Which Points of Calvinism Do You Believe?

[Faith alone]

Lou,

Thx. Personally, I prefer the HCSB (and the NASB). I do like the NKJV, esp. Earl Radmacher's Nelson Study Bible, which I believe only comes in the NKJV. Exc. notes. I used to prefer the Byzantine Greek text, but have been convinced recently that the Alexandrian text is in the majority of those MSS prior to the 9th century. But that's getting off topic.

Read the article. I prefer to refer to "believing" as also "trusting." To trust in Christ is not in any way a work. To say, "I give up. I cannot save myself. Help!" is certainly not any sort of work, or anything to brag about.

I realize that Zane does refer to believing in Christ as the meaning of saving faith. He doesn't even like to refer to it as "trust." I do have to disagree with him there, though the "easy believism" labels really have to do with James 2 which people interpret so as to bring works in the back door - so to speak. How many times have I heard "the devils believe, and tremble." Good grief.

Did Jesus pay the penalty for the sin of any of the angels?
Did Jesus become an angel so as to die for them?
Is Jesus an angel as well as God?
Are angels promised eternal life by believing in Christ?

And what did those angels believe? "God is one." That is not saving faith, in my book, when it does not include Christ's death in our behalf. IMO saving faith must refer to the cross.

Gotta go. Good talking with you.

FA

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Lou,

Thx. Personally, I prefer the HCSB (and the NASB). I do like the NKJV, esp. Earl Radmacher's Nelson Study Bible, which I believe only comes in the NKJV. Exc. notes. I used to prefer the Byzantine Greek text, but have been convinced recently that the Alexandrian text is in the majority of those MSS prior to the 9th century. But that's getting off topic.

Read the article. I prefer to refer to "believing" as also "trusting." To trust in Christ is not in any way a work. To say, "I give up. I cannot save myself. Help!" is certainly not any sort of work, or anything to brag about.

I realize that Zane does refer to believing in Christ as the meaning of saving faith. He doesn't even like to refer to it as "trust." I do have to disagree with him there, though the "easy believism" labels really have to do with James 2 which people interpret so as to bring works in the back door - so to speak. How many times have I heard "the devils believe, and tremble." Good grief.

Did Jesus pay the penalty for the sin of any of the angels?
Did Jesus become an angel so as to die for them?
Is Jesus an angel as well as God?
Are angels promised eternal life by believing in Christ?

And what did those angels believe? "God is one." That is not saving faith, in my book, when it does not include Christ's death in our behalf. IMO saving faith must refer to the cross.

Gotta go. Good talking with you.

FA

FA:

You ought to posting your notes on Hodges and the "crossless" gospel at my blog. There are several people interacting on this issue right now.

Go to the thread under he article titled, Tragedy of the "Crossless" Gospel, Part 2.

Feel free to paste in some of what you wrote here.

Take care,


Lou

 

[Faith alone]

FA:

You ought to posting your notes on Hodges and the "crossless" gospel at my blog. There are several people interacting on this issue right now.

Go to the thread under he article titled, Tragedy of the "Crossless" Gospel, Part 2.

Feel free to paste in some of what you wrote here.

Take care,


Lou

Lou,

I dunno. Zane is the head of the free grace movement, and I do know him. Though I do not agree in this particular area, I have tremendous respect for him, and he certainly knows Greek far better than yours truly. Also, there has been a divisive debate recently within the movement, and I do not want to do anything that might contribute to division... we're small enough as is.

I prefer to major on themajors.

Thx anyway. I might comment on other issues there.

Take care,

FA

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Lou,

I dunno. Zane is the head of the free grace movement, and I do know him. Though I do not agree in this particular area, I have tremendous respect for him, and he certainly knows Greek far better than yours truly. Also, there has been a divisive debate recently within the movement, and I do not want to do anything that might contribute to division... we're small enough as is.

I prefer to major on themajors.

Thx anyway. I might comment on other issues there.

FA:

Thanks for the reply. I know the FG movement is in some turmoil. Hodges is sound in many ways, but his latest interpretation of the Gospel, however, is out-of-balance, and that is too bad.

Anyway, feel free to visit my site any time. I am doing some new notes on Saddleback's pastor Rick Warren's foray into the United Nations.

Yours in Him,


Lou

 

[Faith alone]

Lou,

As Calvinists and others will agree, these points (TULIP) are tied together. But IMO it all starts with the T - total depravity. If man is incapable of even choosing to seek truth, then where does that logically invariably lead?

It leads to a view regarding the issue of free choice/election that is not tenable, IMO, given the character of God revealed in scripture. I would like to consider what the logical conclusion will be when we assume that man does not have free agency, as a result of his spiritual depravity. This view of man's depravity comes from a view of God's sovereignty which is not biblical, IMO.

1) "The devil made me do it"
Of course we laugh, when we consider this excuse used by some, but we do need to consider this dynamic. Let's think about it... who made the devil and those angels (1/3rd of em) who rebelled against God do so?

If free will requires doing what one desires, and complete sovereignty of God means that all desires are sourced initially from God, then logically it follows that God caused Satan and those rebellious angels to sin by rebelling against Himself! ANy other answer means that those angels were sovereign beings. But of course God cannot sin nor can He even look upon sin and ignore it, so we are faced with a contradiction with such a definition of sovereignty.

With such a definition of sovereignty as is used by hardline Calvinists we must needs conclude that God is not fully sovereign over angels... if such sovereignty requires no free agency.

2) God created Satan and every creature who has ever lived... so He did so by giving them the capacity to commit evil. But this capacity must come from God alone, and hence He must needs be the source of all evil in the universe... all of it.

So again our definition of sovereignty, or rather - that of Calvinism - has an issue, a serious one. God is the source, the author, of all evil. That of mass murders, rapists... how can that not be true if God is fully sovereign in the classical Reformed manner?

