Pinnock, Openness Theology, and Amrinianism

Webdog,

Most Calvinists (except, maybe the Hypers) believe man has a free will. Where the disagreement comes in is how free? Free to do anything? Etc.

So your claim that Calvinists believe man has no free will is false. Therefore, your conclusion is false. Calvinism does not teach that God makes people sin, as you claim.

 

...yes, free to accept or reject Christ? If you say no, your entire abiblity to have free will is gone, and my statement stands.

 

Free to accept? Sure. Able to accept? That is where I'm sure we disagree.

Webdog, I'm not trying to win you over to Calvinism - I know we have disagreements. But your accusation against Calvinists believing God makes people sin is false. I implore you to stop making false accusations against your brothers/sisters in Christ and to be more careful in how you voice your disagreements over these issues.

 

Andy, are you able to accept a gift? Is there anyone alive NOT able to accept a gift?

Do you believe every human has been predestined to be either elect or not?

My accusation about God being the author of sin is quite grounded according to one's explanation and definition of predestination. If every action has been planned since the beginning, how is God NOT the author of sin?

 

Webdog, it would depend on how you define "planned since the beginning". Do you mean programmed like robots? Then absolutely not. But even you (unless you are an Open Theist) believe it was "planned from the beginning" when God decided to create the world. And even today when God "permits" someone to sin, in His permission He is planning it. But again, definition of terms is crucial.

Here is an observation, since we touched on man's ability to choose salvation. I assume that you agree with Romans 3:23 that everyone has sinned. It is impossible for anyone to live perfectly because of our sin nature. So even though we are free in our choices, there are some things we are not able to do, like live perfectly, as an example we would both agree on, right? But just because we are not able to live perfectly, does not mean our choices are not free and we are not responsible for our choices. In the same vein, a person is not able to choose Christ unless he is enabled to do so by God's regenerating power. But just because we are not able to choose Christ in our own strength, does not mean we are not free in our other choices. We are limited in our freedom; there are certain things we are not able to do, like live perfectly or choose Christ on our own.

 

I mean, before you were born were your actions planned by God including salvation? Were only some actions planned? It can't be both ways. We can't be free to sin, and not free to "choose life" and the other choices throughout the Bible.

Either God is sovereign and plans our entire lives, eliminating free will, or God is sovereign and allows man free will.

 

So does that mean that we can live perfectly? I mean, with our free will as you define it, we should be able to live sinless lives, right? If you don't believe that then you don't really believe in free will as you have framed it. And assuming you don't believe we can live perfectly, tell me why you believe that?

 

You didn't answer the question, before you were born were your actions planned by God including salvation? Were only some actions planned?.

The reason we don't live perfect lives is summed up in two words: SIN NATURE. This stays with us until we die. God's sovereignty still overrules the sin nature, though as evidenced by God's Word commanding us to live perfect lives. Man FREELY decides to sin, and God allows it. We will be punished, however, as one would in any father / child relationship.

 

We both agree here. And the reason I believe one cannot choose Christ on his own strength is summed up the same way: Sin Nature. I just happen to believe the effects of the Fall to be more severe than you do. We are still free, but there are some things we are not able to do, just as you believe we are free and are not able to do some things (like live perfectly).

So the point is, we both agree that man is free, is responsible for his actions, and that God does not tempt or make man sin. Our disagreenments come in the extent of man's fall, the order of salvation, etc. Therefore, I urge you to refrain from making false accusations that Calvinists believe God makes men sin. That's all. If you want to debate the other areas we disagree on, I suggest we start a new thread.

 

You conveniently still evade my question. My accusation stands as long as your question goes unanswered. You claim we are free, but not to do some things. It is the calvinist that says either God is sovereign, or man has free will. If God is sovereign to the point man has no free will, He makes the decisions as man is unable. If man has free will, man has been given the ability to make decisions. It is unbiblical to say man has free will to sin, but God chooses man's salvation. It says nowhere in the Bible God chooses some things, and let's man choose some things. This would kill the reformers sovereignty stance.

 

Do you really mean to say that God never thwarts man's free will? That is the logical conclusion of your stance. Why should we ever pray that God would intervene in any situation, if he never overrides man's decisions? Why would we ever pray for someone's salvation if it is completely up to them? There is no use in praying for that person, if God does not intervene in some manner.

Again, I will state it clearly: I believe man is free, is responsible for his actions, and that God never tempts nor makes man sin. We agree in principle on these things.

Since you keep bringing up the issue of election - I'll give a quick thought on what I believe the Bible to teach. I believe man is dead in sins and is unable to save himself through any goodness of his own, unless God intervenes and changes his nature through regeneration (and at that point, man freely chooses Christ as Savior). I believe God knowing this state of man, before the foundation of the world, through his mercy and own good pleasure, elected some to receive the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ his Son. Had not God elected some, everyone would perish and spend eternity in hell separated from Him. Those who do not receive Christ as Savior get their just reward, while those who receive the gift of salvation only receive grace and mercy, and it is not of their own, lest any man should boast.

