God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Free Will

[originally published on my old site]

Many who read the word of God and believe that God is sovereign (all-powerful and in control of all things) come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as free will, since God is in control and man is not. They apply this especially to the process of salvation, stating essentially that God chooses who will be redeemed and who will not before they are even born, to the point that a man basically has no choice as to whether he will be saved or not. Some even go so far as to argue that if someone believes in free will, that they must not believe that God is Almighty (since man, not God makes some decisions), but this teaching is ignorant.

God’s Ultimate Authority

First off, the Bible teaches unmistakably that God has power over all things, even the human will. Let’s look at a few passages:

The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will.

Proverbs 21:1

For it was of the Lord to harden their [the Canaanites’] hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that He might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses. (Joshua 11:20)

A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps. (Proverbs 16:9)

Man’s goings are of the Lord; how can a man then understand his own way? (Proverbs 20:24)

Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was from the Lord, that He might perform His saying, which the Lord spake by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat. (1 Kings 12:15)

There are several cases in the Bible of God moving people to do things, so it follows that free will outside of the control of God (I’ll call it ‘unlimited free will’) cannot be true.

Okay, so we don’t have free will?

Though many Christians seem to polarize to either total determinism or unlimited free will, I believe that the concept of limited free will finds more support in the Bible than either extreme. Despite the passages of the Bible that assert God’s power over the human will, the Bible is also full of instances of men going directly against the will of God.

“But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel [will] of God against themselves, being not baptized of him [John].” (Luke 7:30)

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!” (Luke 13:34)

So it is apparent that God does not choose to completely control the will of men either, otherwise they could not go against His will.

The Principle of Delegation

To understand free will and God’s omnipotence, you have to understand the principle of delegation. Delegation is when one gives a measure of authority to someone below him or her; though ultimate authority is still retained by the one who delegated it. For instance, a general in the Army has a lot of authority, whereas a private has virtually none. But if said general trusts one of his privates, he can delegate some of his authority to that soldier. He could say, “I don’t care who wants to come in here, you have my authority to stop anyone trying to enter here except for me.” The soldier now has the word of the big boss behind him, and it doesn’t matter who comes there, sergeants, officers, even people in his chain of command, he has the authority to stop them from entering. Of course, with the general being the boss, he also has the power to limit or take away the power he delegated at any time. Okay, so, nice lesson in military command structure, but what does that have to do with God? Being omnipotent, God is capable of not only making decisions, but also delegating the power to make decisions to His creatures below. God still maintains ultimate control, and has the power to guide or change the human will as He pleases, but generally lets us make our own choices. This could be referred to as ‘limited free will;’ that is to say, free will within the confines of the will of God. To state it more simply, we have free will to the extent that God lets us have free will, for if He wanted to, He could surely control every single facet of our lives. So it is then logically possible for God to be truly all powerful, while at the same time permitting us to have a free will within the limits He imposes.

Bondage of the will

One major argument used by those who don’t believe in free will is that the human will is in bondage to sin, so it cannot be free to follow God unless God changes them. The Bible does in fact teach that the human will is in bondage to the sin nature that is in us, making us carnal and wicked, and unable to truly serve God.

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that I do not; but what I hate, that do I. (Romans 7:14-15)

A sinful nature makes you spiritually dead, and incapable to being subject to the law of God (Romans 8:7), putting even the strongest human will into bondage.

What is the solution for our hearts being in slavery to sin? Though men are spiritually dead and in darkness by nature, Christ is the light of the world and can give life to the dead.

“Indeed I say to you, he that hears My word and believes on Him that sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Indeed I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.” (John 5:25)

Understand that Jesus was not speaking of a future resurrection, (He spoke of that as a future event in verse 28 of the same chapter), but said that the time was even now. Just as Christ called the physically dead Lazarus forth from the grave (John 11:43-44), so when He calls those who are dead in sin and trespasses, they will live if they will hear Him. So though we are spiritually dead by nature, our very hearts enslaved by our own sinfulness, when Christ chooses to call us, we are free to believe or reject Him. If we hear Him and receive His words, we will be granted life through faith in Him, else, we will remain dead in our sins. The fact that our wills are in bondage to sin and we are spiritually dead does not stop us from being able to hear the life-giving voice of the Son of God; so to say that we do have a choice in whether we are saved or not (i.e. free will to receive Christ or reject Him) is correct. I feel it is important to emphasize that free will in no way takes away the fact that salvation is not of us, but of God, because if God does not draw us to His Son and opens our hearts that we may hear Him (see Acts 16:4), there is no way that we who are sinners by nature may serve Him by ourselves. It is not we who sought God, but He us; for the dead cannot come to life on their own, but only by hearing the voice of the Son of God.

Wait a sec, are you just making this up? Where do you find that in the Bible?

God must draw us to Christ before we can come to Him.

“No man can come to Me [Jesus], except the Father which hath sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:44)

To receive His word, a man must humble himself.

“Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” (Mark 10:15)

Even faith is not of us, it is of God.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

But we must hear Christ to receive God’s gift of faith.

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17)

We did not choose Christ, He chose us.

“Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit…” (John 15:16)

But when He calls us, we still have the choice to humble ourselves and accept Him, or harden our hearts and refuse.

“See that ye refuse not Him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused Him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape if we turn away from Him that speaketh from heaven…” (Hebrews 12:25)

If we do believe in Him, we will have spiritual and eternal life through Him (hope you knew that already).

“But these things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His name.” (John 30:31)

To What Extent Does God Control Our Wills?

As I stated previously, God has complete power over the human will, though granting us a measure of control over it. The Bible does indicate that God opens the hearts of some people to the truth, but hardens the hearts of others. Some find this hard to believe, but it is indeed true.

“…And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” Butindeed O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He has called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” (Romans 9:10-24)

Many people take this passage of scripture to mean that God chooses who will be saved with man having no choice at all in the matter. But that is not what it says: it says that He shows mercy to whoever He wants to, and who He wants to He hardens. Who does He want to harden?

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient [right]…” (Romans 1:28)

Notice the reason that God gave them over to a totally wicked mind: because they grew proud and forgot Him — not because He just arbitrarily wanted them to be damned. As we saw in the passage from Mark 10 above, unless one humbles himself like a little child, he cannot enter the kingdom of God; the same idea is taught consistently in the Bible.

“…God resisteth [or scorns] the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.” (Proverbs 3:34, James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5)

Therefore, if one humbles himself when convicted of his depravity and sin by God, he will be shown mercy by Him through Jesus Christ; but if one’s heart grows haughty and he despises his Maker, it is no surprise that God would scorn him and harden him to the truth of the gospel.

So does God choose us to be saved before we are born?

The answer, which may come as a surprise to some, is yes.

“But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the very beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth…” (2 Thessalonians 2:13)

You might be wondering at this point how I can believe that and still believe in free will, but the two concepts fit together perfectly if you understand the concept of election.

Bottom Line:

  • God is all-powerful, even over the human will

  • God does choose to exercise some control over men

  • God obviously does not choose to control everything about men, since men sometimes directly violate His will; therefore men only have free will within the range of what God permits us to have

  • Men are inherently sinful and depraved by nature, and cannot come to Christ on our own: God the Father must draw us first

  • Though we are spiritually dead because of our sins, when God the Father draws us to Jesus Christ, we have the choice to hear Him and live or reject Him and suffer the second death (hell)

Leave a comment
by J.C. Thibodaux on September 30, 2019  •  Permalink
Posted in Free Will

Posted by J.C. Thibodaux on September 30, 2019

https://indeathorlife.wordpress.com/2019/09/30/gods-sovereignty-and-mans-free-will-2/

The Security of Salvation

[originally published on my old site]

Introduction

Probably the favorite “proof-text” for the Calvinist view of unconditional election is Romans 9, starting from about verses 6 and going through 27. Many people who don’t buy Calvinism’s claim of a very partial God find themselves a bit intimidated when an eager determinist spouts off as proof:
“Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this [is] the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac; (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will [have mercy], and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? [What] if God, willing to shew [His] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that He might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As He saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not My people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not My people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved…” (Romans 9:6-27)

Key Points

Romans 9 is very telling about the nature of God and His work of salvation, yet many Christians and even pastors are so unlearned about this and similar scriptures that when someone quotes them, they are not sure what to think. Such an ignorance of Biblical doctrine even among clergy may be the cause of the recent surge in “Reformed Baptists” (Baptists who have embraced the five points of Calvinism). When an argument or piece of proof is submitted with only the bias of one side, it always seems to work in that side’s favor — often due to the bias through which it is viewed. But as we shall shortly see, evidence does not always imply what one tries to make it say; and sometimes, what evidence does not imply is as important as what it does.

Let’s examine several key points in Romans 9:

“…but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac; (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

“What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”

“For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will [have mercy], and whom He will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? [What] if God, willing to shew [His] wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory…”

When faced with a sudden flood of alleged proof, it is hard for those who do not know their Bible well to respond to the Calvinist doctrinal assertions that:

  • God chooses some for salvation and leaves others for damnation before they are born, simply because He loves some and despises the others. Nothing about the person determines this love or hate, God simply does.

  • The mercy God shows to His elect, He shows simply because He wants to, with no requirements on their part.

  • God hardens the hearts of those who are not elect so that they will not be saved because He does not will them to be saved, seeing as Christ did not die for them.

Now let’s examine these claims and the proof text used to back them up.

Does This Passage Indicate Unconditional Election?

“…but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac; (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

What the text does indicate: The concept of election is nothing new if you study your Bible. The scripture is quite clear that God chose us from the foundation of the world, so it should come as no surprise that we were chosen unto salvation before having done any good or evil. It is evident then that election is not according to works, but according to the will of God who calls us.

What the text does not indicate: It does not imply that God simply chooses some and rejects others in some seemingly arbitrary manner. It states that He loved Jacob and despised Esau, but gives no conditions or lack thereof. And while it is true that election is not according to works, it is according to the foreknowledge of God (Romans 8:29-30, 1 Peter 1:2), which would indicate that there are conditions concerning those whom He elects apart from their works. This text therefore lends no credence to the concept of unconditional election.

But Doesn’t God Show Mercy to Whomever He Wills?

“What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”

As opposed to what? Showing mercy to whomever He does not will? Now that would make some interesting theology.

What the text does indicate: Paul is simply saying that God is perfectly just in choosing His elect before they are born, I don’t recall disagreeing with that point. It also states plainly that God’s mercy to His elect is not of us, but comes from Him.

What the text does not indicate: There is no hint that God requires nothing of those whom He chooses to save. In fact, the exact opposite is indicated throughout the scripture.

“But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.” [James 4:6 (see also Proverbs 3:34 and 1 Peter 5:5)]

This would imply that election and receiving of God’s grace are not earned or merited by works, but still conditional. Election coming from God and not from us and Him setting conditions to us receiving His mercy are not mutually exclusive ideas. To say that this passage of scripture implies that there are no conditions to receiving God’s mercy simply because it is according is to His will is to flatly assume that God wills to elect people unconditionally — a classic case of begging the question. This portion then is proof only of election, not unconditional election as has often been purported.

Doesn’t God Harden the Hearts of Those Whom He Does Not Wish to Save?

“For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will [have mercy], and whom He will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? [What] if God, willing to shew [His] wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory…”

What the text does indicate: That God both shows mercy and hardens the hearts of whom He wills, making some into vessels of His mercy and others into the vessels of His wrath by hardening them against the truth, and is not unrighteous in doing so.