3) If I am fully evil, and I can only choose evil, then why did God create me that way? Now I realize that man rebelled against God - the fall of man is the source of such evil - man's depravity. But as many Calvinists say (supralapsarian) - God planned the fall of man - He was sovereign over it, and indeed caused it and willed it. Now some Calvinists do not hold to such a position, but many do. This view (that God is as active in condemning the non-elect as He is in redeeming the elect) is sometimes referred to as "equal ultimacy" or "double election" (R.C. Sproul in Chosen by God, p142, called supralapsarianism such - yes, RC Sproul does hold to the position that God predestined man's fall, he is supralapsarian). IMO it is actually a form of hyper-Calvinism and is a distortion of historic Calvinism. John Calvin was definitely an infralapsarian. (RC Sproul would never refert to himself as a hyper-Calvinist. But IMO the best definition of hyper-Calvinism is one that essentially equates it to supralapsarianism If some of you insist that Sproul is not a hyper-C THAT"S FINE _ I'll accept that. But I have a real issue with supralapsarianism itself.)

But back to the point, if God is fully sovereign, then where is the source of evil as far as mankind is concerned? Must not God have actually planned and predetermined that Adam and Eve would rebel against Himself? At any rate, I find the Reformed view of God's sovereignty lacking when we view it closely. IMO, we do not need to assume such a form of complete sovereignty that spiritually hog-ties every person who has ever lived.

I realize that most Calvinists posting on this thread do not hold to such an extreme view of God's sovereignty, but if they do not, then how can they disallow the free agency of mankind to the degree that is done? Do you see my point? And with such a view of God's sovereignty, we must indeed say that some people simply have no chance at all to be saved. Does that make sense that the God of the Bible is like that?!

My position regarding God's sovereignty is that God is indeed fully sovereign... but that need not require that we strip free agency from mankind. Could not God have chosen to give mankind a free will, to work through man's free will? Why must God regenerate him before he can seek God? Cannot God fully accomplish His will in such a system? ...working through the wills of individuals? And there is much evidence that this is indeed how God has determined to do things.

Calvinists and Arminians of all sorts agree that God holds all people responsible for their moral actions, yet the Calvinist must account for the fact that all people were born with a sin nature, and hence, from a Reformed perspective, have no capability to do anything but evil... at all. I have a problem with a system in which mankind has no involvement in their own salvation, until it is actually accomplished by God - a monergistic system.

4) IMO it is logical that there cannot be responsibility where there is no capability to respond. We cannot rationally hold a person responsible for their thoughts and actions if they had no ability to behave differently. And the Reformed view of total depravity places mankind in just such a niche. It also forces us to say that God is not acting rationally. Since God is completely omniscient, He must be the most rational Creature in the universe!

Hence, rationally, reason demands that all creatures are morally free to choose and have the capability to choose God... to seek His will, as a result of being created in God's image.

Sure, without God working in our lives and drawing us to Himself, we would not, could not, choose Him. But He is at work. And He has chosen to give mankind the ability to seek God. He has chosen to sovereignly do so, because then people can freely choose to love. In fact, without such capability, man cannot love God. And without freely choosing someone, we have not love. The Calvinism system makes us some sort of robotic lovers.

Let me ask: if they did not have Romans 3, could Calvinists have such a position of total depravity that logically leads to the issues listed above? I think there would be absolutely no scriptural basis for even hinting at this. So perhaps many have misunderstood what God is saying in Romans.

Now I absolutely agree that God must needs be involved in this process. But it is not simply monergistic (no involvement from a person when a person is saved - it comes from God alone - from beginning to end) - it must needs be synergistic (involving cooperation between God and man).

Freedom is undeniable. It must be, or else we create a Monster for our God. And it is not biblical, IMO, for this very reason. Now I care not about hearing any arguments or scripture to support man's incapability to do good... to choose ought but evil. First I need some answers to the 4 logical points above that result from such a system.

We cannot OTOneH take a supralapsarian position, involving a monergistic plan for salvation, and then OTOtherH take a position that man is responsible for his sin.

Comments? (I am not trying to stir up a heated argument - I seriously want to understand how Calvinism works logically in this aspect.) Anyway, just wanted to voice my issue with the Reformed system of soteriology. Think I'll just sit back now and "listen" to what some Calvinists have to say on this... perhaps I can learn something.

Thx,

FA

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I have been converted. I am now proud to say I am a Calvinist, a 0 point calvinist.:tonofbricks:

 

[Cody2]

Eternal Security.

 

[Mr.M]

Which points of the Bible do I believe...that Calvin understood as well.

I prefer to state which points of the Bible do I believe....that Calvin understood as well...of your list that would be Eternal Security.

 

[GeneMBridges]

FA

1)

If free will requires doing what one desires, and complete sovereignty of God means that all desires are sourced initially from God, then logically it follows that God caused Satan and those rebellious angels to sin by rebelling against Himself!

This is a nonsequitur.

It also overlooks the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.

With such a definition of sovereignty as is used by hardline Calvinists we must needs conclude that God is not fully sovereign over angels... if such sovereignty requires no free agency.

No, for Calvinists do not deny free agency. Have you ever bothered to consult the Second London Baptist Confession?

But let's take your view of freedom. It's clearly libertarian. Tell us, why does any agent act the way he does within the constraints of libertarian freedom?

2) God created Satan and every creature who has ever lived... so He did so by giving them the capacity to commit evil. But this capacity must come from God alone, and hence He must needs be the source of all evil in the universe... all of it.

So again our definition of sovereignty, or rather - that of Calvinism - has an issue, a serious one. God is the source, the author, of all evil.

Notice here that this is an ethical objection, not an exegetical objection.

God is the author of evil, in the sense that He is first cause of all things. This simply goes with pay grade. His decrees, through either action or inaction render events necessary, but, evil is the result of permission, not His direct causation, or a result of His judicial hardening of sinners, an act of justice Scripture supports repeatedly, as in the above text and in Romans 1.



