Which Mystery Would You Pick?

[Nolan Stengel]

Four-point Calvinist Warren Wiersbe affirms both divine election and human free will. Wiersbe also recognized the difficulty in reconciling the two concepts, stating that "The mystery of divine sovereignty and human responsibility will never be solved in this life". Therefore, the fall of Adam was due to human free will.

Five-point Calvinist James White affirms divine election and rejects human free will. White also believes that God ultimately ordains all things, including the fall of Adam. Because he believes that scripture does not directly expound upon the nature of Adam’s fall, it should therefore remain a mystery.

Both men claim to have a mystery that they are stuck with and goes back to how we understand the fall of Adam. Whether or not you agree or disagree with their theologies, which of these two “mysteries” are you more likely to side with and why?

 

[Scarlett O.]

Although this is the C/A thread, I am neither. There isn't a label for me and mine.

However, to answer the question, I completely reject White's assertion. We know exactly what happened to Adam. It's just not rocket science.

The choices are:
[1] God forced Adam to sin.
[2] The devil made Adam sin.
[3] Adam chose to take the fruit from Eve all on his own.

The answers are:
[1] God is not the author of sin in the lives of people. James 1:13:15 - "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone....."
[2] The devil cannot "make you sin". James 4:7 - "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.
[3] Adam brought sin upon Adam. Adam chose to take the fruit from Eve all on his own. James 1:14-15 - ".....but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."

As for Warren Wiersbe, may he rest in peace, while I disagree with his uncertainty, I enjoy his sermons. [See my signature]

 

[DaveXR650]

"The mystery of divine sovereignty and human responsibility will never be solved in this life". Therefore, the fall of Adam was due to human free will.

What makes it a mystery is that both are true at the same time. To diminish one or the other is to lead to error.

And most Calvinists say the same thing word for word about divine sovereignty and human responsibility. White goes further than I do on the deterministic side but I like him and still listen to him when I get the chance. I really like Wiersbe too, but we've lost him except in books and recordings.

 

[Nolan Stengel]

However, to answer the question, I completely reject White's assertion. We know exactly what happened to Adam. It's just not rocket science.

The answers are:
[1] God is not the author of sin in the lives of people. James 1:13:15 - "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone....."

James White’s example of ‘tempting with evil’ is an illustration of God holding a big God-sized gun to Adam’s back and telling him to do bad stuff or else. He seems to be much more comfortable with the assertion that God created the world in such a way that the unfolding of events in time would inevitably lead to Adam being tempted by Satan and falling.

In either case, I don’t see how you let God off the hook as being the originator of sin if He knowingly created the circumstances where Adam could do nothing other than to give into temptation and fall.

Like Wiersbe, I believe in divine election and predestination, but I also have to believe in human free will because that’s the only way to get around the problem of theodicy. I am more comfortable with simply accepting both as the mysterious workings of God behind the scenes instead of making a false assumption about God’s character.

 

[Van]

Four-point Calvinist Warren Wiersbe affirms both divine election and human free will. Wiersbe also recognized the difficulty in reconciling the two concepts, stating that "The mystery of divine sovereignty and human responsibility will never be solved in this life". Therefore, the fall of Adam was due to human free will.

Five-point Calvinist James White affirms divine election and rejects human free will. White also believes that God ultimately ordains all things, including the fall of Adam. Because he believes that scripture does not directly expound upon the nature of Adam’s fall, it should therefore remain a mystery.

Both men claim to have a mystery that they are stuck with and goes back to how we understand the fall of Adam. Whether or not you agree or disagree with their theologies, which of these two “mysteries” are you more likely to side with and why?

Both views are obviously wrong. God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass is the obvious doctrine that resolves the difficulty false doctrine creates. If God caused Adam to sin, it is not a mystery, God is the author of sin. If God causes some things but not our choices to sin, then there is no mystery concerning divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

 

[Nolan Stengel]

And most Calvinists say the same thing word for word about divine sovereignty and human responsibility. White goes further than I do on the deterministic side but I like him and still listen to him when I get the chance. I really like Wiersbe too, but we've lost him except in books and recordings.