What the text does not indicate: That God hardens the non-elect because He does not desire that they be saved.

Reading this passage in a vacuum, Calvinists conclude that God must harden people because He simply does not want them to be saved (presumably because Christ did not die for them, what they call limited atonement). Based on this interpretation, they attack the meaning of passages like this regularly:


“For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have [i.e. desires] all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

But the ninth chapter of Romans is meant to be interpreted in the context of the rest of the book it was written in as well; take a look at Romans chapter 1 (emphasis mine):

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [Him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity…” (Romans 1:18-29)

Far from the picture the Calvinists paint from the text a few chapters ahead in the same book, Romans 1 clearly states that God darkens peoples hearts and gives them over to a wicked mind because they reject and forget Him. Romans chapter 9 simply states that God hardens the hearts of whomever He wishes, which should be taken in the context of what Romans chapter 1 has already stated. This text is no proof of limited atonement or unconditional election; but it is proof of God’s absolute power over the human heart, and that God bears with and uses even those who hate Him for His greater glory. I once watched a friend of mine who was quite a proficient potter at his wheel. A good potter has absolute control over the clay he molds; and in the same way, God’s sovereignty extends to and supersedes the human will. Though the Bible does indicate that free will exists, it is apparent that it is a free will ultimately limited by the will of God. But this is no cause for concern if you remain in Christ and follow His teachings, for it is also written:


“Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. ” (1 John 2:24)

Bottom Line:

  • Romans chapter 9 addresses the issues of God’s election of, mercy to, and hardening the hearts of men.

  • There is no evidence in the entire passage that election unto salvation and God’s mercy are unconditional, nor that God hardens the hearts of men because He does not wish them to be saved.

  • There is ample evidence throughout the Bible that God desires that all men be saved, but that His election unto salvation is conditional.

Leave a comment
by J.C. Thibodaux on September 30, 2019  •  Permalink
Posted in Calvinism, Security, Soteriology

Posted by J.C. Thibodaux on September 30, 2019

https://indeathorlife.wordpress.com/2019/09/30/the-security-of-salvation-2/

A Brief Debate About the Definition of Foreknowledge in 1 Peter 1:2

While researching divine foreknowledge online one day, I came across a blogspot called “A Form of Sound Words.” Immediately spotting the old “foreknowledge = predestination” error, along with the glaring mistake that “‘foreknowledge’ and ‘foreordained’ are from the exact same Greek word” that Calvinists are apt to employ, plus the most oversimplistic and ill-informed arguments against the actual use of the word in its context, I had to drop a comment. (my commentary here is of course in green)

Dear Rand, your reasoning about God’s foreknowledge is flawed. Election according to foreknowledge does not require that anything be ‘news’ or a surprise to God. He did not foreknow the elect because He foreordained them, that would be foreknowledge according to election, the opposite of what 1 Peter 1:2 states. How this could be an attack on God’s omniscience you really have yet to explain.

As far as your objection to the meaning of Romans 8:29-30, God did not “foresee saving faith” as states the straw-man Calvinists so love to burn, but foreknew how each of us would react to the grace He would offer. In other words, it is foreknowledge in the context of His grace, not what we would have done without it.

Lastly, the words for ‘foreknowledge,’ and ‘foreknown’ (foreordained) in 1 Peter 1:2 and 20 respectively are not the same word, ‘foreknowledge’ is ‘prognosis’ and ‘foreknown’ is ‘proginosko.’ While the latter may mean foreordination in this context (ginosko also carries a variety of meanings), prognosis consistently refers to foreknowledge, just as gnosis consistently refers to knowledge.

In Christ,
[J.C. Thibodaux]

The response was swift and underwhelming.

J.C.,

“He did not foreknow the elect because He foreordained them, that would be foreknowledge according to election, the opposite of what 1 Peter 1:2 states.”

Check the definition of “prognosis”. It means foreknowledge or pre-arrangement. God’s people are elect because God foreknew and pre-arranged (for-ordination) all things.

“God did not “foresee saving faith” as states the straw-man Calvinists so love to burn, but foreknew how each of us would react to the grace He would offer.

Nonsense babbling, and same difference. God’s grace is irresistible to His elect ( Romans 9:18 ). God doesn’t give a teaspoon of grace and then waits to see what we are going to do. God’s grace to His elect is saving, and saving to the uttermost. Ephesians 1:3-6 makes this all too evident (you’ll notice that there is nothing said in this passage of a necessary responce on the part of the elect):

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.”

Your last paragraph doesn’t go anywhere, Josh, so I’m really not sure how to respond to it. I didn’t say that “prognosis” and “proginosko” were the same word. I said they were from the same root, check Strong’s concordance. He mentioned nothing about root words in his post, he said that ‘foreknow’ and ‘foreknowledge’ were from the exact same Greek word.

Reconsider, my friend, for you err.

Errr…no. I persisted.

Hello again brother,

Well for starters, Romans 9:18 says nothing about God’s grace being irresistible, simply that God will show mercy and harden whoever He wishes to, with no conditionality or lack thereof being implied. You are correct in that God does not give a small amount of His grace and just wait to see what happens. Perfect foreknowledge of how each will receive or reject it makes such a thing unnecessary — starkly different from ‘foreseeing faith inherent in the sinner’ despite all objections to the contrary.

My last paragraph addressed your sentence, “see 1 Peter 1:2 and 1 Peter 1:20, foreknowledge” and “foreordained” are from the exact same Greek word.” They are not from the exact same Greek word (unless you are referring to the word ‘pro’). Ginosko and gnosis are different words that have different connotations, which I’ve already pointed out.

“Check the definition of “prognosis”. It means foreknowledge or pre-arrangement. God’s people are elect because God foreknew and pre-arranged (for-ordination) all things.”

‘Foreknowledge’ as it is used in Acts 2:23 could imply some level of pre-arrangement, but the derivation of that meaning is contextually based. Foreknowledge/foreknowing in the context of salvation cannot mean strictly ‘pre-arrangement,’ else Romans 8:29 would say, “Whom he did foreordain he did pre-destinate…,” an error of redundancy. The idea that God’s foreknowledge in relation to salvation refers to prescience (from Romans 8 and 1 Peter 1) is historically recognized by early writers in the church who were fluent in the language that the New Testament was written in.

“And in short, sirs,” said I, “by enumerating all the other appointments of Moses I can demonstrate that they were types, and symbols, and declarations of those things which would happen to Christ, of those who it was foreknown were to believe in Him…” Justin Martyr, Dialogue of Justin, chapter XLII

“We-who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation -have received, in the times known beforehand, [the blessings of salvation] according to the ministration of the Word…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter I

Despite all the doctrinally-driven grammatical gymnastics Calvinists attempt, there is no reason from the grammar, larger context of scripture, or history to force any meaning onto prognosis in 1 Peter 1:2 other than its primary meaning: foreknowledge.

In Christ,
J.C. Thibodaux

Not to be outdone, Rand started to dazzle me with his scholastic aptitude.

Again J.C., you err.

“Perfect foreknowledge of how each will receive or reject it makes such a thing unnecessary”

This argument is foolish. God knew for before He created anything Who He would create, and what that soul would do with the Gospel. In the act of then creating these souls, God, and this is just logic, for-ordained all things. Disputing this is an exercise in futility and folly. Unless of course He chose to give us free will. He was so dazzling that I had trouble even putting this sentence together.

“They are not from the exact same Greek word (unless you are referring to the word ‘pro’).

Again, these words have the same root. I don’t know what you know about the Greek language (Enough to know how prognosis is used), but I do know how well Strong’s is:

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/la…267& Version=kjv

http://www.blueletterbible.org/c…2& version=KJV#2

“…is historically recognized by early writers in the church who were fluent in the language that the New Testament was written in.

Frankly, J.C., I couldn’t care less what the early writers recognized. Many of the “early writers” hadn’t even figured out the doctrine of the Trinity. You’ve got to be kidding. Most Calvinists I argue with fight tooth and nail for the intellectual high ground, this guy insistently hands it to me. Their words are not God-breathed. God’s foreordination and foreknowledge are tied in together and are inseparable. Your view of Romans 8:29 not withstanding.

Finally, J.C., I know you’ve visited my “Commenting Rules” and I will now insist you obey them. Self-serving rules or no, when you accuse someone of error, you’d best be able to back it up. You are not here to learn, you are here to teach, and I have no time for your error. I know your position, and your sentiment, I once shared them; but the fact of the matter is, it is you who are working “gymnastics” to dodge the Truth of God’s foreordination and election. Concerning exactly which amazing acrobatic feats I was performing, he was not forthcoming.

These doctrines are all over the Bible, and you need to bow to them, not fight them (as your site clearly does). I need to not fight them? If what he’s saying is correct, then I have no choice as to whether I fight or accept them.

Man is Totally Depraved:

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (2 Corinthians 2:14)

God Sovereignly elected and predestinated His people unto life in Christ:

“”Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.” (Ephesians 1:3-6)

God’s people are predestinated and elected in Christ for He bore their sins, and theirs only:

“He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify MANY; for he shall bear THEIR iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:11)

God’s election is without repentance, His grace is irresistible:

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.” (John 6:37-39)

Since salvation is completely wrought of God, God’s people are eternally secure in Christ:

“Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:33-39)

I Wonder if he’s a five-pointer…

Take Gamaliel’s advice, J.C.. Don’t fight the Doctrines of Grace, they are of God.

Ah yes, more Calvinist grandstanding. I quickly switched my brain back on and replied:

Dear brother,

For starters, look at the words themselves: ‘prognosis’ is from ‘gnosis’ (noun), ‘proginosko’ is from ginosko (verb), though sharing a root, they are not “from the exact same greek word” as you first asserted, as one is a noun, the other a verb, extremely basic grammar; hence my original point about their uses. (I was going to drop the issue, but if he’s going to be condescending enough to drop links to a concordance, then I thought it best to clarify my original point. If he meant they had the same root, fine; but his original statement was misleading)

“God’s foreordination and foreknowledge are tied in together and are inseparable.”

Inseparable, but not synonymous, otherwise you are still faced with the problem of Romans 8:29: If ‘foreknowledge’ means ‘predestination,’ then it effectively says, ‘For whom he did predestinate, he also did predestinate’ by the logic you are employing.

The crux of my assertions is this: The primary meaning of ‘prognosis’ is indisputably ‘foreknowledge,’ and should be interpreted as such unless there is clear contextual evidence to the contrary. The standard definition fits the context of the passage perfectly well, so if you are so sure of this novel interpretation, then on you rests the burden of linguistic evidence for it, other than the fact that it could conceivably be stretched to mean what you say; Ockham’s razor inevitably cuts the other way.

“Frankly, J.C., I couldn’t care less what the early writers recognized. Many of the ‘early writers’ hadn’t even figured out the doctrine of the Trinity.”

Well Justin and Irenaeus were obviously not among those.

“The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63)

“But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues…” (Against Heresies, Book II, ch. 30, section 9) Apparently in Rand’s estimation, the writers in the early church were a bunch of theologically unevolved neanderthals who could just barely grasp the fact that Christ died to atone for sins, and obviously lacked the Reformation-era theology critically needed to guide their linguistic skills.

For the record, I know they are not inspired, they were just as fallible as John Calvin and Augustine were; they were just much better at understanding Greek. That had to hurt.

“You are not here to learn, you are here to teach…”

A very good way to learn is to discuss; to hear what others have to say. It helps one learn what can stand up to scrutiny and what cannot. Extremely true in my case. Arguing on a forum was how I learned most of what I know about Calvinism and the reasoning its proponents use.

