

What you've presented by compatiblism is that two CONTRADICTIONS exist, yet both true, in scripture. This is not possible. The rub comes in the use of the term "free" will. The scripture does not support the notion of a free will in man, except perhaps in the case of Adam. Man's will is in bondage to sin until God changes his will to love Him. Human will can only be said to be free inasmuch as his will follows his desires. The natural man does not desire God.

Ask yourself "how can God work all things after the pleasure of His own will" and yet man be sovereign in his choices? It is a contradiction of both logic and scripture. Only one can be sovereign. That God controls the choices of men, and thereby controls the outcomes of history, through His own power, is the only right conclusion.

Now for the Calvinist system:

A is true, and B is true, therefore, BOTH A and B are true.

Calvinism teaches that man is fully responsible for sin, because sin is what he willfully chooses to do. That God created man knowing that he would sin does not mitigate man's responsibility, for God's commandment was "Thou shalt not", and man did it anyway. Yet this was all in God's plan, knowing that through the fall He would condemn all; and yet save some according to his good pleasure, mercy, and grace; and through the redemption of some, those he had redeemed would despise their own glory, and would live eternally to the praise of God's glory.

 

Sure. You can justify even the most ridiculous interpretations with this reasoning. Since God's ways are so much higher than our ways, then He can create a boulder that's so big He, Himself can't lift it. Just because we don't understand how this can be true doesn't mean it isn't true. See where your reasoning leads you?

Virtually anywhere you want it to go. Which is why it's useless.

 

Excellent post:thumbs:

 

wrong?

I heartily disagree that man seeks anything other than what God is opposed to? Hence all the manmade religions on earth that reject Christ!
God Himself said, there is none that doeth good, no not one. There is none that seeketh after God. There is none that understandeth, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no not one!
We are each spiritually dead from birth until God does an act of regeneration in our heart! Read Romans 5.
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
No matter how good, no matter what the religion the only way to God is through Christ. Man have never sought Christ on his own until Christ first sought him and claimed him!

 

What Spurgeon said is not the same thing you are saying. Spurgeon is talking in generalities, and he also states that God does, in fact, take precedence over man's actions. Put simply, I think Spurgeon's point is that God is sovereign AND man is responsible.

You were talking more specifically about soteriology, and part of your compatibilism includes the requirement that God does not take precedence over man's actions. To quote:

God does, in fact, violate the morally responsible will of men by changing hearts and/or directing their paths, and there is a ton of scriptural evidence for this with respect to soteriology, and without respect to soteriology.

 

Regarding the OP...are you asking a question or just making a statement?

 

Not according to the Bible.

 

Hello again IFB Mole, I don't have time right now to answer all your questions, but for now let me just touch on your quote of Spurgeon and the parallel lines. Of all the things of Spurgeon, this may be the one analogy of his I've never liked, and I'm not alone in this. Caution: we should never develope our theology based on an analogy, but rather we use analogies to convey theological truth. Now, to say that the parallel lines meet in eternity is, of course, mathematically untrue, or else they would not be parallel. This has nothing to do with what Spurgeon was trying to convey, but I will use it make my point, which is, that though it may be in the infinite realm that these truths intersect, they weld into each other nevertheless at some point.

My poor illustration in the AuB logical test was to show that those two truths, though APPARENTLY contradictory, are not in fact contradictory, or else they would not be true, and if they are both true individually they must convey a unified truth together. I believe that compatabilsm denies what I've labeled here as unified truth - it accepts that they may be both true individually, but denies that they are ever true in unison. Now if that's what Spurgeon believed, so be it, but I don't think so. Keep in mind that Spurgeon was set against the backdrop of hyper-calvinism which denied indescriminate preaching and various other tenants of orthodox calvinism. That's why he was labeled a practical arminian by the "stronger" calvinists. So his defenses of human responsibility and means in salvation is not to be taken farther than he intended.

Also, in regards to your reference to Joseph, notice how the bible says, quoting Joseph, I believe under inspiration, "but God meant it for good". So it was something that God MEANT. That's important, because it shows that the whole event was orchestrated by God himself. It wasn't something just sort of happened and then God "turned it around". No, it was His doings all along.

 

IFB - Well, let me just poke out my chest and say thank you for the compliment! But you probably didn't go back far enough to see some of my overheated ranting. As I write this I am very sad to learn on another thread that many people actually believe that the blood of Christ was not sufficient to gaurantee the salvation of those for whom he died.

Now for you question - let's take it back to the creation. God created Adam sinless, but with the capacity to sin. Sproul puts it this way:

Man before the fall: Able not to sin, Able to sin
Man after the fall: Unable to not sin, Able to sin
Man after regeneration: Able not to sin, Able to sin
Man after resurrection: Able to not sin, unable to sin

So God created Adam without sin, but nevertheless able to sin. Adam's ability to sin was not active until he was first commanded to obey, and then tempted to disobey. Satan came in to the garden and did the work of tempting, tipping as it were the scale to sin. Adam's decision to sin was fully his, therefore, he is responsible, and as his posterity, we inherit this condition.

The fact that Adam, and we, were fully responsible for sin in no way infringes on God's sovereignty because everything that happened in the garden, and everything since then, was according to God's intent and plan. Satan was there by design - to say otherwise is to place God under Satan in power. Here we understand that Satan, unchangingly fixed as God's contrary adversary, is in fact God's fool in that he, in supposing that he thwarts God's plans, in fact ACCOMPLISHES that which God intends for him to do all along. The entering into Judas stands as a prime example of this - Satan foolishly thought to destroy the Son, but instead drove ahead God's plan of redemption in the attempt.

So we see that Satan brought the evil presence into the mix. Therefore, God is not the author of sin - that is, while God PERMITTED Satan's work and the fall of man, he neither COMMITTED the temptation of man Himself, nor did he COMMAND man to sin; on the contrary, God commanded obedience, not sin.

So we can see in the garden scenario, and apply the principle throughout the revelation, that God not only knew the end before it began, but determined the end, the beginning, and the events between.

Man has sinned and is fallen, and God has sovereignly chosen to call a great multituide by His mercy out of that condition by His own power.

Therefore, man is fully responsible and God is fully sovereign.

As far as compatiblism is concerned, I struggle to make the point so perhaps a better theologian can take over the point and explain it.