Back to a point that @Scarlett O. made, labels don’t really have any meaning. Most “Calvinists” throughout history have had varying opinions on this topic. I don’t think Wiersbe has ever identified himself as a “Calvinist” and I don’t think any mainstream Calvinists would refer to him as one either, basically because he rejects the L in TULIP.

Chuck Smith, another man I have greatly benefited from, mostly taught exactly the same as Wiersbe did, except he rejects the both L and P in TULIP.

My point is, in order to be called a “True Calvinist”, you have to hold to all 5 points and completely reject the concept of free will. Even John McArthur is a 5 pointer but they deny him the title of “reformed” because he is a dispensationalist.

 

[Scarlett O.]

James White’s example of ‘tempting with evil’ is an illustration of God holding a big God-sized gun to Adam’s back and telling him to do bad stuff or else. He seems to be much more comfortable with the assertion that God created the world in such a way that the unfolding of events in time would inevitably lead to Adam being tempted by Satan and falling.

In either case, I don’t see how you let God off the hook as being the originator of sin if He knowingly created the circumstances where Adam could do nothing other than to give into temptation and fall.

Like Wiersbe, I believe in divine election and predestination, but I also have to believe in human free will because that’s the only way to get around the problem of theodicy. I am more comfortable with simply accepting both as the mysterious workings of God behind the scenes instead of making a false assumption about God’s character.

I didn't make a false assumption of God's character. I just quoted scripture.

I don't believe that Adam "could do nothing other than" sin.

 

[Nolan Stengel]

I didn't make a false assumption of God's character.

I know you didn’t, I’m saying that’s why I don’t. It wasn’t an accusation against you.

 

[KenH]

The Last Adam must die; therefore, the First Adam must fall.

 

[KenH]

"Supralapsarianism is the doctrine that the events of history were brought about by God for no other reason other than these events are a fulfillment of His decree to glorify Himself and that these events are brought about as a means to an end. This is also known as Absolute Predestination. In other words, God decreed all the events of the world including the fall of men, redemption, damnation, every drop of rain, every word uttered by men, and every grunt made by beast all before the foundation of the world in order to bring about His desired result. I believe that God predestined His elect to fall in Adam so that they would be saved in Christ."

- rest of article by Brandan Kraft at Confession of a Hyper-Calvinist - Brandan Kraft

 

[KenH]

God is absolutely totally sovereign.

2 Samuel 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

David did not come up with the idea to number Israel and Judah - God did so, for His purposes. Yet, David still recognized that he had sinned in so doing, even though God is the One who moved him to do so. God is the One who moved David to commit the action, David was responsible as he was the one who did the action, even though it was God who moved him to do it.

2 Samuel 24:10 And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

 

[DaveXR650]

Chuck Smith, another man I have greatly benefited from, mostly taught exactly the same as Wiersbe did, except he rejects the both L and P in TULIP.

I read Calvinist Puritans for 2 years before I found out they were mostly Calvinists. It was because I read their works and sermons, not the debates over Calvinism. Their main themes are that God is to be taken very seriously in all his commands and duties laid out in scripture, and our relationship with God must be personal, interactive, and in real time. I don't know Chuck Smith, but Wiersbe would have fit in just fine.

My point is, in order to be called a “True Calvinist”, you have to hold to all 5 points and completely reject the concept of free will. Even John McArthur is a 5 pointer but they deny him the title of “reformed” because he is a dispensationalist.

My point is, who is this arbitrator of who is a true Calvinist? Think back on "Pilgrim's Progress". Does it look like Bunyan really believed that there was no free will? Or how about Edwards preaching that "Christ has died, all is ready, the only thing still needed is your consent to be saved"? Or how about the fact that almost every Puritan Calvinist including Owen, Edwards, and Bunyan preached on Revelation 3:20 as Jesus standing at the door of your heart and asking for you to open the door that you might be saved.

You can't just confine all discussion to how people argue the 5 points of Calvinism. Calvinism is what Calvinists do and the fact is, many were and are preaching and spreading the gospel, and doing so as if the people they talk to have a clear choice to make. No one on the internet nowadays has the right to kick out McArthur, or Spurgeon or Edwards from Calvinism. However; you might be right in that the label has become useless.