As far as your points:
Man is Totally Depraved – I agree.

God Sovereignly elected and predestinated His people unto life in Christ – Also agree, He does so on the basis of His foreknowledge.

God’s people are predestinated and elected in Christ for He bore their sins, and theirs only – Christ died for the whole world (1 John 2:2), though only the elect will receive remission of sins.

God’s election is without repentance, His grace is irresistible – Neither John 6, nor any other passage of scripture implies that God’s grace is irresistible.

Since salvation is completely wrought of God, God’s people are eternally secure in Christ – Partially agree. We are eternally secure as long as we remain in Christ. Nothing can tear us away from Christ, though I believe it’s possible for one to willingly walk away. A clear example of how one may do this is found in Revelation 22:19,

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.” My usual opener, and still undefeated.

If the guaranteed perseverance of the saints is such a vital doctrine of God’s grace, then why would He give a warning with a consequence that would utterly negate that? There is simply no way to square this final warning of scripture with Calvinist doctrine without making it void. I therefore cannot accept the idea that a believer can never fall from grace as being scriptural, and therefore cannot accept the doctrines espoused by John Calvin.

I will conclude my posts for now. If you have any linguistic evidence for selectively redefining foreknowledge or wish to discuss Revelation 22 or some other subject, then you are welcome to contact me. As per your rules, please feel free to put in a parting shot about me kicking against the goads/fighting God/etc., such things won’t offend me. And despite any minor differences of opinion, may God bless you richly in Christ Jesus.

In Christ,
J.C. Thibodaux

Denotation, check. Context, check. History, check. Linguistic evidence, check. Continuity, check. Parsimony, check. Looks like prognosis apparently indicates knowledge of the future, with only dogmatic bias as a basis for reinterpreting it. I ended my posts, figuring that any other response he could come up with would amount to little more than a verbal slap (his rules do say he gets the last word after all), and was apparently correct in my deduction. Unable to establish his point or present any clear and objective evidence in support of it, and effectively left with nothing more than ad hominem, he took the Dordt approach of attempting to silence all opposition by deleting the last post. Which shows once again that if there is one thing that militant Calvinists cannot stand, it is one who reads his or her Bible disagreeing with them.

Leave a comment
by J.C. Thibodaux on September 30, 2019  •  Permalink
Posted in Calvinism, Debate, Foreknowledge, Sovereignty

Posted by J.C. Thibodaux on September 30, 2019

https://indeathorlife.wordpress.com/2019/09/30/a-brief-debate-about-the-definition-of-foreknowledge-in-1-peter-12/

Calvinism and Free Will, an Exegetical Vindication of Matthew 23:37

[Guest article by Kangaroodort; originally published on my old site in 2007]

Arminians have long pointed to Matthew 23:37 to respond to the Calvinist doctrines of determinism, limited atonement, and irresistible grace.

Calvinism teaches that Christ died only for the elect (particular atonement), that he has decreed whatsoever shall come to pass in human history (determinism- no human free will as pertains to true contingencies), and that man has nothing to do with his own salvation (monergism), which necessitates their doctrine of irresistible grace.

Matt. 23:37 poses serious problems for all of these doctrinal positions. It would seem that though Christ genuinely desired the salvation of the Jews, they were not saved. They were not saved because they were unwilling. If this be the case, then Calvinism cannot stand. Why?

Calvinists believe in unconditional election and reprobation. God determined from all eternity who would be saved and who would be damned. This determination was unconditional. This choice was according to God’s good pleasure. It pleased God to unconditionally elect some for eternal life. It also pleased God to unconditionally reprobate others to eternal punishment [this may be an active or passive reprobation]. Arminians feel that any such choice, if truly unconditional, would make God arbitrary. Very few Calvinists want to claim such a word as a description of God. They contend that God’s choice was not arbitrary but was still unconditional. If God’s choice was not arbitrary, then he must have had some reason for choosing one and rejecting the other. The Calvinist avoids this conclusion by appealing to God’s inscrutable counsel. God had a reason, but it had nothing to do with those being chosen or rejected, and it is simply beyond our understanding. This is the approach taken by Peterson and Williams in Why I Am Not An Arminian. They state, “His gracious choosing ultimately transcends our reason, but it is not arbitrary.” [pg. 66] The Arminian finds this unacceptable given the clear Biblical assertion that one is saved or rejected based on whether or not that person believes the gospel or continues in unbelief (Jn. 3:16-18, 36). The Arminian contends as strongly as the Calvinist for the Biblical doctrine of election, but believes that God’s decision to elect was based on the free response of his creatures to either accept or reject the gift of salvation.

Matt. 23:37 lines up perfectly with the Arminian view. In the Arminian view God genuinely desires that all of his creatures be saved (see also Ezk. 18:31, 32; 33:10, 11; 1 Pet. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:3). If they are not saved, it is due to their own refusal of God’s gracious gift, and not because God has unconditionally determined from all eternity to damn them (Hosea 11:1-2; Jer. 13:15-17; Rom. 10:21; Heb. 3:7-13). The Calvinist feels that determinism is the only way to reconcile human choices with God’s sovereignty1. There is no room for libertarian free will in their theology. Some Calvinists then deal with these passages by dividing God’s will into parts which are plainly contradictory. They maintain that God does not desire the eternal death of the wicked while at the same time unconditionally determining from all eternity that some should remain wicked, never know his saving grace, and perish eternally, according to his good pleasure. Here is pictured a God who stretches his hands out to the perishing while refusing to give them the grace they need to be saved. He can say that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, while secretly desiring and guaranteeing their eternal death. The Arminian points out the inherent facade and is met with responses like, “God’s ways and thoughts are high above ours; his counsel is inscrutable”, or “Who are you O’ man to talk back to God?” etc. John Wesley summed up the problem well,

Our blessed Lord does indisputably command and invite “all men everywhere to repent” [Acts 17:30]. He calleth all. He sends his ambassadors in his name, “to preach the gospel to every creature” [Mark 16:15]. He himself “preached deliverance to the captives” [Luke 4:18] without any hint of restriction or limitation. But now, in what manner do you represent him while he is employed in this work? You suppose him to be standing at the prison doors, having the keys thereof in his hands, and to be continually inviting the prisoners to come forth, commanding them to accept of that invitation, urging every motive which can possibly induce them to comply with that command; adding the most precious promises, if they obey; the most dreadful threatenings, if they obey not. And all this time you suppose him to be unalterably determined in himself never to open the doors for him, even while he is crying, “Come ye, come ye, from that evil place. For why will ye die, O house of Israel?” [cf. Ezek. 18:31]. “Why” (might one of them reply), “because we cannot help it. We cannot help ourselves, and thou wilt not help us. It is not in our power to break the gates of brass [cf. Ps. 107:16], and it is not thy pleasure to open them. Why will we die? We must die, because it is not thy will to save us.” Alas, my brethren, what kind of sincerity is this which you ascribe to God our Saviour? [Excerpt from Predestination Calmly Considered; Readings in the History of Christian Theology, Volume 2, pg. 97]

Consider the Lord’s words to Judah in Jeremiah 13:15-17,

Hear and pay attention, do not be arrogant, for the LORD has spoken. Give glory to the LORD your God before he brings the darkness…But if you do not listen, I will weep in secret because of your pride; my eyes will weep bitterly, overflowing with tears, because the LORD’s flock will be taken captive.”

With regards to this passage, Walls and Dongell make the following observation,

Knowing that Judah did not turn and listen, the Calvinist concludes that God had already chosen to withhold his transforming grace from them, though he could easily have granted it. So while the text seems to identify Judah’s pride as the root cause of punishment, the Calvinist instead concludes that Judah’s ability to repent depends on God’s eternally fixed plan. Again, although the text seems to identify salvation as God’s deepest desire, the Calvinist must conclude that at a deeper level God never intended to bestow transforming grace on Jeremiah’s hearers. In other words, the true intentions of God cannot be discerned from his words. [Why I Am Not A Calvinist, pg. 57- emphasis in original]

It would seem that some Calvinists are rather uncomfortable with appealing solely to contradictory wills within God, and prefer rather to undertake exegetical wrangling in order to conform these passages to the tenets of Calvinist theology. This is the approach taken by James White in, The Potter’s Freedom. His handling of Matthew 23:37 is revealing, and ultimately does more harm than good for his position.

In Chapter 6, Mr. White attempts to explain away what he refers to as Norman Geisler’s “Big Three” verses to which he makes constant appeal in his book (Matt. 23:37; 1 Tim. 2:4; and 2 Pet. 3:9). His treatment of Christ’s lament over Jerusalem in Matt. 23:37 is not only problematic, but detrimental to his Calvinism. The passage reads, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” This passage seems to plainly indicate that Christ genuinely desired the salvation of the Jews (cf. Ezk. 18:30-32; 33:11), but their unwillingness prevented him from saving them. Mr. White wastes no time in helping us understand that we have it all wrong, and this should be very plain to us if we would just focus very hard on the context. The passage in question comes after a lengthy rebuke of the Pharisees and Scribes for being blind guides, hypocrites, etc. Therefore, Mr. White concludes that when Jesus says “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem”, he is not speaking of the Jews in general, or Jerusalem personified, but the leaders of Jerusalem (the hypocritical Pharisees and Scribes), and saying that he wanted to gather their children [in some sense, then, the Jews are the Pharisee’s and Scribe’s children?], but these corrupt leaders were not willing [to let Jesus gather “their”, i.e. the Pharisee’s and Scribe’s] children to himself, and therefore it was not the children themselves that were not willing. Mr. White concludes, “Jesus speaks to the leaders about their children that they, the leaders, would not allow him to ‘gather’…This one consideration alone renders the passage useless for the Arminian seeking to establish freewillism.” [pg. 138]

This “exegesis” is problematic for several reasons. First, it is hard to fit the further comments made by Jesus of these people (in verses 38, and 39) with the idea that Christ is only addressing these corrupt leaders. It is to the same people that Christ says, “For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” [vs.39] If Mr. White’s interpretation is accurate, then this statement must also be directed to the wicked Scribes and Pharisees. Were they the same who would call him “Blessed” when they saw him again? Such an interpretation does not seem to fit the historical context, for the Scribes and Pharisees certainly saw Christ again after this event and continued to be hostile towards his ministry to the point of securing his death. If Christ is speaking of the final restoration of Israel, as many scholars believe, then surely all of the people of Jerusalem are in view and not just the Scribes and Pharisees. Again, if Christ was addressing the Scribes and Pharisees that he had just rebuked, it is quite clear that none of them survived to see Israel’s final restoration. Even If we apply these passages to the triumphal entry (as very few scholars seem willing to do), it was the common people who called him “blessed”, and the Pharisees who called on Christ to rebuke them. Mr. White does not even address these verses in his book.

Second, this same lament is recorded in Luke 13:34-35 in a completely different context; one which will not so easily lead to Mr. White’s conclusions (in Luke, the Pharisees are trying to protect Jesus from Herod). Mr. White does not even mention the Luke account.