Nothing happens that compels a man or demon to act in a way it does not wish to act or against its nature. He may withhold constraining grace, as in the fall, in order to render a thing certain, but the agent of the evil, in this case Adam simply acts in accordance with his nature as a second cause, for reasons and motives sufficient for himself and arising from his own nature. Men thus do what God decrees, but for motives all their own. In so doing, they may incur judgment. In this way men act as infallibly as if they had no liberty, yet as freely as if there was no decree rendering their acts certain. See, for example, the predestination of Judas betrayal and Jesus crucifixion. These men did, with evil desires, what God desired and planned to happen since before creation, for Jesus is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world itself.


Further the difference between the Calvinist position and the libertarian position is not over permission, but over the nature of permission. You mention supralapsarianism, but apparently, you haven't delved into the topic enough to correctly articulate it.


The order of decrees for the modern supra is: Election/reprobation, application, atonement, permit fall, create. The first is the main end, the others are means to the end. The order is teleological.

The classic order is election/reprobation, creation, permission of fall, atonement, application of benefits.

The Infra order is historical: creation, fall, election/reprobation, atonement, application of redemption's benefits.




You can find these argued in Broadman & Holman's book on Election in which Bruce Ware and Robert Reymond present these positions.


The Amyraldian order is the same except it inverts 3 and 4.

The Arminian order is: creation, bare permission of fall, atonement, election of all who will believe, sanctification.



Thus the difference is over the nature of the permission. The Calvinist says it is effacious the Arminian says it is "bare."

3) If I am fully evil, and I can only choose evil, then why did God create me that way?

For His own glory.

And by the way, you're confusing total depravity with utter depravity. We affirm the former, not the latter.

ow I realize that man rebelled against God - the fall of man is the source of such evil - man's depravity. But as many Calvinists say (supralapsarian) - God planned the fall of man - He was sovereign over it, and indeed caused it and willed it. Now some Calvinists do not hold to such a position, but many do. This view (that God is as active in condemning the non-elect as He is in redeeming the elect) is sometimes referred to as "equal ultimacy" or "double election" (R.C. Sproul in Chosen by God, p142, called supralapsarianism such - yes, RC Sproul does hold to the position that God predestined man's fall, he is supralapsarian). IMO it is actually a form of hyper-Calvinism and is a distortion of historic Calvinism. John Calvin was definitely an infralapsarian. (RC Sproul would never refert to himself as a hyper-Calvinist. But IMO the best definition of hyper-Calvinism is one that essentially equates it to supralapsarianism If some of you insist that Sproul is not a hyper-C THAT"S FINE _ I'll accept that. But I have a real issue with supralapsarianism itself.)

Sproul is an INFRA, not a SUPRA. Robert Reymond is the spokesman for modern Supras, and his order differs from the classic order.

You mention Calvin. Calvin can actually be construed as teaching either position. In his own day, he was actually accused of writing things that supported supralapsarianism.

Infras agree that God decreed the fall. The decree of the fall is not unique to Supralapsarianism. You may have " a real issue with supralapsarianism" but it seems to me you don't understand these orders.

[ But back to the point, if God is fully sovereign, then where is the source of evil as far as mankind is concerned? Must not God have actually planned and predetermined that Adam and Eve would rebel against Himself? At any rate, I find the Reformed view of God's sovereignty lacking when we view it closely. IMO, we do not need to assume such a form of complete sovereignty that spiritually hog-ties every person who has ever lived.
/QUOTE]

Scripture teaches that God Himself has indeed bound over all to disobedience in order to show mercy to all (both Jew and Gentile).

Tell us, why did Adam and Eve sin, within the constraints of libertarian freedom. In other words, what caused the fall?

nd with such a view of God's sovereignty, we must indeed say that some people simply have no chance at all to be saved. Does that make sense that the God of the Bible is like that?

Yes, it does, for in Scripture salvation is associated with the covenant community. There are some people born outside of the covenant and without hope of salvation, ever.

Now you can concoct a scheme of post-mortem encounter, or you can concoct a scheme by which men are saved by common grace. Either way, either one is a denial of the gospel's exclusivity.

Why must God regenerate him before he can seek God? Cannot God fully accomplish His will in such a system? ...working through the wills of individuals? And there is much evidence that this is indeed how God has determined to do things.

Does God work infallibly and with certainty or not?

Men must be regenerated before they will love the truth, because without it, they will not believe. They love their evil and are unable to any spiritual good accompanying their salvation.

IMO it is logical that there cannot be responsibility where there is no capability to respond. We cannot rationally hold a person responsible for their thoughts and actions if they had no ability to behave differently. And the Reformed view of total depravity places mankind in just such a niche. It also forces us to say that God is not acting rationally. Since God is completely omniscient, He must be the most rational Creature in the universe!

A. If ability limits responsibility, then is God not responsible for his actions?

B. The conclusion that the Reformed view is "irrational" is question begging.

C. Yes, we can hold them responsible if the reasons for their inability to respond is due to the love of their own evil, and this is precisely what Reformed theology teaches.

D. I might add that the libertarian option means that choices are uncaused. Motives are not the root of actions (contrary to Scripture) and as a result, it is the libertarian that is the irrational position, for he cannot account for why persons act the way they act and choose the way they choose.

Hence, rationally, reason demands that all creatures are morally free to choose and have the capability to choose God... to seek His will, as a result of being created in God's image.

How did the fall affect the will?

Does Scripture not say that men cannot please God from a state of nature in Romans 8?

 

[GeneMBridges]

Sure, without God working in our lives and drawing us to Himself, we would not, could not, choose Him. But He is at work. And He has chosen to give mankind the ability to seek God. He has chosen to sovereignly do so, because then people can freely choose to love. In fact, without such capability, man cannot love God. And without freely choosing someone, we have not love. The Calvinism system makes us some sort of robotic lovers.

Scripture does not teach that mankind has a natural ability to seek God after the fall.

Why do people, in your view, choose to love?