 

[Nolan Stengel]

Calvinism is what Calvinists do and the fact is, many were and are preaching and spreading the gospel, and doing so as if the people they talk to have a clear choice to make.

This is true, whether you believe in limited atonement or not, the Gospel message that we are to share with others remains exactly the same. It makes me wonder if God would approve of us debating over little things like this when we could be using this same energy to witness to the lost.

 

[Blank]

Four-point Calvinist Warren Wiersbe affirms both divine election and human free will. Wiersbe also recognized the difficulty in reconciling the two concepts, stating that "The mystery of divine sovereignty and human responsibility will never be solved in this life". Therefore, the fall of Adam was due to human free will.

Five-point Calvinist James White affirms divine election and rejects human free will. White also believes that God ultimately ordains all things, including the fall of Adam. Because he believes that scripture does not directly expound upon the nature of Adam’s fall, it should therefore remain a mystery.

Both men claim to have a mystery that they are stuck with and goes back to how we understand the fall of Adam. Whether or not you agree or disagree with their theologies, which of these two “mysteries” are you more likely to side with and why?

I believe Adam had free will, but not the succeeding generations, on the other hand, I would hold to more of an infralapsarian view compared to White.
I find the mystery in that God is not willing any should perish / He predestined only some.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This is true, whether you believe in limited atonement or not, the Gospel message that we are to share with others remains exactly the same. It makes me wonder if God would approve of us debating over little things like this when we could be using this same energy to witness to the lost.

But why should we do that? Seems like an incredible waste of time if Gods in control. Are you saying He isn’t?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But why should we do that? Seems like an incredible waste of time if Gods in control. Are you saying He isn’t?

1 Cor. 1:21b. '... It pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached [or 'proclaimed'] to save those who believe.'
Do you want to please God?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My point is, who is this arbitrator of who is a true Calvinist? Think back on "Pilgrim's Progress". Does it look like Bunyan really believed that there was no free will? Or how about Edwards preaching that "Christ has died, all is ready, the only thing still needed is your consent to be saved"? Or how about the fact that almost every Puritan Calvinist including Owen, Edwards, and Bunyan preached on Revelation 3:20 as Jesus standing at the door of your heart and asking for you to open the door that you might be saved.

The fact is that no one before the 18th Century was against preaching the Gospel to the lost. The first guy to teach against it was a Congregationalist called Joseph Hussey around 1700 in a book called God's Operations of Grace but No Offers of Grace. His teaching was picked up by a Baptist named John Skepp who presided over John Gill's ordination in 1720.
I am reluctant to criticize John Gill because he did wonderful work in defending the cause of Christ against the Unitarianism which was spreading among the churches at this time. However, the fact is that the Baptist churches became moribund for 50 or 60 years because of the reluctance of many ministers to imitate the Lord Jesus by calling on sinners to "Repent and believe the Gospel.'

I know some people here hate the very name of Andrew Fuller, but it was he and his friends like Robert Hall, John Sutcliffe, John Ryland Jr. and, of course, William Carey, who rescued the Baptists from the slough into which they had fallen.

 

[KenH]

via Instagram

 

[KenH]

The fact is that no one before the 18th Century was against preaching the Gospel to the lost.

Yes, the gospel of Christ is to be preached and taught widely; however, the gospel is not an offer, it is a declaration of the finished work of Christ on behalf of God's elect, chosen by God before the world began. It is a declaration to be believed, not an offer to be accepted.

 

[DaveXR650]

This is true, whether you believe in limited atonement or not, the Gospel message that we are to share with others remains exactly the same. It makes me wonder if God would approve of us debating over little things like this when we could be using this same energy to witness to the lost.

Post 17 probably answers your question. Various interpretations of theological points really don't matter that much - unless and until they affect the actual behavior of the believers. Your precise understanding of how man's responsibility meshes with God's sovereignty or whether the Atonement was sufficient for everyone or for the elect only doesn't matter until it affects how you understand the direct imperative teachings of the scriptures.