Third, there is no exegetical warrant for making such a strong distinction between “Jerusalem” and the “children” of Jerusalem. Such was a common use of Biblical language to use two terms to describe the same object. In the Old Testament We find God both calling his people “Israel”, and the “children of Israel”. Consider the word usage in Jeremiah Chapter 4, “At that time this people and Jerusalem will be told, ‘A scorching wind from the barren heights in the desert blows toward my people, but not to winnow or cleanse; a wind too strong for that comes from me. Now I pronounce my judgments against them…O Jerusalem, wash the evil from your heart and be saved…Tell this to the nations, proclaim it in Jerusalem…Your own conduct and actions have brought this upon you. This is your punishment…My people are fools; they do not know me. They are senseless children; they have no understanding.” [11, 14, 16, 18, 22, NIV-emphasis mine] It is clear that, in these passages, The Lord speaks to the city, the people, and the children as the same entity. When Jeremiah speaks of Jerusalem it is an obvious personification of those who live within the city, for he says of Jerusalem, “wash the evil from your heart”. Just as in Jeremiah’s day, the city is about to be destroyed due to the sin of its people. These are the very people whom the Lord desired to save. Their destruction is deserved due to their continual rebellion. They were “unwilling” to submit to their Lord, but instead killed those sent to them who were calling them to repentance. They will compound these sins by rejecting and killing the very Son of God. The city will therefore suffer destruction, and the rebellious “children”, unless they repent, will suffer the loss of their eternal souls,

When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.” [NAS- Luke 19:41-44-emphasis mine].

Notice that in this parallel lament Christ says that the city’s enemies will level “you” and “your children within you”. If we assume again that “Jerusalem” is shorthand for the leaders of Jerusalem, then we need to explain how “your children” can be within these corrupt leaders [Jerusalem]. Obviously, as in Matt. 23:37, Jerusalem is personified, and is not a reference to leaders as contrasted with the common people of the city.

The fourth and most glaring problem comes from the fact that if we accept Mr. White’s “exegesis”, it creates an even bigger problem for his Reformed doctrines. Remember, according to Calvinism, God is sovereign over his creatures to such an extent that they have nothing to do with their own salvation (monergism). When God desires to save his elect, nothing can stop him, not even the unwillingness of the rebellious sinner (God will simply “make” him “willing”). Man can do nothing to thwart God’s saving purposes, they are irresistible. This is the very doctrine that Mr. White is trying to preserve with his “exegesis” of Matt. 23:37. But does he succeed?

Listen again to Mr. White’s explanation, “Jesus speaks to the leaders about their children that they, the leaders, would not allow him to ‘gather’.” [pg. 138] He reinforces this by connecting it to a previous verse [13], “But woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from the people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.” [138] Mr. White, then, trades one problem in for another, for the text plainly states that the Pharisees and Scribes were not allowing those who were entering to go in!! Now we have really opened a can of worms! If those who are saved are the ones that God has unconditionally elected from all eternity, how could anyone, including the Scribes and Pharisees, prevent them from entering in? How could they possibly “shut off the kingdom of heaven” from them? How could anyone “not allow [Jesus] to gather” them to himself? If they are the elect, then nobody can effectively “shut off the kingdom” from them; and if they are reprobates, it is God who has “shut off the kingdom” from them (by refusing them his saving grace), and not the Pharisees! And if they are reprobates without hope (for God has eternally and unconditionally decreed to reject them), then in what sense could Christ possibly have “longed” to gather them unto himself? Perhaps Mr. White did not think through the ramifications of his conclusions, or perhaps he just hoped that we would not. Whether we accept the traditional Arminian interpretation, or Mr. White’s proposed exegesis, Calvinism still suffers a fatal blow.

1 The Arminian typically holds to a libertarian view of free will. This view maintains that when a person makes a choice, he could just as truly have chosen otherwise. The person himself is the cause of his choice, gives weight to the options presented to him, and is therefore truly responsible for his choices. Calvinism typically holds to either determinism or compatibilism. For an excellent treatment on the various views of human freedom, see Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell, Why I Am Not A Calvinist, pp. 96-153.

Leave a comment
by J.C. Thibodaux on September 30, 2019  •  Permalink
Posted in Calvinism, Election, Soteriology

Posted by J.C. Thibodaux on September 30, 2019

https://indeathorlife.wordpress.com/2019/09/30/calvinism-and-free-will-an-exegetical-vindication-of-matthew-2337/

The Mystery of the Trinity and the Rational Mind

[A guest article by Kangaroodort, originally published on my old site in 2007]
It is often objected by certain sects that the Triune God of orthodox Christianity is incoherent or “unreasonable”, and therefore should be rejected. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, among others, tend to argue against the Trinity along these lines. It should be remembered, however, that these groups (particularly the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses) rely strongly on extra biblical sources (i.e. Joseph Smith, his writings and supposed revelations; the New World Translation and the teachings of Charles T. Russell) and therefore cannot honestly claim to reject the Trinitarian position based on logical consistency alone.
Despite this fact, both sects have attacked this doctrine, and attempted to lure orthodox Christians into their unbiblical views of God by appealing to the supposed irrationality of the Trinitarian doctrine. It is the purpose of this essay to take these arguments head on and demonstrate that such arguments themselves are based on faulty reasoning. It will also be demonstrated how Christians can rationally and Biblically accept the truth of the Triune Godhead without pretending to have a full understanding of God’s nature.

The Bible clearly teaches that there are aspects of God’s nature that are beyond the grasp of his creatures. To believe that we can fully comprehend the nature of the infinite God would be to elevate ourselves to his level. This is exactly the consequences of such arrogant thinking as revealed in Mormon theology. Mormons have consequently reduced God to an exalted man and exalted themselves as “gods in embryo” hopeful to someday attain to godhood complete with control over their own planet. They, therefore, posit the notion of innumerable “almighty gods” throughout the universe (and no doubt infinite parallel universes considering ours is hardly adequate to accommodate so many gods). They reject the Trinity as understood by orthodox Christians based on its supposed irrationality, but fail to see the irrationality inherent in their own system. How can the Mormon rationally explain how there could be more than one “almighty” God? The word “almighty” is exclusive if the word is to retain any meaning at all. Therefore, rationally speaking, there can only be one “almighty” God, just as the Scriptures faithfully and powerfully declare. Mormons also run into problems with ultimate origins since to be true to their system there must be something like an endless extrapolation of gods that were once men. When did it all begin? If a god is to be defined as an exalted man then the Mormon cannot answer this question. Mormons cannot account for their own existence since their theological system makes ultimate origins impossible.

The Mormon confronted with such questions will have little recourse than to appeal to “mystery” in order to defend their doctrine, for it seems impossible that there can be any “rational” explanation. They might say that such things are beyond our capacity to comprehend, or that they are “sealed” and yet to be revealed. This, however, is exactly the kind of Christian response the Mormons find unacceptable with regards to the Triune nature of the Biblical God.

Many Mormon apologists love to make fun of Christians’ attempts to grasp the concept of the Triune God. They pride themselves with having the “answers” that less informed Christians, without the benefits of new revelations, do not and cannot have. But are the Mormons playing fair? It has already been observed that Mormons, if honest and asked the right questions, cannot make sense of their own Theological systems. They cannot explain how their prophets can contradict each other, make embarrassing translating blunders (as in the Book of Abraham), give false prophecies, and still be revelators of the God of truth. They cannot explain how God can be unchanging from “everlasting to everlasting”, (Moroni 7:22; 8:18; Morm. 9:9-10,19), yet be an exalted man who went through numerous changes to become a god. They cannot explain how Elohim and Yahweh can be two separate Gods when scripture clearly demonstrates that they are the same God. Again, and again the Mormon must cry out “mystery”, or “sealed”, when confronted with these difficulties. At times they will make attempts to explain these problems away but only find themselves immersed in contradiction. Explanations are plenty, but “rational” explanations are unattainable.

Jehovah’s Witnesses fare no better with regards to a rationally alternative Theological system. In their effort to strip Christ of his Deity and reduce the Holy Spirit to a mere “force” or “energy”, they have fallen into the trap of becoming polytheistic like the Mormons, a concept abhorrent to the Witnesses. They have written their own Bible because to accept the true Bible is to accept the Deity of Christ and the personhood and Deity of the Holy Spirit. It has been well documented that those responsible for this “special” translation were ignorant of the dead languages, and only one of their number had anything beyond a High school diploma (many of them did not even finish High school). It should be no surprise that no one outside of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ organization lend any credibility to this bizarre translation. In their effort to strip Christ of his Deity, they have translated John 1:1 as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God.” They have thus succeeded in creating two Gods despite their claims to being monotheistic. It should not surprise us that nearly all attempts to counter or discredit the orthodox Trinitarian position result in some form of polytheism and a gross distortion of Scriptural teachings.

So what of the Christian’s appeal to mystery? Do they have any justification in claiming that the nature of the eternal God cannot be fully comprehended? Let us look to Scripture to find out what God has to say about Himself. In Exodus 33, we find an account of Moses desiring to fully experience the eternal God. Moses was one whom the Lord spoke to “face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.” We must be cautious, however, not to read too much into this verse, as the Mormons have, in an effort to prove that God is an exalted man and not a Spirit, since this verse says he has a “face”. The verse must be read in context. Moses is merely explaining his experience by way of human analogy and is not making a declaration that he literally gazed into the face of God. God plainly tells Moses in verse 20 “You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live.” This is in response to Moses asking God, “I pray you, show me your glory.” God is pleased, however, with Moses’ request and allows Moses to see a visible after-effect of His glory (verses 21-23). It becomes clear, then, from this passage that there is something of God that no man, including Moses, can see or grasp. There is divine mystery within the eternal God. It should be noted that the Lord correlated “my face” with “me” in the second half of the verse. Moses could not see God’s “face” because no man can see “me” and live. Why did the Lord not say, “…no man can see my face and live?” God seems to be making a purposeful connection between ‘my face’ and ‘me.’ To see God’s face, therefore, seems to refer to seeing God’s very essence. While Moses was permitted to see a visible expression of God, he was forbidden to gaze upon His divine essence.

Another passage of interest regarding this mysterious aspect of God’s nature is Judges 13:11-22. The angel of the Lord appeared to Manoah and his wife concerning their unborn son, Samson, who God would use to deliver His people from the oppression of the Philistines. It must first be understood that “the angel of Yahweh” here is a manifestation of God himself and most scholars see such manifestations as the pre-incarnate Christ. This is in harmony with John 1:1 that declares Jesus to be the living and divine “Word”, and the Hebrew meaning for “angel” which means “messenger” or “one sent”. It is not difficult, therefore, to see how the divine “messenger of Yahweh” is the living Word that is with God and is God. That the angel of the Lord is God is clearly seen from verse 22, “So Manoah said to his wife, ‘We will surely die, for we have seen God.'” The angel of the Lord is often “seen” without those seeing him experiencing death. It is therefore, again, proper for us to view this as the pre-incarnate Christ in light of Col. 1:15 and Hebrews 1:3, where Christ is described as the image or expression of the invisible God (invisible because He is Spirit and not flesh and bones as Mormons would have us believe). The Son is, therefore, the visible expression of the invisible God (the Father). For this reason, man has been able to see the Son and live because He is the expression of the Father, but there is still something of God “hidden” within the Son (Col. 1:19; 2:9). For the essence of God, fully realized in the person of Christ, is still hidden from human eyes. Only the “expression” can be seen without causing instant death.