Now I know you and I disagree on election, and I'm not trying to convince you of my side, per se. My main goal in this exchange is to convince you that your false accusations against Calvinism (as I have articulated it) are exactly that - false. I know I have done my part; now the responsibility is yours to repent and stop slandering your brothers in Christ.

Peace,

Andy

 

And for the THIRD time you refuse to answer my question! Why not just say "no comment", or "I don't know"?

I also was refering to God's will in an individual. God does not choose salvation only in man's life...and then let them be free to make their own choices. You hit the nail on the head about praying and God using SITUATIONS for His will and in your life. This does not mean God chooses your actions.

 

I'm sorry, I thought I answered it in my little paragraph on election. Was it not helpful in understanding my beliefs? What would you like me to elaborate on?

 

So many times confusion is due to problems in the use of language. Webdog asks, "Do Calvinists believe that all of man's choices were planned?" The problem is the word "planned." IMO, webdog argues in a circle. He insists on defining Calvinism as hyper-Calvinism, and then rejects Calvinism.
How do you answer webdog's question? I suspect that he and I agree about God's foreknowledge of man's choices. I suspect that he believes that God knew Jones would reject Christ, and yet, chose to create Jones anyways. That is no different from moderate Calvinism. If webdog does believe in God's exhaustive foreknowledge, as all conservative Arminians do, then it can be said that God "planned" that Jones would reject Christ.
But I do not want to say that God planned that Jones be lost. I would say that God allowed Jones to be lost, yet He desires that it would have been otherwise.
God looked at the world He created. He declared it good. That doesn't mean He was ignorant of the future abuse of the good things He created. But these are "secondary effects." He created free moral agents. He did not create sin. He created a world in which Jones would be born, knowing that Jones would be born in sin. Jones would use his free will to reject Christ and go to hell. God did a good thing in creating the human being Jones. At this point, there is no difference between moderate Arminianism and moderate Calvinism.
I'm not saying that Arminians and Calvinists agree on all points. Arminians can nail Calvinists on the problem of God not electing the non-elect. If God could elect me to salvation, why couldn't He elect Jones? But webdog's critique of Calvinism is a straw man.
I'm not saying webdog is conscious of this. It's hard to understand another person's paradigm. I myself used to be anti-calvinistic, and so I can remember how I previously misunderstood Calvinism.

 

Andy points out that he wishes that Arminians would see the problems of their position and adopt Calvinism.
Actually, Clark Pinnock converted me to Calvinism. It was a little over ten years ago when I first read his comments in Predestination and Free Will. I had to really answer some of the questions he raised. Before then, I very conveniently read over the parts in the Bible about election and predestination. So, for me, Andy is right.
At the same time, however, I don't want to back people into a corner.

 

Yes, I know Webdog and I disagree on election and the extent of the Fall, etc. So I have no problem with him debating me on the biblical merits of the Calvinist view of election. But what I was trying to show him was that when it comes to the problem of evil and God's sovereignty, both of us are in the same boat. I think I was successful in doing that, so I hope the debate can progress beyond "Calvinists think God is the author of sin..."

 

As a Calvinists let me share my views.

I can relate to Andy. Calvinists often are told what they MUST believe if they in fact believe in a given point. This hurts the debate in that most of the time we then must go back over what i really believe and not what a Calvinism hater says i believe.

If others would look beyond this debate we can see this applied in other areas. I may say i like fishing and andy may say he likes fish. But my reason for liking fishing may not be the same as Andys. Like wise..if i see Gods elect in one way, please do not say i MUST see it for the same reasons YOU do not believing in election.

i think what andy is saying...ok you disagree with me..fine. that is part of the debate. But do not tell me WHY i believe this way.

As a calvinist..i will say...
1) God makes no man sin
2)God did not make sin

the sin principle/evil was made when satan who was given free choice, choose his will over Gods will. He did not choose evil...for evil was not there to choose. A choice was given, he just did not choose God..and that made a evil path or sin principle.

With this choosing we now have 2 ways..
Gods way...or satan.
Gods will...or “I will”...(i will is Satan's way)

man then was given a choice...
God made the choice easy.

God said...do anything you want..just do not eat the apple.
Now Adam..if you pick the apple...you want your way.
If however you listen to me and do not pick the apple...you want Gods way.

Adam wanted his own will...just like satan...( I will, i will, i will)...and picked the apple

THIS IS SIN.

So, please do not say calvin teaches God made sin. if you want to think that is up to you. But i do not think so..and it looks as if Andy does not.


In Christ...James

 

James,



Peace,

Andy

 

James puts it well when he says that God did not create sin. Augustine pointed this out years ago. He was previously a Manichean, who believed that evil and good were eternal principles. Orthodox Christianity teaches that God is the only eternal being. So whence evil? After Augustine got saved, he asserted that evil is not a thing in itself. Augustine called it a deprivation of the good. I think the book of Proverbs teaches that evil is a departure from the good, a perversion of the good things that God created. This is just as James put it.