The robot comparison fails at the critical point of comparison. People have a consciousness, mental states, desires, beliefs, memories, thinking, etc. This is precisely where the analogy breaks down. At the critical point of comparison, since puppets, unlike humans, lack these mental properties. Ergo, it is a fallacious argument.

Now I absolutely agree that God must needs be involved in this process. But it is not simply monergistic (no involvement from a person when a person is saved - it comes from God alone - from beginning to end) - it must needs be synergistic (involving cooperation between God and man).

1. Monergism applies to conversion, not all of salvation. It specifically applies to regeneration.



What you're arguing here is that "a little bit of cooperation" with grace is okay. This is a category error on your part. In Scripture, grace is qualitative, not quantitative.

We cannot OTOneH take a supralapsarian position, involving a monergistic plan for salvation, and then OTOtherH take a position that man is responsible for his sin.

Monergism is not unique to supralapsarianism. It is equally a doctrine that infralapsarians and Amyraldians affirm. My friend, frankly, I don't think you really understand what you're talking about.

My advice to you is to spend some time at some Reformed blogs asking questions.

Try:

www.founders.org/blog
www.triablogue.blogspot.com
www.shepherdtheflock.com
www.strangebaptistfire.com
www.timmybrister.com/

 

[Faith alone]

Eternal Security.

Cody2,

Actually, Reformed's view of eternal security is usually referred to as "perseverance of the saints." IMO, it is somewhat weak in that it is conditioned on works naturally following faith. So the focus is not on the faith alone, but on the works. Hence, should it best be referred to as "eternal security?"

GeneMBridges,

Scripture does not teach that mankind has a natural ability to seek God after the fall.

Actually, I disagree. Scripture doers no teach that mankind was perfect before the fall, but "innocent." What changed was the innocence. Where does scripture say that Adam was perfect? (I do know that is what Calvinism teaches.)

Thx,

FA

 

[Faith alone]

Quote: Faith alone

We cannot OTOneH take a supralapsarian position, involving a monergistic plan for salvation, and then OTOtherH take a position that man is responsible for his sin.
Monergism is not unique to supralapsarianism. It is equally a doctrine that infralapsarians and Amyraldians affirm. My friend, frankly, I don't think you really understand what you're talking about.

My advice to you is to spend some time at some Reformed blogs asking questions.

No doubt. And that is the typical Reformed response - to just label someone or put them down. How about dealing with the points I made? But you clearly do not understand my position either. SupraL is different from InfraL in that God so orders what happened at the fall that man cannot be held responsible for his sin. I realize that both are monergistic in nature. All Calvinism is monergistic regarding regeneration. I also realize that after we have been regenerated that we are then able to believe, in Reformed theology But once regenerated, we are saved. I disagree with Reformed's handling of this concept. I recognize that this is referrring to a logical order, since essentially our faith and becoming a child of God is simultaneous to regeneration in time.

Monergism applies to conversion, not all of salvation. It specifically applies to regeneration.

Where did I say anything indicating differently? Salvation is used in many ways in the NT. It refers to our coming to Christ in faith (justification), to our growing in Christ (progressive sanctification) and to or ultimate glorification with Christ when He returns. Before making comments such as this one, please read the person's posts more carefully. You are assuming that when I say "saved" that I am referring to more than justification. I am not. We are speaking a different language, somewhat, so we need to be careful. I understand that Calvinism distinguishes between regeneration and salvation. But concerning anyone who is regenerated is he not at the same time saved? If so, then you have someone who is born spiritually yet who does not believe. Impossible. We are talking about alogical order here only, so it is not appropriate for you to make such a criticism. How about if I re-stated my comment that you so strongly reacted to as...

Now I absolutely agree that God must needs be involved in this process. But it is not simply monergistic (no involvement from a person when a person is born spiritually, becoming a child of God - it comes from God alone - from beginning to end) - it must needs be synergistic (involving cooperation between God and man).

Scripture is clear that those who are born spiritually are children of God.

I anticipated beforehand how some would view my arguments, and have anticipated everything which you posted. I thought the point of this thread was not to debate and put people down, but for each of us to share our position. How can God use what we each share here without such an attitude? But I am used to this - this is a classic Reformed response to anything critical to their soteriology. I am actually surprised that you did not refer to me as "Arminian." I imagine that you think it, but if so, then "my friend" I suggest that you study what Arminianism truly believes.

I have no doubt that you understand Calvinism better than I do. I have though gone to many Calvinistic websites to read how they handle various issues - hundreds of times. Have you ever gone to a free-grace website? I was a member of a Calvinistic board for some time in which James White participated. I interacted with him a few times, actually. (Big mistake - he was so arrogant. Whew!) So I may be ignorant to a degree about Calvinism, but it is not for lack of effort.


Now scripture throughout assumes that unregenerate people are able to respond to the appeal to believe the gospel. We see that again and again. Synergism is assumed.

I gotta go now, I would like to say more... but later.

FA

 

[GeneMBridges]

No doubt. And that is the typical Reformed response - to just label someone or put them down. How about dealing with the points I made? But you clearly do not understand my position either. SupraL is different from InfraL in that God so orders what happened at the fall that man cannot be held responsible for his sin.

A. Notice that FA, when confronted with his errors makes a claim about labeling on the point of the Reformed, but in his reply seeks to tar those persons. Apparently, "labeling' is an objection that, if true, he doesn't really believe since he engages in it himself.



B. I did deal with them in great detail.



C. Supralapsarianism does not teach that “God so orders what happened the fall that man cannot be held responsible for his sin.” Rather, that’s your tendentious characterization of supralapsarianism. It doesn’t seem you can present the position without characterizing it.

Thus, it isn’t “putting you down” to point out that you are demonstrating repeatedly that you don’t understand the difference between Supras and Infras, particularly when the statement sticks.

D. What you have done is read your view of human responsibility in relation to the decrees into these decretal orders and drawn a conclusion. What’s more, its an assertion, not an argument.