In the Hebrew culture names play a very important role. Biblical names were not seen as arbitrary but rather expressions of the personality of those possessing that particular name. This is why to use God’s name vainly was a capital offense, for His name was, to some extant, an expression of his divine nature and person. To misuse God’s name was to disrespect the person and nature of the eternal God. This is very important when dealing with this particular passage of scripture. Manoah (not yet realizing the divinity of the being he is speaking with) asks the angel of the Lord to reveal His name (vs. 17). The Lord’s response is of particular interest, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is incomprehensible?” (vs. 18) While the angel of the Lord could certainly have said “Yahweh”, He chose instead to reply by letting Manoah know that his request could not be fully granted as no mortal can know God in all his fullness. He was trying to give Manoah a clue as to who indeed he was speaking with, not merely a man or an angel, but the incomprehensible God. Manoah somehow failed to make the connection and remained oblivious to the messenger’s true identity until He performed a miracle in his presence (verses 20-22).

We should also make note of Ezekiel’s vision of God. Ezekiel goes into great detail describing the chariot of Cherubim (Ez 1:4-25), and the divine being that sat upon it (vss. 26-28). This is probably the most descriptive vision of God recorded in the Bible, and yet Ezekiel is very cautious in letting his readers know that what he saw was not God in all His fullness, but rather “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.” (verse 28, emphasis added)

So what can we learn from these passages? While it is possible to understand God as far as He is revealed in Scripture, there is an aspect of God that is hidden from mankind, shrouded in mystery, and incomprehensible (1Tim. 6:15, 16). Scripture declares that there is one God in three eternal Persons. We can believe and accept this revelation without fully grasping how such a thing could be so. Duet. 29:29 states, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.” We can rejoice in what God has revealed of himself while standing in awe of the mystery of His divine nature. Such has been the experience of many godly men like Moses, Manoah, and Ezekiel. We have been given further insight into God’s divine nature through the person of Jesus Christ and the writings of the New Testament, but it remains as true today as it was in the days of the exile and before, that the God of the Bible in all his glory and essence is beyond our ability to grasp.

It may be objected, “How then can we be expected to love someone that we can not fully understand?” Here we impose on our relationship with God something we do not impose on our relationships with each other. There is mystery inherent in those made in God’s image just as there is mystery in the nature of God.

No man can adequately explain how a physical brain can interact with or be responsible for an immaterial mind capable of free will and abstract thinking. We can make many observations that lead us to the conclusion that man has an immaterial spirit, but how this is so no one can adequately explain. Does this then mean that I cannot love my wife?   We are physical people made up of molecules that are made up of atoms which are made up of subatomic particles which have completely baffled those who study their behavior (quantum physics). These particles behave strangely, to say the least, and seem to do the impossible. They do not obey the laws of physics as we know them. Simply observing them seems to affect how they react and behave. Light photons seem to be able to exist in two places at the same time. Truly all the laws of physics seem to break down at the subatomic level. No honest quantum physicist would claim to fully understand how such things can be, yet they are capable of loving and interacting with those that are made up of these unruly and truly bizarre particles.

To my knowledge, scientists still cannot make sense of the phenomenon of gravity. While it is understood that our universe could not exist without the strange power of gravity, the causes of gravity are still unknown. There are plenty of theories, but no honest scientist has claimed to fully understand the mystery of gravity. Despite this, we as humans properly interact with gravity every day (i.e. we do not tend to walk off tall buildings or stand under heavy falling objects). Gravity plays a part in every physical interaction we have on this planet. This is not to say that we will not someday understand what causes gravity, but understanding what causes gravity is not a prerequisite for properly interacting with it anymore than my sending a fax requires me to fully understand how a fax machine works.

To claim, as some have done, that there can be no mystery within the Creator of all such things, or that we cannot love that which we cannot fully understand, is to be dishonest with human experience and with the Scriptural record. If we still cannot fathom certain aspects of God’s creation, how then can we expect to fully grasp the nature of the God that spoke them into existence? We can certainly love and experience God without fully comprehending him just as we love and experience each other without fully comprehending our human nature (for what man or woman would honestly claim to have their spouse totally figured out?). God has revealed enough for us to love and interact with each other and Him (Duet. 29:29), but God is not required to reveal that which is beyond us, nor would we be able to understand such things if He did (Judges 13:18; Job 38-42). Our finite brains are not capable of wrapping themselves around the infinite God, and it should seem to be the ultimate in human arrogance and irrationality to think they could. God forgive us for ever trying to reduce the almighty God to our stature for the sake of reason. To do so is to worship ourselves and our finite minds and to strip the living God of the awe-inspiring worship and glory that he alone deserves (Rom. 1:25).

Leave a comment
by J.C. Thibodaux on September 30, 2019  •  Permalink
Posted in Trinity

Posted by J.C. Thibodaux on September 30, 2019

https://indeathorlife.wordpress.com/2019/09/30/the-mystery-of-the-trinity-and-the-rational-mind/

Limited Atonement and the Divine Command to Believe Falsehood

(Revised 11/30/2014, removed a paragraph with little relevance and revised/expanded the conclusion. Much thanks to members of the Society of Evangelical Arminians for their feedback)

When Christians who aren’t from a Calvinist tradition hear about limited atonement, something usually seems entirely wrong about the idea. Indeed, in the face of having no clear biblical data to support such an idea, a substantial body of passages that seem to indicate just the opposite, along with numerous logical difficulties, something just seems entirely wrong with the idea that Christ didn’t die for the sins of a great many people.

Many times, an incorrect belief by itself isn’t particularly harmful, but if taken to its inevitable conclusions, tends to produce great inconsistencies. Limited atonement, if taken in conjunction with the common Calvinist beliefs about the gospel call, inevitably leads to the conclusion that God commands people to believe falsehood. I’ll start by postulating and defending the necessary premises.

Premise 1: God’s command for the non-elect to believe the gospel requires that they must believe that Christ can save them.

For the first part of the premise, we need only establish that the command to believe is given to all, including the non-elect (if limited atonement is true, the term ‘non-elect’ here describes the people for whom Christ did not die to save). Surprisingly, despite their belief in limited atonement, Calvinists are usually among the first to agree that the everyone, elect and non-elect, are commanded by God to believe the gospel.

“First, the preaching of Paul goes out to all, both Jews and Greeks. This is the general call of the gospel. It offers salvation to all who will believe on the crucified Christ. But by and large it falls on unreceptive ears and is called foolishness.” (John Piper, What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism)

“I can proclaim God’s command to repent and believe to all men, and I can do so with passion, not because I pretend to look into God’s heart and mind, but because I know the reality of God’s wrath, the sin of man, and I believe implicitly the promise of God that anyone who turns in faith to Christ will be saved.” (James White, “Phil Johnson on ‘Desire'”)

“If we take the command to believe, with the promise of life upon so doing, for an offer of mercy, there is an eternal truth in it; which is, that God will assuredly bestow life and salvation upon all believers, the proffers being immediately declarative of our duty; secondly, of the concatenation of faith and life, and not at all of God’s intention towards the particular soul to whom the proffer is made….” (John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ)

“The commission He has given His servants is to preach the Gospel to every creature, and they certainly have not fully obeyed until they bid their hearers “Repent ye, and believe the Gospel” (Mark 1:15). Whom God quickens, is His own affair; ours is to faithfully warn the unsaved, to show wherein their sins consists (enmity against God), to bid them to throw down the weapons of their warfare against Him, to call upon them to repent (Acts 17:30), to proclaim the One who receives all who come to Him in faith.” (A.W. Pink, Duty-Faith)

“It is a command to enter and not to enter is disobedience. That is why judgment falls on those, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, “The retribution of God comes to those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. You obey because the gospel is a command. When you share the gospel, you command people to believe. You command people to repent so that it is crystal clear that what they have done is obey or disobey. That’s why I say invitation is not a word that is consistent with commanding. Better to finish your sermon with a command than an invitation.” (John MacArthur, “Two Paths, One Way”)

“We see that God commands men everywhere to repent, Acts 17:30, but it is God who grants repentance 2 Timothy 2:25. We see that God commands people to believe in him yet he opens their hearts to believe, as he did with Lydia in Acts 16:14….” (Matt Slick, Matt Slick vs Lou Rugg Discussion on difficult questions)

It seems that only a far-left-field-hyper-Calvinist could deny that the command to believe is given to everyone. Slick’s comment cites a key passage that makes it clear that the command to believe the gospel is for everyone, everywhere.

“The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent…” (Acts 17:30)

Disobeying such a command is mentioned as being among the reasons that sinners are condemned.

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18)

The command from God Himself, which goes from the mouths of His servants is for all, even people who ultimately end up being false teachers.

“For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.” (2 Peter 2:20-21)

Notice that they turned aside from the holy commandment given to them, not a command given only to others.

1b. Obedience to the gospel entails believing that Christ can save you

Christians since the beginning have understood that believing in Christ is more than just assent that He died and rose (as James also notes, even the demons believe that). True and living faith in Christ requires that we trust in His work on the cross, and in Him as our Savior. Herein lies the second part of the premise: that the aforementioned command requires that they believe that Christ can save them. I don’t think any tenable objection can be raised to this point. One cannot trust Christ as his Savior without believing that He has power to save him.

Consider the counter-example of a lost man who has a Calvinist friend that faithfully witnesses to him. Despite not trusting Christ as his Savior, the man is convinced that limited atonement is true, and that Christ died to save some people. He’s convinced by his prior hardness of heart that he’s simply not one of the elect. As he lays dying, his Calvinist friend tries to persuade him to believe, to which he receives the sinner’s final declaration: “Therein lies life for you, but in that cross there is no hope for me.”

This man has accepted what are, according to Calvinism, the correct facts. But has he obeyed the gospel? No. By the measure of any Christian, he has rejected the gospel and rightly incurred eternal condemnation. To actually obey, he would have had to believe that Christ could save him, not just that Christ can save other people.

Thus is our first premise established: God’s command for the non-elect to believe the gospel requires that they must believe that Christ can save them.

Premise 2: If Limited Atonement is true, then the idea that Christ can save the non-elect is a lie.

Many Calvinists don’t like language that Christ cannot save certain people, but that is an inescapable ramification of limited atonement. Christ either can save one through His sacrificial death, or He cannot. Christ cannot save people for whom He did not die to save. The sacrifice has already been offered, there’s no going back and changing who it was for; there is no other sacrifice, and there is no other way. If the non-elect were excluded, that decision has already been made, and cannot be abrogated. It matters not how many sins the sacrifice was sufficient to cover, if its power to save is not applicable to a person, then Christ cannot save that person.

Thus to believe that Christ can save one of the non-elect, if limited atonement be true, would be a falsehood -often called a ‘lie’ when speaking in an objective sense.

Putting it together

Taking our premises,

P1: God’s command for the non-elect to believe the gospel requires that they must believe that Christ can save them.
P2: If Limited Atonement is true, then the idea that Christ can save the non-elect is a lie.
Conclusion: If Limited Atonement is true, God’s command for the non-elect to believe the gospel requires that they must believe a lie.

Conclusion

And herein lies a major inconsistency that holding to limited atonement yields. In short, if 5-point Calvinism is true, then God effectively commands the non-elect to trust in Christ to save them, when He’s already limited Christ’s atoning sacrifice such that He can never save them!

Besides the readily apparent absurdity of God commanding people to believe what is false, such an inconsistency raises other problems: Accepting and obeying the gospel is characterized throughout the New Testament as belief in the truth, while refusing to do so is opposition to the truth (c.f. John 8:32, Romans 2:8, 15:8 Galatians 2:5, 5:7, Colossians 1:5, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, 2 Timothy 1:4, 2 Timothy 2:25, 3:8, Titus 1:1, James 5:19). Contrary to that description, if Calvinism is true, then the man in our example above is accepting the objective truth and rejecting a falsehood in his rejection of Christ as his Savior. Worse than that, not only is he believing the truth in his rejection of Christ, but he’s condemned for doing so!

