I don't plan today to visit all those passages from the two lists and explain how they fit together (and I do believe they fit together). What I want to do is ask a more basic question. To do this, you might want to reread those passages. I'll wait ...
All fresh in your mind now? Good. There is something overall in these two lists that strikes me as quite significant. In the first list we read all about what it is you have to do to avoid losing salvation. You have to bear fruit and stand firm and be ready and be obedient and practice self-discipline and remain faithful and avoid intentional sin ... well, you get the idea ... and you're likely aware of all that anyway. But I note that this first list is about all we are supposed to do or not do. The second list stands in stark difference. The second list doesn't talk about what we must do; it talks about what God will do. He upholds, gives eternal life, does not condemn, keeps, justifies, makes stand, seals, completes, and so much more. The primary difference, then, between these two lists is not whether or not you can lose your salvation, but who you are talking about.
I have a favorite passage that seems to encapsulate these two lists in just two verses.
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Phil 2:12-13).The first part is a command about what we need to do, and it's not trivial. "Work out your own salvation." No, not just that. Do it "with fear and trembling". This is serious ... and frightening. But it's not the end of the thought. How are we to carry out this serious and scary thing? "It is God who is at work in you." What is God doing? He is giving us both the willingness and the ability to do what He wants us to do, to do what pleases Him.
Right there, balanced together, you find a summary of both of those lists. There is work for us to do. There is no doubt. It is serious work and it is frightening. Still, do it. How? Well, in the final analysis, you'll find it was God who did it in you. He didn't have faith in your ability to do what pleases Him. He made sure you would and could do it.
And on the question of losing one's salvation, it really does come down to this, doesn't it? One set of passages are warnings aimed at you. The other set are confidently hung on God and what He does. If salvation can be lost, it is because of your incompetence. If salvation is sure, it is because of Him and His abilities. You can choose to believe either direction. I cannot help but hang my hat on God's sovereignty. I know that I'm incompetent, but I know His marvelous character far exceeds the depths of my failings. That's the place where I find rest.
63 comments:
Stan said...
If salvation can be lost, it is because of your incompetence. If salvation is sure, it is because of Him and His abilities.
And what of those who say that salvation can be thrown away? That we can reject the grace of God - even after we've been saved! - as the Bible tells us (as you noted in the previous post - "...holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith...")?
For those of us who believe this, we don't believe salvation is lost because of anyone's incompetence. God's grace covers our failings, to be sure. It is lost if we choose to reject God's grace.
We who are saved ARE saved by God's grace and it is sure because God is faithful. You and I appear to agree on that wholeheartedly. But those in my camp would say that, as Hebrews 6 says, we CAN fall away. We CAN choose to reject God.
I suppose your reasoning of what the Bible says would lead you to a different conclusion?
Dan Trabue: "we don't believe salvation is lost because of anyone's incompetence."
You missed the point. If salvation is lost (surrendered, forfeited, rejected), someone is in question. First, the person who lost it failed to keep up their end (which apparently you would call "competent"). More importantly (keeping in mind the long list of promises of Scripture), God failed to do what He promised to do.
You believe that (these are not your words, but I believe they are your sentiments) God is a gentleman and will not interfere with humans if humans decide not to let Him. You negate, in this simple and very common belief, God's sovereignty. I, on the other hand, find a God in the Bible who is perfectly happy on multiple occasions overriding human will to accomplish His plan.
The point, however, is this. If you believe that it is possible to go from saved to unsaved, then you must conclude that the ability to remain saved rests on you. On the other hand, if you argue that it is ultimately not going to happen (saved to unsaved), then the ability rests on God. I choose to rest on God.
You missed the point.
I don't believe I have, but if you can show me where I've missed something, please do so.
If salvation is lost (surrendered, forfeited, rejected), someone is in question. First, the person who lost it failed to keep up their end (which apparently you would call "competent"). More importantly (keeping in mind the long list of promises of Scripture), God failed to do what He promised to do.
I don't believe I'd frame it the way you have.
1. God's will is that EVERYONE be saved (God is not willing that ANY should perish - 1 Pet 3:9)
2. If God has given us free will (and I think clearly God has - we are created in God's image, we have the ability to choose right and wrong - you don't have to hate me or to kill me - you can choose to do either or not, right?), then God has given us the option of making decisions for ourselves. God does not force anyone to do anything.
Do we agree?
3. If we have free will, we can choose to accept God's gift of salvation and be saved.
Do we agree?
4. If we accept God's gift of salvation, we can also choose to reject God's gift of salvation (either never accepting it or accepting it and then deciding to reject it). Just as you noted about the passage in Hebrews 6.