It’s a false conclusion, for if true, it would apply equally to Infras. The difference between infras and supras, which I pointed out to you, is the difference between the placement of the decree of election/reprobation and the others.

Classic Supras have God differentiating between men as men, while Infras have them differentiated between men as sinners. What you have done is look at the former and say "That means men aren't responsible for their sins."


But, in your stated view on what constitutes human responsibility is that ability limits responsibility, so men are not responsible if they are not able to do otherwise.



Therefore, since both Supras and Infras have God decreeing the fall and it could not have happened otherwise under either scheme (and, indeed occurs by permission, a fact you overlooked), your objection, if true, would apply equally to both Supras and Infras. Modern Supralapsarians have God differentiating between men as sinners in the first decree in the order, another point you neglected to present.

This tells me you don’t know what you’re talking about.

You said:

Where did I say anything indicating differently? ....You are assuming that when I say "saved" that I am referring to more than justification. I am not. We are speaking a different language, somewhat, so we need to be careful

I can only reply to what you write as you present your material. Please forgive me if my powers of precognition are not functional. You are welcome to clarify what you mean, but when you say:

Now I absolutely agree that God must needs be involved in this process. But it is not simply monergistic (no involvement from a person when a person is saved - it comes from God alone - from beginning to end) - it must needs be synergistic (involving cooperation between God and man).

I take that at face value. Why not use proper theological nomenclature, like “converted” in place of “saved.” Monergism speaks to two divine acts (or one if you collapse them): regeneration / effectual calling. It does not refer to all of conversion and it does not refer to any “process” of salvation.

Have you ever gone to a free-grace website?

Yes, I have, and I have dealt with them many times and refuting many of their historical errors; and my friend Jonathan Moorhead has done it many times, along with Evan May and a host of others.

Now scripture throughout assumes that unregenerate people are able to respond to the appeal to believe the gospel. We see that again and again.

A. This is an assertion, not an argument.

B. Then please tell us where Scripture ascribes human freedom to libertarianism.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Actually, I disagree. Scripture doers no teach that mankind was perfect before the fall, but "innocent." What changed was the innocence. Where does scripture say that Adam was perfect? (I do know that is what Calvinism teaches.)

No, Reformed theology teaches the “libertas Adami.” That concept does not teach that men were perfect - unless you're reading your own characterization into it, yet again.


Rather it teaches that they knew neither good nor evil and were disposed to good and without corruption, but not given constraining grace. Scripture teaches that they were innocent in that did not “know” good or evil, but it also teaches that “God made man upright.” The classic monograph is by Thomas Boston.


And how is this a response to a statement about the natural ability of men after the fall? Scripture is clear that the natural man cannot please God. Even the classic Arminians affirmed that universal prevenient grace was necessary for men to seek God after the fall. Where is your argument for UPG?

 

[Faith alone]

No, Reformed theology teaches the “libertas Adami.” That concept does not teach that men were perfect - unless you're reading your own characterization into it, yet again.


Rather it teaches that they knew neither good nor evil and were disposed to good and without corruption, but not given constraining grace. Scripture teaches that they were innocent in that did not “know” good or evil, but it also teaches that “God made man upright.” The classic monograph is by Thomas Boston.


And how is this a response to a statement about the natural ability of men after the fall? Scripture is clear that the natural man cannot please God. Even the classic Arminians affirmed that universal prevenient grace was necessary for men to seek God after the fall. Where is your argument for UPG?

Why is it that some Calvinists insist on being so rude? And even after I ask them not to do so?

Does not the London Confession of Faith state just this when it says that God "In the beginning God made all things very good, created man after his own Image and likeness, filling him with all perfection of all natural excellency and uprightness, free from all sin." (Section IV).

Biblemaster says as well:
"In the beginning man was good. God said they were perfect. Then sin entered in and man was separated from God. God is good. So because of sin in every mans life man is born in sin and the only way he can come back to God and be declared good again is thru the atoning blood of Jesus Christ."

If such a view indicates a misunderstanding of man's original state, that helps me undertsand how Calvinism has misrepresented what the Bible says about man in his present fallen state as well. Total depravity teaches that as a consequence of the fall of man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or to choose to accept salvation as it is freely offered through the gospel.

Now let's just look at scripture. Where does scripture say that fallen man is unable to choose to accept the free offer made to him through the gospel? If you would like to define the T differently - please, be my guest.

Now regarding prevenient grace as being necessary in order for man to seek God, have I indicated that man is able to come through God without God's active involvement? I have no issue with that. The issue is that man must be born spiritually according to Calvinism before he can seek God.

Universal Prevenient Grace (UPG) asserts the following:

1. God desires the salvation of every human (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9)
2. Christ died to bring salvation to every person.
3. Personal obligation is limited to one's ability to respond.
4. This Grace that flowed from Christ's cross is bestowed unconditionally on all people.
5. UPG erases the debilitating effects of sin on minds, restores moral free agency, convicts of sin, and exerts a God-ward influence upon hearts.
6. The grace enables all sinners to respond to God by faith.
7. This grace from God thus provides every human with the potential for salvation.
8. This grace is not coercive but resistible (Acts 7:51).
9. Upon a positive response to UPG, a sinner will be given the salvific grace of regeneration, faith and repentance.

I have an issue with # 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. Like I said earlier, I hold to unconditional election, but not to irresistible grace. My view is synergistic in nature, but that indicates cooperation, and does not assume that God is not involved. Indeed without God's direct involvement, man will not respond to the gospel. (John 16:8-11; John 6:44, 45)

Thx,

FA

 

[GeneMBridges]

Why is it that some Calvinists insist on being so rude? And even after I ask them not to do so?

Notice that all FA can do is continue to characterize my posts. It isn't rude to ask him for a supporting argument, and where I say "You don't know what you're talking about" I actually show how that description sticks.

And notice that laced throughout his posts are strings of tendentious characterizations without interaction with my replies.