Truly, one’s theology is built on shaky ground if it entails that God condemns men for believing the truth. I for one could not swallow such a preposterous ramification. The word of the Lord, especially the proclamation of the gospel -the holy commandment to trust in Christ for one’s salvation- is not given to induce anyone to believe deception. Christ Himself states,

“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:7)

Calvinists should sustain the admirable zeal to proclaim the gospel to all people. Let us all do that without hampering it with tertiary doctrine that would lead to confusing and unscriptural ideas, such as God commanding a great many of those people to believe a lie.

Leave a comment
by J.C. Thibodaux on November 16, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Atonement, Calvinism, Logic & Fallacies, Soteriology

Posted by J.C. Thibodaux on November 16, 2014

https://indeathorlife.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/limited-atonement-and-the-divine-command-to-believe-falsehood/

Debate With Turretin Fan, Rebuttal Essays

[Turretinfan’s Rebuttal Essay]

Perseverance of the Saints is consistent with the Scriptures. It is particularly consistent with the basic theme that God’s love is an unconditional love, that God is able to prevent apostasy, and that it is within Christ’s desire to save to the uttermost those he wishes to save. Furthermore, the concept of saved again / lost again / saved again is completely foreign to Scripture, as is the concept of Christ losing any that the Father gives to him.

In short, when we look at the specific passages that JCT has picked out, we realize that there are reasonable explanations of the verses that harmonize them with the rest of what we know about God. Furthermore, we find that the sense JCT has proposed for those verses actually forces the verses into more or less contradiction with other parts of Scripture.

Thus, not only has the “negative” side of this debate established that there are reasonable sense of the relevant verses consistent with the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, but in fact the “negative” side has established that the alternative sense proposed by JCT is not itself a reasonable interpretation of the verses.

At the heart of the matter, it seems as though JCT feels that the verses should only be there to describe a situation that is contrary both to the best interests of the person involved, and contrary to God’s own desires. Such an interpretation of the verse would require us, in essence, to discard our theology away from a theology including an omnipotent God, since it would in essence declare that God’s attempt to save genuine believers sometimes does not succeed to the uttermost.

Accordingly, we can conclude that contrary to the resolution, the doctrine that teaches that genuine Christians cannot end up in hell (whether due to unfaithfulness or any other reason) is and must be coordinate with the true sense of the largely unrelated passages of Matthew 5:27-30, Hebrews 4:9-11, and Revelation 22:18-19.

(Source)

[My Rebuttal Essay]

TF hurls a few elephants in claiming that I contradict scriptural principles, yet can cite no clear evidence as to how specifically. Apostasy wouldn’t require that God be less-than-omnipotent, merely that He allow its occurrence. His ‘reasonable explanations’ of the passages cited collide with problems I’ve already presented:

  • His interpetation of Matthew 5 explains nothing of how avoiding sin helps one enter into life (Matthew 18, Mark 9).
  • His suggestion that I’m confused concerning Hebrews 4 is confuted by his admission that conditions for Christian and heavenly life aren’t mutually exclusive (second response). He also grossly misrepresents my view as, ‘[by] works,’ which was nowhere suggested.
  • His view of Revelation 22 is self-contradictory: The unsaved aren’t being told what awaits them, since he denies that anyone’s part in New Jerusalem will ever really be taken.

His calls them ‘pastoral warnings,’ given to move believers to perseverance; but his case upon examination falls apart, answering nothing as to why God threatens consequences of damnation to those who can supposedly never suffer them. When finally asked how the consequences specifically would spur one on if they are not real-world possibilities, he appeals to a ‘logical connection’ between warnings and consequences, with no explanation as to how such a connection with what (in his view) amounts to an absurdity could spur on anyone.

His answer to the last question (which follows through with his ‘hypothetical’ interpretation), destroys his argument’s credibility entirely when he states, Hypothetical questions are dangerous, especially when they contradict reality. A ‘logical connection’ to a consequence that ‘contradicts reality’ won’t spur anyone on to anything. People aren’t motivated by what they’re told are hypothetical bluffs, they don’t strive to serve God for the sake of what they think is a hollow myth, and they aren’t driven to persevere by ‘logical connections’ to fairy-tales with no connection to reality –which is exactly what Calvinism makes the consequences of the warnings out to be.

Opening statements
Cross-exam, my questions
Cross-exam, TF’s questions

[Though we were slated for one more essay each, the debate ended here]

Leave a comment
by J.C. Thibodaux on November 29, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Calvinism, Debate, Eternal Security, Perseverance, Soteriology, Warning Passages

Posted by J.C. Thibodaux on November 29, 2012

https://indeathorlife.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/debate-with-turretin-fan-rebuttal-essays/

Perseverance & Warning Passages Debate With Turretinfan: Cross Exam, TF’s Questions

#1 Is God’s love for those humans whom he loves conditional on their behavior, or is God’s love for them unconditional on their behavior?

‘Love’ as it pertains to salvific effectuation is not conditioned upon behavior (in terms of good works) itself, but upon a relationship with Christ (good works being an outworking). God loves all sinners in that He has no pleasure in their deaths and desires their repentance (Ezekiel 33:11), but savingly loves those who receive and abide in Christ.

Continued faith and perseverance are not only qualities of Christian life, but conditions to eternal life. All the promises of God for salvation, preservation, spiritual life, and forgiveness of sin hinge upon remaining in His Son: we remain saved because we persevere in Christ, not vice-versa, for the promises are only for those who by faith and patience inherit them (Hebrews 6:12). Not surprising, since God’s promises of blessing carry conditions of faithfulness throughout scripture. To the profane Eli He says,

“‘I promised that your house and your father’s house would minister before Me forever.’ But now the Lord declares: ‘Far be it from Me! Those who honor Me I will honor, but those who despise Me will be disdained.” (1 Samuel 2:30b)

Even for one who has been known by God (and is thus born of Him), if he turns away, Christ will profit him nothing (Galatians 4:7-9, 5:2), for those who deny Christ will be disowned (2 Timothy 2:12). Such does not constitute God contradicting or denying Himself, since He Himself is the one who has justly declared the condition of perseverance, and remains steadfast to that declaration whether we remain faithful or not.

God desires that none of His apostatize, He also desires that we abstain from fornication (1 Thessalonians 4:3), but does not choose to imperatively halt either from occurring, but strictly warns us against them. Such warnings are of great import, since nowhere does God promise to unalterably cause us to persevere, but rather gives us all that’s requisite to endure (1 Corinthians 10:13).

Unlike the old covenant that the nation of Israel forfeited, the new covenant of God’s law being written on our hearts will not be broken with His chosen people -He will bring the body to completion until the day of Christ. But God’s faithfulness to His covenant does not preclude individuals that have obtained its blessings and later despise Him from being cut off: even when the old covenant was in force, those who forsook it were severed from the covenant body, those unfaithful to it forfeited its promises (Exodus 6:4, Numbers 14:30). This is not unfaithfulness on God’s part, but man’s. Likewise, we under the new covenant are warned not to be highminded about our position, but reverently fear and endure lest we incur like punishment (Romans 11:20-22).

So the love of God is in Christ, the Mediator of the new covenant and Seed to whom the promises were made, in which we share if we abide in Him, and in doing so, keep ourselves in the love of God.

#2 Given your comment, “God desires that none of His apostatize,” (yet seemingly God might not prevent apostasy) is God able to keep people from falling away into apostasy or does something (man’s free will?) stop God from keeping them from falling?

God can do whatever He pleases within the range of His holy nature, nobody prevents Him. If God didn’t care if we apostatized, He wouldn’t give us sustaining grace enough to endure. The fact that men can still fall away despite His provision is easily reconciled by the fact that He doesn’t choose to apply His grace irresistibly. I’d pointed out this concept in 1 Corinthians 10:13, which states that God won’t allow us to be tempted beyond what we can endure. ‘Can’ does not amount to ‘will;’ believers sometimes do fall, but due to our own failures, not want of God’s help.

His provision is evidenced in several passages often mistaken for support of eternal security. John 10:27-29 and Romans 8:35-39 for instance express that no one will ever tear us away from God (as countless martyrs for Christ have by their deaths triumphantly testified), but nowhere does scripture indicate that it’s impossible to willfully walk away from Him, since apostates themselves don’t separate/pluck themselves from God -scripture clarifies that God the Father Himself severs those who don’t remain in Christ (John 15:1-6). Hence, arguments such as the sealing with the Holy Spirit guaranteeing eternal security miss the mark as to how one can be lost: Since the sovereign God has both power and prerogative to cast out those who don’t abide, His own seal is no bar to Him doing so. Having the Spirit is both a gift and responsibility, for those in which the Spirit dwells are the temple of God,

…If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. (1 Corinthians 3:17b)

According to the riches of His grace, God preserves us, sustains us, and works in us to will and do His good pleasure, yet the apostles still plead with us, “not to receive the grace of God in vain” (2 Corinthians 6:1b). God is able to keep us from stumbling and to make the weak in faith to stand (Romans 14:4), yet we are still told,

Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. (1 Corinthians 10:12)

It’s only by God’s grace that the heart can be established in persevering, but the scriptures never portray the operation of grace as something unconditional or irresistible. Grace to endure is never merited, nor is it inescapably instilled, but when enduring temptation it’s written,

Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:16)

So God is able to keep us from falling, but doesn’t choose to do so apart from our willing cooperation (we being freed by His grace to serve Him -Hebrews 12:28), and thus He warns us against the real dangers of apostasy and exhorts us to seek Him,

…be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall. (2 Peter 1:10b)

#3 Given your comment, “God can do whatever He pleases within the range of His holy nature, nobody prevents Him,” is it pleasing and within the range of Christ’s holy nature to save to the uttermost those whom he wishes to save by making intercession for them?

Most definitely. Just as the priests in the Old Testament made intercession for the people, so Christ eternally makes intercession for His, and is our Advocate with the Father if we sin, and the Mediator of the better covenant God has made with us. Unlike the Levitical priests which were imperfect and subject to death, Christ lives forever and is perfect, and so can save to the utmost, in contrast with the animal sacrifices by the Levite priests that could not. He being the sole way to God, our salvation wholly relies upon His mediation between ourselves and the Father. The question as far as the conditionality of salvation is concerned is not whether Christ makes intercession for us, but whether He’ll do so for one who departs from Him. He indicates that He won’t, as He states,

“But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:33, similar statement made in 2 Timothy 2:12)

Some may argue that Christ’s intercession will imperatively keep all genuine believers from apostatizing, but such an idea is not found in scripture. Indeed the fact that His confession of us before the Father is conditioned upon our confession of Him indicates conditionality. Others point to Christ’s prayer in John 17,

…keep through Your name those whom You have given Me… (John 17:11b)

The conditional nature of salvation comes to light when one considers that God keeps us through faith (1 Peter 1:5), which we are exhorted to hold fast to, and told that not all have done so,

Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck… (1 Timothy 1:19)

It must be noted that Paul does not distinguish the latter as some superficial, ineffectual form of faith; nor would the exhortation to hold to faith be coherent if no one with true faith could ever forfeit it. The theme of continuance in the faith of Christ as being necessary to our being forgiven runs throughout the New Testament, many wicked acts such as unforgiveness being incompatible with saving faith:

“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (Matthew 6:14-15)

This sentiment is also reflected in the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18. When scriptural warnings (including the three in question) indicate consequences of damnation for believers who unrepentantly commit certain sins, taking them as serious and violable is not salvation “by works” as was erroneously insinuated in the opening statements –such actions necessarily reflect a heart no longer in union with Christ.