So much for FA's forked tongue rhetoric.

I haven't yet made similar comments about the Free Grace crowd like he has made about the Reformed, but I'll be happy to provide some selected quotes from their internet representatives to show him that his side the aisle is just as "rude" if not moreso.

Does not the London Confession of Faith state just this when it says that God "In the beginning God made all things very good, created man after his own Image and likeness, filling him with all perfection of all natural excellency and uprightness, free from all sin." (Section IV).

Notice that FA quotes from the First, but not the Second Confession.

Section IV states:

After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created; being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change.

How is this at all incongruent with what I stated from Thomas Boston?

Reformed theology is more than a confession. The standard monograph on the Libertas Adami is by Boston.

Total depravity teaches that as a consequence of the fall of man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or to choose to accept salvation as it is freely offered through the gospel.

Actually, the classic statement is "unable to contribute any spiritual good to his salvation." It does not mean that men are unable to do any good whatsoever, so let's be clear here.

Now let's just look at scripture. Where does scripture say that fallen man is unable to choose to accept the free offer made to him through the gospel? If you would like to define the T differently - please, be my guest.

John 6:44, Romans 8:7, 1 Cor. 2:14

If men are able to accept the free offer of the gospel of themselves, then why bother with UPG?

Can you exegete John 6:44 without running to John 12?

Now regarding prevenient grace as being necessary in order for man to seek God, have I indicated that man is able to come through God without God's active involvement? I have no issue with that.

Is this by design or by grace coming via the cross?

The issue is that man must be born spiritually according to Calvinism before he can seek God.

I've asked you several times to make an argument for libertarian freedom from Scripture. You have yet to do so.

I can also exegete 1 John 5:1 and have done so in the past. You profess to be familar with Reformed websites. If so, you should be familar with my work. It isn't as if I go by more than one name.

Universal Prevenient Grace (UPG) asserts the following:

1. God desires the salvation of every human (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9)

Please exegete these texts without confusing intension and extension.

1. Christ died to bring salvation to every person.

An assertion, not an argument.

Personal obligation is limited to one's ability to respond.

Where does Scripture state this? This will require an argument for libertarian freedom, you have yet to provide one.

1. This grace is not coercive but resistible (Acts 7:51).

How is Acts 7:51 at all relevant to monergism v. synergism?

I have an issue with # 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9.

Like I said earlier, I hold to unconditional election, but not to irresistible grace. My view is synergistic in nature, but that indicates cooperation, and does not assume that God is not involved. Indeed without God's direct involvement, man will not respond to the gospel. (John 16:8-11; John 6:44, 45)

Thx,

FA

You're view is irrational. It is illogical to hold to unconditional election and not irresistible grace.

 

[Faith alone]

Notice that all FA can do is continue to characterize my posts. It isn't rude to ask him for a supporting argument, and where I say "You don't know what you're talking about" I actually show how that description sticks.

And notice that laced throughout his posts are strings of tendentious characterizations without interaction with my replies.

So much for FA's forked tongue rhetoric.

Looks like I'm going to have to do with Gene as I did with james White when he was so rude and belligerant - tell him I will not get involved in such ungodly interaction. Notice the reference to "forked tongue rhetoric." He's calling me a liar. I do not know why some people feel challenged when someone is simply explaining their position. There is no need for such attitudes.

Gene, I do not care who you are. But I will say this: take any passage and let's have at it. Exegete away. I believe God's Word will stand for itself. Let's look at Ephesians 2:8-10; John 6:44, 45. But let's please show respect for my views, even if you disagree. That's all I ask - let's not make this personal.

I can also exegete 1 John 5:1 and have done so in the past. You profess to be familar with Reformed websites. If so, you should be familar with my work. It isn't as if I go by more than one name.

I am not an expert on Calvinism. But I have studied what they say, when I have done so, by going to their sitesas well as looking at what others hve said. The point is simply that I am not just looking for arguments on the internet andthen using them as my own. My understanding of Calvinism and respect for Reformed theology has grown over the years. As I see it, they are trying to lift up the sovereignty and grace ofGod. Certainly a worthy goal. I am not a Calvinist basher. I am "free grace" but more aligned with Calvinism than most. in particular how i view God's work in bringingsomeoneto Christ is more Reformed than many. That's why I do have an issue with UPG.

Now, please exegete 1 John 5:1. And in doing so, may I request that you be cautious about assertions concerning the perfect tense? Because that verse simply does not say that those who believe have already been born of God before that happened. Sure, it "could" be saying that - ifthat was how it works. But it need not at all be saying that. We can certainly look at John 1:12, 13 in that regards as well. Now I am anticipating what you are going to say on this text, Gene, because I have read Reformed wbesites on this text before. FWIW, those websites misapplied the perfect tense there...

Please exegete these texts without confusing intension and extension. An assertion, not an argument.

Where does Scripture state this? This will require an argument for libertarian freedom, you have yet to provide one. How is Acts 7:51 at all relevant to monergism v. synergism?

Please read my posts more carefully. Do you think that was my CRef? I merely posted what those who hold to UPG say.

Now regarding libertarian freedom, well I guess what depends on how you define it. If you define it as man having a will completely free from predetermination by God's will, then I need provide no verses on that since this is not what I hold to. You see, Gene, I believe that the manner in which God chose to exercise His will was by allowing man to freely choose, while yet accomplishing precisely what He desired - realizing the precise world He wanted such that we freely choose His will. That's what I mean by saying that your view of God's sovereignty is more limited than my own. I know I'm not explaining this well, but what you are doing is ignoring my molinist position on this.

I have an issue with # 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9.

You're view is irrational. It is illogical to hold to unconditional election and not irresistible grace.