So Christ saving those He wishes to the uttermost by making intercession for them is perfectly in line with conditional security, since the only ones He will confess before the Father are those who hold fast to their confession of Him.

#4 It appears that your position is that genuine believers can violate certain warnings, with the consequence of such violations being hellfire. Is that correct, or is the consequence merely a return to an unsaved (but re-savable) state from a saved state?

Varies. Denying Christ for instance will bring denial by Him, yet Peter repented of his denial and was restored. Speaking against the Spirit (Matthew 12:32) on the other hand, will never be forgiven. For some who have fallen into grievous sin, they can be ‘in danger of hell fire,’ but scripture indicates there’s hope of God restoring backsliders who have not sinned ‘unto death.’

If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. (1 John 5:16)

One can believe, yet be imperiled: the key is that salvation isn’t granted in its entirety when one believes, Paul writes,

…for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. (Romans 13:11b)

While the scriptures do tell us that we who believe are saved, it also indicates that final salvation isn’t obtained during earthly life:

…if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. …Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule…. (Philippians 3:11-12, 16a)

We have to a degree attained salvation through faith, but it’s ours probationally, its condition being continuance in Christ; final salvation is not attained until one has endured to the end. Romans 2 expresses that it is granted at the judgment,

“But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness–indignation and wrath….” (Romans 2:5-8)

Hence while we already possess eternal life in a sense (1 John 5:13), it is not contradictory to call it the ‘hope of eternal life’ (Titus 1:2) or to exhort a fellow believer to ‘lay hold’ on it (1 Timothy 6:12). Additionally, if eternal life were fully and finally ours now, then neglect thereof would be a non-issue,

Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation…? (Hebrews 2:1-3)

From the scriptural record then, some fall into sin, but are brought back; while the completely apostatized are “twice dead, plucked up by the roots” (Jude 12).

#5 Given your assertion that, “We have to a degree attained salvation through faith, but it’s ours probationally, its condition being continuance in Christ; final salvation is not attained until one has endured to the end,” what shall we make of verses that suggest salvation is unconditional on works?

Neither remaining in union with Christ nor continuing in the faith are ‘works,’ otherwise ‘justification by faith’ would be ‘justification by works.’ It would be absurd to call continuance in Christ ‘works’ for being a necessary condition for salvation, as it was even stated from the negative: “[if one] were to lose union with Christ and apostatize, there would be no hope for that person.” (Turretinfan’s fifth answer). The relationship between abiding in Christ and good works was touched upon in my first answer: good works are an outworking of a relationship with Christ, for one bears good fruit by remaining in the vine. Inversely, because sin proceeds from the heart, unrepentant iniquity denotes that wickedness is overcoming one’s heart, which is immiscible with abiding in Christ.

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins…Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:26, 29)

Through His word, God is mighty to save and uphold His own, but this doesn’t constitute unconditional security, since He only grants such preservation based upon one’s relationship with His Son. By faith we stand (2 Corinthians 1:24), but He has no pleasure in anyone who withdraws from it (Hebrews 10:38). A believer who falls into unrepentant sin isn’t in danger because Christ “can’t forgive sin,” but because of the condition of his heart before God and his love towards Christ growing cold. If the sinner turns back to God and acknowledges his wrongdoing, God will gladly forgive him (1 John 1:9); but He rejects one who remains obstinate and proud.

“God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” (James 4:6b)

The real peril of a Christian growing proud is underscored in the warning against making elders out of new believers,

…not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. (1 Timothy 3:6)

The fact that salvation isn’t by works then doesn’t imply that one can remain saved when in willful rebellion against God, as scripture repeatedly states (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Ephesians 5:5, Revelation 21:8) -the doom of one who turns from Christ unto wickedness being worse for him than if he’d never known Him:

For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. (2 Peter 2:20)

Therefore taking the warnings against being surmounted by sin seriously, and regarding their disastrous consequences as real-world possibilities for believers is not ‘works righteousness’ as has been erroneously claimed by some.

Opening statements
Cross-exam, my questions
Rebuttal Essays

Leave a comment
by J.C. Thibodaux on November 29, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Calvinism, Debate, Eternal Security, Perseverance, Soteriology, Warning Passages

Posted by J.C. Thibodaux on November 29, 2012

https://indeathorlife.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/perseverance-warning-passages-debate-with-turretinfan-cross-exam-tfs-questions/

Perseverance & Warning Passages Debate With Turretinfan: Cross Exam, My Questions

#1 How exactly would something like damnation being the consequence to violating a ‘pastoral warning’ “have use in the form of preventing the warned person from ever doing” what is warned against?

To understand how this would work, I suggest making use of an analogy. We are sheep, God is the Shepherd. Suppose that we, the flock of sheep, are feeding at pasture that has, on one side, a sheer 200 foot cliff. Falling off the cliff is “something like damnation” for a sheep.

If the shepherd wanted to keep the sheep from falling off the cliff (i.e. preventing the warned person from ever doing what is warned about), one of the ways he could do so is by warning the sheep of the danger that would befall them if they walked over the cliff. This would spur a rational sheep not to try to walk over the cliff (i.e. not to violate the pastoral warning).

On the other hand, of course, it does not mean that if it looks to the shepherd like a sheep is going to try to ignore his warnings, that he is just going to let the sheep do this thing that would be bad. No, the warning is just one of the ways that the sheep are kept from falling.

This is, of course, an analogy: but it is founded on a Biblical analogy. The Good Shepherd not only warns, exhorts, and uses his rod and staff on the sheep, the Good Shepherd even goes so far as to die for the sheep.

If there is someone who is going to fall off the cliff, it is not going to be the sheep, but the good shepherd. He’ll do everything in his power to save the sheep whom he loves. That’s true, remarkable, self-sacrificing love.

I think it’s fair to say that a genuinely loving Shepherd uses every possible tool to save the sheep he loves: from warnings of the consequences of apostasy, to discipline (in the form of various temporal chastisements), and to promises of reward as well. Thanks be to God that he does, for if he did not, we’d be as helpless as sheep without a shepherd.

Source

#2 How is being diligent to enter into eternal rest so that we do not fall after Israel’s example of unbelief (for which they did not enter that rest) a “condition of Christian life” that is mutually exclusive of being a “condition for Heavenly Life?”

Of course, being a condition of Christian life is not inherently exclusive of being a condition for Christian life. Instead, the conditions of Christian life are a superset. For example, grace from God is a condition both for and of Christian life.

In other words, we view perseverance as fitting within a logical scheme such that all believers will persevere, but not that people are believers because they persevere. Instead, people persevere because they are believers.

John’s epistle is instructive in this regard. John explains:

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1 John 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

The apostle Peter explained the same thing, namely that we who are born again are born of incorruptible seed:

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Thus, as a result those who are born again will persevere – but not contrariwise: in other words, they are not born again because they persevere: to suggest such a thing would be to put the cart before the horse.

To return to the question, it is not that I am claiming that the two ideas are mutually exclusive. In the case of being born again, the condition is both a condition of and a condition for Christian life. Instead, I’m trying to explain that continued faith, repentance, and perseverance to the end are qualities of the Christian life.

They can serve as evidences to us, justifying us (in the sense James speaks of) in the eyes of ourselves and our fellow men. They help us to distinguish the true faith that springs from being born again (1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.) from a dead faith that illustrates that we continue in a state of bondage to sin, not having been freed by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Source

#3 If God unequivocally promises that the consequences of His warnings against apostasy given to the saints will never come to pass, then why should anyone pay any heed or caution to avoid them?

First: Because our paying heed and our giving caution to avoid them, is a means God has ordained to the end of our perseverance. In other words, as already explained, the cautions help us to steer clear of the danger.

Second: Because failure to heed these warnings may give rise to God taking further measures. In other words, if we do not heed these warnings, God may chastise us as sons (with a rod of correction) or as sheep (with a rod and staff), which will not be pleasant for us. Ben Franklin sagely said that experience is a dear [expensive] school, but a fool will learn in no other.

Proverbs 10:13 In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding.

Proverbs 26:3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool’s back.

Third: Because God commands obedience to his warnings. It is a thoroughly sufficient reason to simply answer that God commands us to heed the warnings. That is a perfectly good reason to do something. Even when Abraham did not understand the reason why God wanted him to sacrifice his son Isaac, he obeyed, and that became a demonstration and witness of faith.

Fourth: Because we love God. Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” This is connected with the previous item. Nevertheless, this is an answer to one’s naughty side that says, “Yes, it’s bad: but it’s not like God’s going to punish me eternally, right?” Love should and will constrain us from acting that way. If we love God, we will keep his commandments.

1 John 3:9-11
9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

1 John 5:1-3
1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Source

#4 If both the warnings against final apostasy and their consequences are given to motivate believers to persevere/avoid chastisement/obey/love/etc (as your responses indicate), yet the consequences are not even to be considered real-world possibilities, then how are the given consequences specifically meant to spur believers to perseverance?

The concept of “real-world possibilities” is inherently self-contradictory (i.e. an oxymoron) in the context of this debate.

To distinguish, the science of statistics is not meaningless. The concept of “possibility” exists. It relates to the orderly way in which many “random” events occur. Thus, for example, a meteorologist will predict the chance, possibility, or probability of rain tomorrow. Such discussion has meaning, and we speak reasonably when speak of a “fair coin” in statistical calculations.

Nevertheless, from God’s perspective, there is no such thing as “chance,” “possibility,” or “probability” (see also Ecclesiastes 9:10 and Proverbs 16:33). This is simply a logical consequences of God having omniscience: given omniscience, there is nothing left undetermined by His mind, and consequently, there is no real-world “possibility” from God’s perspective: only what will be and what will not be.

When God promises us, he communicates what will be. Thus, for example, Abraham knew that the Messiah would come, because God had promised it (though if Isaac had stayed died childless and stayed dead, God’s promise would have failed). It was not a mere possibility, but a certainty.

Because of the promise-certainty link, we can echo Paul:

Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

One might object that if no one actually apostatizes (i.e. the consequences are only in hypothesis: never actualized) then the warning lacks meaning (that seems to be the question’s unspoken premise). Two main responses come to mind:

(1) It seems absurd to suppose that a woman must sometimes let her children burn in order to give her warning meaning (all the more so, as to God’s warning to his children); and

(2) The truth value for the meaning is determined by the reality of the logical connection between the hypothetical premise (apostasy) and the hypothetical conclusion (hell).

Thus, rather than simply spurring us to obey (as already discussed in the previous answer), the consequences may promote gratitude in us for God’s grace. Just as the world’s continued existence day by day is only by God’s mercy, God does not have to prematurely end the world to make that proposition true. Likewise, God does not have to let any of his sheep perish to prove the truth of the premise consequence relationship.

Thus, the consequences specifically motivate by logical connection with their premise, as already noted in the previous answer, not by occasionally being actualized. In fact, such consequences could only be helpful to us if they are not actualized for us (just as the truth that long falls kill is helpful only to those who don’t fall).

Source

#5 Hypothetically speaking, if God did allow one who was born again and had his sins atoned for by the blood of Christ to sin by violating the scriptural warnings given against apostasy, would the violator then no longer be born again or have his sins atoned for?