Why? Please explain yourself. I believe you have limited the sovereignty of God. Perhaps you should read some on Wiliam Lane Craig's philosophy of middle knowledge. By unconditional election I merely mean that God determines who will be saved - not dependent on His knowledge of who will trust in Him. IOW, He does not merely know who will trust in His Son and choose them - simple foreknowledge. He genuinely chooses the elect. I am sure you are familiar with Geisler's book on this topic. Well, since he is not a molinist (I am), my position on election is stronger than his, IMO.

My wife says I gotta go. But I do ask you to explain 1 John 5:1 - to exegete it. And do please go into some detail. Now let's not be jumping all over the place.

Incidently, I am not some well-known theologian. But please do not talk down to me. I do not think that would honor the Lord for either of us to do that. And again, let's not make this personal.

Gotta go,

FA

 

[Faith alone]

Gene,

A quick primer on molinism and how that impacts free will and election.

The way that foreknowedge is handled in middle knowledge is different than in Arminianism. (Now remember that I'm simply using a MK view of election to formulate this.) IN MK the person says that God does know who will trust in Him if this or that were to happen. God not only knows the past, present and future, He also knows all possible worlds which would exist if this or that were to happen. There are countless examples in scripture. That's the key, what's referred to in Christian philosophy as "counterfactuals."

The Reformed generally say that counterfactuals do not really exist. Anyway, the MK person says that God does not simply know who will trust in Christ and choose them, but that He knows trillions of possible worlds and by His will actualizes one of them. So by so doing He does in fact, as in Calvinism, choose who will trust in Him (and who will not). He knows precisely beforehand before actualizing a world just who will trust in Him over time and who will not. But as in Arminianism he does it through the individual's free will (as well as the free will of countless others that impinge upon his life). So mankind has a free will. God elects certain individuals. It is not that he knows who will trust in Him, but as in Calvinism he determines who will trust in Him. And that is clearly far from an Arminian view of election! IMO it is actually perhaps closer to Calvinism, but clearly somewhere well in the "middle." (Though that's not where the term comes from.)

Now of course God could have done things many ways. He could cause precisely what He desires to happen in an irresistible manner, as Calvinism holds. I agree with that. But I do not see God's plan displayed that way in scripture. IMO God has chosen to work through the free will of man. And this molinist view is not manipulation, since man freely does precisely what he chooses... yet accomplishes God's will. Now of course not every single act occuring on this earth can be according to God's will, else we would see no murder, rape, thievery, etc. I do not think anyone would disagree with that. But as I see it, that is how God has determined to do things. Who's going to tell God he doesn't know what He is doing? Shall the clay say to the Potter, what are you doing?

So you see, I do not hold to libertarian freedom. Hope that clarifies things a bit.

FA

 

[GeneMBridges]

Gene,

A quick primer on molinism and how that impacts free will and election.

The way that foreknowedge is handled in middle knowledge is different than in Arminianism. (Now remember that I'm simply using a MK view of election to formulate this.) IN MK the person says that God does know who will trust in Him if this or that were to happen. God not only knows the past, present and future, He also knows all possible worlds which would exist if this or that were to happen. There are countless examples in scripture. That's the key, what's referred to in Christian philosophy as "counterfactuals."

The Reformed generally say that counterfactuals do not really exist.

This is not true. We do not deny that counterfactuals really exist.

We deny that counterfactuals are grounded in the freedom of the individual. Rather, they are grounded in God's own mind. We do not deny the existence of counterfactuals or possible universes. You see, Calvinism doesn't deny the truth-value of counterfactuals or the modality of possible worlds. The issue here is what grounds these possibilities or counterfactuals. The will of man or that of God? So, you have failed to even accurately state the opposing position.

One of the problems with the Molinist is not with his appeal to counterfactuals, per se, but with the way he defines counterfactual freedom in libertarian terms. Where's the argument for libertarian action theory?

For example, a Calvinist could affirm the counterfactuals of freedom, but define freedom in compatibilist terms and/or affirm the counterfactuals of freedom, but assign them then to the agency of God rather than the agency of man.

A Molinist is simply supposing that you need to index counterfactual freedom to the human will rather than the divine will. Where's the supporting argument?

Frankly, counterfactual knowledge does not entail middle knowledge.

A possible world is a picturesque way of describing what-all God could possibly do, and not what the creature could possibly do.
God knows what the creature would do because he knows what he would do with the creature. God’s counterfactual knowledge is a species of self-knowledge.

And Middle Knowledge is a paper thin argument from exegesis. I've read Craig's monographs on it.

Anyway, the MK person says that God does not simply know who will trust in Christ and choose them, but that He knows trillions of possible worlds and by His will actualizes one of them. So by so doing He does in fact, as in Calvinism, choose who will trust in Him (and who will not). He knows precisely beforehand before actualizing a world just who will trust in Him over time and who will not. But as in Arminianism he does it through the individual's free will (as well as the free will of countless others that impinge upon his life).

Note the highlighted part. If this is "as in Arminianism" then "free will" is defined in libertarian terms. If you deny libertarian freedom, then this statement is untrue.

Moving on...

So mankind has a free will. God elects certain individuals. It is not that he knows who will trust in Him, but as in Calvinism he determines who will trust in Him. And that is clearly far from an Arminian view of election! IMO it is actually perhaps closer to Calvinism, but clearly somewhere well in the "middle." (Though that's not where the term comes from.)

Now of course God could have done things many ways. He could cause precisely what He desires to happen in an irresistible manner, as Calvinism holds. I agree with that. But I do not see God's plan displayed that way in scripture. IMO God has chosen to work through the free will of man. And this molinist view is not manipulation, since man freely does precisely what he chooses... yet accomplishes God's will. Now of course not every single act occuring on this earth can be according to God's will, else we would see no murder, rape, thievery, etc. I do not think anyone would disagree with that. But as I see it, that is how God has determined to do things. Who's going to tell God he doesn't know what He is doing? Shall the clay say to the Potter, what are you doing?

So you see, I do not hold to libertarian freedom. Hope that clarifies things a bit.

FA

I am very familar with Molinism.

The problem here is that Molinism isn't Molinism when it denies libertarian freedom. Molinism requires libertarian freedom in order to work. So, you're trying to graft a theory of agency onto non-libertarian freedom that does not go with it.

So, either you don't understand Molinism any better than you grasp Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism, or you're using "Molinism" in a non-standard way.

And the problem with Molinism is that it reduces God's action to externals in such a way that an outcome is infallible secure. However, if that's the case, freedom is no longer libertarian. Molinism is incoherent. The problems here are twofold for a Molinist: How can God know the libertarian decisions of the agent if they are not knowable until instantiated? and (b) how is the will free in a libertarian sense if the manipulation of externals ensures God's desired result? That's not a libertarian argument.

So, why does one person believe and not the other given the so ordered world within Molinism?

If you believe that ability limits responsibility, then that entails libertarianism, since the standard definition of libertarianism is just another way of stating "ability limits responsibility."

You also have another problem here by this appeal. One of the primary problems is the juggling two different models of salvation. On the one hand, you've implicitly allowed for the possibility of salvation apart from faith in Christ. On the other hand, you have a Molinist solution.

But this is redundant. If a sinner can be saved by a positive response to general revelation, then Molinism is superfluous to the soteriological problem of evil, et.al.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Looks like I'm going to have to do with Gene as I did with james White when he was so rude and belligerant - tell him I will not get involved in such ungodly interaction. Notice the reference to "forked tongue rhetoric." He's calling me a liar. I do not know why some people feel challenged when someone is simply explaining their position. There is no need for such attitudes.

Notice that once again FA cannot represent his opposition without misrepresenting them. I did not call him a liar. I said that if he really objected to characterizations of others he would refrain from them himself. I said he is inconsistent, not that he’s a liar.

And notice that I have demonstrated several times now where he simply has his facts wrong. On the one hand, he says he’s asking questions, but when the answers are given he rejects them, particularly when it’s shown he has not accurately represented the opposing position or even, as in Molinism, the one he invokes. He needs to do better homework. It isn't "rude" to point that out at all. If anything, I'm doing his homework for him here. That's the opposite of "rude." I'm actually bending over backwards to help him get his facts straight.

The point is simply that I am not just looking for arguments on the internet andthen using them as my own.

Really? Then why did your representation of UPG come directly from Fide-O blog, written by my friend Jason Robertson? IS that your argument for UPG that was posted by you?

Now, please exegete 1 John 5:1. And in doing so, may I request that you be cautious about assertions concerning the perfect tense? Because that verse simply does not say that those who believe have already been born of God before that happened. Sure, it "could" be saying that - ifthat was how it works. But it need not at all be saying that. We can certainly look at John 1:12, 13 in that regards as well. Now I am anticipating what you are going to say on this text, Gene, because I have read Reformed wbesites on this text before. FWIW, those websites misapplied the perfect tense there...

I’ve already done this several times. All you have to do is Google my exegesis of this passage. It is on several websites.

And the issue isn’t the use of the present tense. That would apply to your view of “punctiliar faith.” That's a separate issue.


Rather, the issue is the relationship between being born again and faith within the structure of the letter. All that is necessary is to show the causal link between being "born again" and "believing" in the trajectory of Johanine thought, particular the structure of the texts.

You mentioned John 6:44 - 45. Since I've answered your questions several times, it's time you do me a favor. Please exegete John 6:44 - 45 and its relationship, or lack thereof, to "irresistible grace." While you're at it, you can answer my question about Acts 7 too.

I believe that the manner in which God chose to exercise His will was by allowing man to freely choose, while yet accomplishing precisely what He desired - realizing the precise world He wanted such that we freely choose His will. That's what I mean by saying that your view of God's sovereignty is more limited than my own. I know I'm not explaining this well, but what you are doing is ignoring my molinist position on this.

I am not arguing from “sovereignty” but from causality.

Perhaps you should read some on Wiliam Lane Craig's philosophy of middle knowledge.

We @ Triablogue aren't exactly not well read. One of us a TA at RTS. I don’t think you understand Dr. Craig, since you you say you deny libertarian freedom of the agent, but Craig clearly an unequivocally holds to it.

I’m glad you’re asking questions, but, Brother FA, I fear you are not “getting” what you are reading.

For example, it's clear Craig does precisely what I stated above about juggling 2 competing theories of salvation.

Craig says:

“Since Jesus and his work are historical in character, many persons as a result of historical and geographical accident will not be sufficiently well-informed concerning him and thus unable to respond to him in faith. Such persons who are not sufficiently well-informed about Christ's person and work will be judged on the basis of their response to general revelation and the light that they do have.”

If this were true, then Molinism would be a solution to a pseudoproblem. At most, then, Molinism is true—but useless.

Also regarding Craig, here is what he states about the exegetical evidence for Middle Knowledge:

Since Scripture does not reflect upon this question, no amount of proof-texting can prove that
God’s counterfactual knowledge is possessed logically prior to his creative decree. This is a
matter for theological-philosophical reflection, not biblical exegesis. Thus, while it is clearly
unbiblical to deny that God has simple foreknowledge and even counterfactual knowledge, those
who deny middle knowledge cannot be accused of being unbiblical. (Divine Foreknowledge, 4 Views, p. 125)

Now, you're the one wanting Scriptural argumentation, well there's what Craig says about the argument for MK in no uncertain terms.

Further your problem with SupraL (and if you were at all consistent, InfraL) related to the decree of the fall, for it could not be any other way. Men, in your view, must really be able to do otherwise in order to be responsible for their actions (which I repeat is the very defintion of libertarian freedom). However, Molinism does not help you, for in Molinism, this is still the only world that obtains, so agent S still is not able to do otherwise. Your position thus remains incoherent, given your stated objection to Calvinism on the issue of human responsibility.

Ware and Tiessen have grafted Middle Knowledge onto a theory of agency that is not libertarian. The problem there is that it conflates natural knowledge with middle knowledge. MK is superfluous on that view.