Hypothetical questions are dangerous, especially when they contradict reality. That said, let me do my best to give some kind of meaningful answer.

a) Being born again (regeneration of the heart) is an event. It takes place in history.

b) Christ’s sacrifice on the cross (atonement for sins) was also an event. It also took place in history.

c) It would seem to be a fairly fundamental principle of history that what is done cannot be undone.

Thus (a) and (b) cannot cease to have happened. Nevertheless, if someone who had been born again and had received the benefit of the atonement in justification were to lose union with Christ and apostatize, there would be no hope for that person.

In other words, such apostasy would defeat the purpose of the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart (regeneration) and the purpose of Christ on the cross (atonement). Indeed, this is a powerful argument for why such a hypothetical situation (as JCT’s question describes) cannot occur. God cannot contradict himself.

If we were severed from Christ, we would perish, because our life derives from him. But we can have assurance that we will persevere, because of what connects to God is God’s “great love” (πολλην αγαπην) (Ephesians 2:4).

If God divorced us for our sins, we would perish. But the Lord is the God who hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). Instead, “The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.” (Zephaniah 3:17)

In short, the hypothetical situation will not arise, because if it did, it would violate the principle enunciated in Isaiah 55:11, “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”

God accomplishes what he wants to accomplish. What is that? “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.” John 6:39 And again, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21)

Source

Opening statements
Cross-exam, TF’s questions
Rebuttal Essays

Leave a comment
by J.C. Thibodaux on November 29, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Calvinism, Debate, Eternal Security, Perseverance, Soteriology, Warning Passages

Posted by J.C. Thibodaux on November 29, 2012

https://indeathorlife.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/perseverance-warning-passages-debate-with-turretinfan-cross-exam-my-questions/

Debate With Turretin Fan, Opening Statements

[This debate was in response to a challenge by Turretinfan over an article I wrote, challenging the idea of inevitable perseverance with facts from scripture]

[My Affirmative Constructive Essay]

I wrote a challenge to Calvinist doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints some time back to show that the concept of eternal security was incompatible with several key warning passages in scripture. An important principle of scriptural interpretation is that passages that are clearer should guide our understanding of those which are not as clear. Though many places in the Bible warn against falling away, I chose these particular three for two main reasons:

1.) Clarity of address, and 2.) clarity of consequence.

Matthew 5:27-30 – Escaping the snares of wickedness is not advice that would benefit one who was unregenerate, much less allow him to enter into life (see the parallel passages in Matthew 18:9 and Mark 9:47). Christ’s words were plainly directed at those who follow Him. The consequence of being overcome by sin is hell fire, it doesn’t get much clearer.

Hebrews 4:9-11 – The context of the whole discourse pertains to those who believe, notably where the author states that “we who have believed do enter into that rest,” and when he concludes his call to perseverance by stating of himself and those he addresses, “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.” The rest being spoken of can only be eternal rest given the context. Note that it is not something achieved when one believes, for we who have believed are entering it (verse 3), further indicated by verse 10, “for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.”

Revelation 22:18-19 – The consequence of having one’s part in the holy city taken being only applicable to those who possess a share of the heavenly inheritance, who is being addressed specifically isn’t hard to determine. Having one’s part in the holy city taken can realistically amount to nothing else than eternal separation from Christ.

Unlike many of the warnings in scripture which Calvinists write off as applying only to the unsaved or speaking of loss of tertiary rewards, these warnings with eternal and damning consequences are addressed to the regenerate specifically, eliminating any possibility of chalking them up to the “almost saved” or “false professors. Such clarity also renders the eternal securist arguments of violators getting their ‘potential’ eternal reward taken from them rather weak, such arguments made even more ridiculous by the Calvinist position, which effectively has God threatening to revoke an inheritance that He never planned on giving them.

The clarity with which these warnings are delivered has driven many Calvinists to view the passages as entirely hypothetical. Key to understanding where the error lies in such a position is how they employ the terms ‘hypothetical’ and ‘possible.’ This is not the same as being unsure whether the consequences are actual possibilities or not: in the Calvinist view, such a result must be strictly speculative. Some will say it’s ‘possible,’ but not possible in a sense that it could ever come to pass, thus not a genuine possibility (since in their view, it will definitely never occur).

With that in mind, it would be much easier for Reformed theologians to reconcile their views with just a command to persevere, but the consequences given with these divine warnings (especially Revelation 22:19, which pertains directly to the possession of the believer) pose a major problem in that the Reformed view of Perseverance turns them into absurd impossibilities contingent upon more absurd impossibilities. If a genuine believer falling into damnation would imply a change in the very nature of God (as was stated at Dordt), and hence God Himself ensures that such warnings can never be violated by believers, then Calvinism essentially makes these divine warnings say, “Don’t do something God won’t allow, or He’ll do something He would never do,” putting scripture through mind-boggling contortions to accommodate 16th century doctrinal silliness.

It’s true that impossible and completely speculative statements are occasionally made in scripture, Jeremiah 31:35-37 comes immediately to mind, where one is used to express that God being unfaithful is as feasible as a man being able to measure heaven and earth. In contrast, these warnings are not at all framed as anything speculative or hypothetical, nor does anything in the text suggest as much. Hence reinterpreting, “If you take away from this book, God will take away your part in His kingdom” as merely, “If God were to allow such a thing (which He won’t), then you would lose your part in His kingdom” is naught but wholly unjustified filtering of scripture through a dogmatic lens. The absolute negative of those consequences being, in the Calvinist view, due to and absolutely necessitated by the very faithfulness of God, one can only wonder as to why God would cast doubt upon His own faithfulness by proclaiming such consequences upon the redeemed who violate His command, without even a hint of the “but that could never happen” qualification that Calvinists are so quick to add.

The eternal securist defenses against the clear implications in these passages then fall far short of being either sound or convincing. Many instead like to point to assurances of salvation given in scripture as evidence against its conditionality, but a promise does not negate its own conditions — assurance with accompanying conditions is still conditional assurance. Bottom line, the Calvinist view of perseverance cannot be soundly reconciled with the scriptural warnings against believers falling into damnation:

Scripture says, “Be diligent lest you come up short!”

Calvinism adds, “But you can’t possibly come up short!”

Scripture says, “Take heed lest you fall!”

Calvinism counters, “You never can and never will fully fall away.”

Scripture says, “Do not be high-minded, but fear.”

Calvinism, despite any doubletalk about God filling us with fear and trembling, effectively states that there’s no reason to fear such warnings because God will never allow such consequences to occur, making the word of God of no effect.

[Turretinfan’s Negative Constructive Essay]

Negative Constructive – Perseverance of the Saints is Consistent with Scriptures
By TurretinFan

This debate is ultimately about whether the Reformed Doctrine of “Perseverance of the Saints” can be reasonably reconciled with three passages of Scripture. I’ll address each in turn and provide at least one reasonable alternative, thereby demonstrating that the passages can be understood consistently with that body of soteriology commonly called Calvinism. Afterwards, I’ll address miscellaneous points identified by JCT.

Matthew 5:27-30

JCT seems to suggest that the only reasonable meaning of Matthew 5:27-30 is that it is teaching that regenerate people can sin badly enough that they will be cast into hell-fire. An alternative explanation is that Jesus is explaining that lusting after a woman is a sin of sufficient gravity to merit eternal damnation, and that consequently merely abstaining from physical acts of adultery is insufficient to fulfill the law of God. After all, if we repent and trust in Christ not only lusting after a woman but also the physical act of adultery will be forgiven.

Hebrews 4:9-11

JCT seems to suggest that the only reasonable meaning of Hebrews 4:9-11 is that we do not have eternal rest yet, and consequently must keep on believing/working in order to obtain that. We agree that we do not yet have eternal rest, for that is a reference to heaven. Furthermore, the point of the passage is that since we have not reached the fulfillment of the Sabbath, we must continue to work. Nevertheless, as verse 9 indicates, the people of God have a future rest coming. JCT’s objection seems to confuse a condition of Christian life (to live on Earth is to work) with a condition for Heavenly Life (as though we receive heavenly rest not by grace but works). Verse 16 of the same chapter dispels this misconception.

Revelation 22:18-19

JCT seems to suggest that the only reasonable meaning of Revelation 22:18-19 is that people can only have a part in the holy city if they were regenerate. An alternative explanation is that those are being addressed who think they have a part. The elect will heed the warning, and the rest will be warned of what awaits them. After all, the command is – in essence – a command to believe the Scriptures. Those who willfully subtract from Scriptures refuse to believe what it says. Such an action is inconsistent with Faith in the Word and the Spirit.

Miscellaneous Issues

JCT acknowledges that some folks have interpreted warning passages in Scripture as entirely hypothetical. JCT responds that the “Key to understanding where the error lies in such a position is how they employ the terms ‘hypothetical’ and ‘possible.’ This is not the same as being unsure whether the consequences are actual possibilities or not: in the Calvinist view, such a result must be strictly speculative. Some will say it’s ‘possible,’ but not possible in a sense that it could ever come to pass, thus not a genuine possibility (since in their view, it will definitely never occur).”

JCT seems in this objection to confuse “will” with “could.” For example, it will not happen that genuine believers will eventually go to hell, but we could imagine how it may be that they could do so, if a different set of circumstances were present. For example, if genuine believers were not loved by God, God could let them separate themselves from Him. Objecting that such a description is “strictly speculative” or not a “genuine possibility” may or may not be accurate, but it is not a rebuttal.

JCT parodies the hypothetical interpretation this way, “‘Don’t do something God won’t allow, or He’ll do something He would never do,’ putting scripture through mind-boggling contortions to accommodate 16th century doctrinal silliness.” But the response is to turn to Genesis 15:8-18, where God in essence swears that he will do what he promises, or that he will be divided. One could parody this is as, “God promises not do something that he says he won’t do, or He’ll do something that he would never do.” Is that for the accommodation of “doctrinal silliness”? Surely not.

Indeed, JCT acknowledges that “It’s true that impossible and completely speculative statements are occasionally made in scripture, Jeremiah 31:35-37 comes immediately to mind, where one is used to express that God being unfaithful is as feasible as a man being able to measure heaven and earth.” JCT goes on to contrast these to the warnings discussed above, and properly so. These are not examples of hyperbole. Nevertheless, warnings for believers – even if they are warnings of dire consequences can have more than one purpose.

One purpose would be prophetic: you will do this, and you will fall. Another purpose, however, is pastoral: if you do this, you will fall. A pastoral warning can have use in the form of preventing the warned person from ever doing the “this.” The usual analogy is one’s child playing by the fire. We may properly warn the child that if they fall into the fire, they will be burnt to a crisp, without having the least intention of letting that happen. Why does JCT seem to want God from treating us like children?

JCT makes a final appeal to ineffectuality: “Calvinism, despite any doubletalk about God filling us with fear and trembling, effectively states that there’s no reason to fear such warnings because God will never allow such consequences to occur, making the word of God of no effect.” It is interesting that JCT would make this sort of claim. Yes, the fear of Calvinism is not the sort of servile fear in which man fears that he will do something that will separate himself from the love of God. No, it is a recognition of the power and majesty of the Most Holy God.

Sola Deo Gloria,

-Turretinfan

Source

Cross-exam, my questions
Cross-exam, TF’s questions
Rebuttal Essays

Leave a comment
by J.C. Thibodaux on November 29, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Calvinism, Debate, Eternal Security, Perseverance, Soteriology, Warning Passages

Posted by J.C. Thibodaux on November 29, 2012

https://indeathorlife.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/debate-with-turretin-fan-opening-statements/

« Older Posts