Do we agree?
So, if we agree on these points, I don't know that I'd frame it as a person "failed to keep up their end." Rather, they decided to reject salvation/God. And I certainly would not call people using their free will as in any way that God failed. No way! God designed us to have a free will and the reality is that if God gives us free will, then we can choose yes or no. Our rejection of God is not a failure of God. It's just us practicing our free will.
If you raise your child up right and do a reasonably good job of parenting, teaching your children as best as you could, and then, as an adult, they chose to rob a bank or commit some horrible crime, does that indicate a failure on your part? No, it doesn't. How could it?
What point am I missing?
You believe that (these are not your words, but I believe they are your sentiments) God is a gentleman and will not interfere with humans if humans decide not to let Him. You negate, in this simple and very common belief, God's sovereignty.
I believe that God created us with free will which means that we have, well, free will.
Do you think that we don't have free will? That we can't choose to accept God's grace or reject it?
That God created us with free will does not negate God's sovereignty any more than that God created a world that sometimes has hurricanes and floods negates God's sovereignty. Isn't that similar to this line of reasoning? Isn't that similar to saying, "IF God were REALLY sovereign, then God would stop hurricanes and Hitlers and pollution..."
God does not work that way. God created us and this world. God wants the best for us and for us to choose good. But it is a wild world, we are wild humans, it is not a nice tidy, self-contained orderly world God has created but a wild world.
COULD God intervene and stop hurricanes and Hitlers? Well, sure. God's God and can do anything God wants. But it is not the way that God has designed things.
Do you have some reason for suspecting otherwise?
Dan Trabue: "I don't believe I have, but if you can show me where I've missed something, please do so."
Part of the difficulty I have with conversations with you is that I seem to have to repeat myself a lot. Quoting from the comment you just referenced, "The point, however, is this. If you believe that it is possible to go from saved to unsaved, then you must conclude that the ability to remain saved rests on you. On the other hand, if you argue that it is ultimately not going to happen (saved to unsaved), then the ability rests on God."
Dan Trabue: "Do we agree?"
Well ... of course we don't agree. First, your use of 1 Peter 3:9 causes serious rational problems. Second, you seem to define "free will" as complete autonomy. "I can choose to do anything at all." The Bible calls unsaved humans "slaves to sin" ... which means we are not free to choose to do anything at all. Instead, we can only choose to do those things that are consistent with our nature. It is not our nature to stand atop a house, flap our arms, and fly away, so we cannot choose to do that (as a silly example). By the same token, being sinners by nature, we cannot choose not to sin. Our nature has to change. Third, I disagree that "God does not force anyone to do anything."
Dan Trabue: "What point am I missing?"
You're missing all the statements about God, His promises to keep His own, and the certainty that He can do it. From your perspective, He is only capable of doing it if we give Him permission to do it, so to speak. If we decide, "Nope, I'm not going to let you keep me", He is incapable of doing what the Bible claims He was capable of doing. Most of the promises listed in the July post I referenced are unconditional promises, not predicated on "if you ... then I will", but "I will". So God's abilities, His will, and His sovereignty are all conditioned on us. The problem with this conversation, though, is that we've had it before.
Dan Trabue: "Do you have some reason for suspecting otherwise?"
Absolutely! Just not reasons that you would accept. My reasons are things like "The Bible says so" which you would then, premised on "I don't think God does that", deny. "Too literal," would be the accusation or "faulty logic" because I take it at face value. When I read, for instance, that God claims, "It was I who kept you from sinning against Me", I assume that it was God who prevented Abimilech from sinning (an intervention in the will). I'm pretty sure that Paul (Saul at the time) didn't choose to be struck blind and knocked off his donkey (an intervention in the will). And when I read God saying "I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things", I assume that God does these things.
But tell me, by what measure is God "sovereign" if He cannot do what He wills to do because Man can prevent Him?
But tell me, by what measure is God "sovereign" if He cannot do what He wills to do because Man can prevent Him?
Because that is the way our sovereign God made us: to have free will.
If God SAID, "I want to make people in my image, with the ability to choose right from wrong..." then that is an act of a sovereign God that pleased God and does not in any way take away from God's sovereignty.
If God said, "I want to be able to control people, to choose who will and won't be saved, who will and won't sin and how they'll sin," that would be more of a dictatorial God. We ought not confuse sovereign with tyrannical.
You could argue, it seems to me, by your reasoning that IF God can't or won't choose to make us sin, that God is not sovereign. And yet, God won't choose to make us sin. Choosing not to exercise all power in all possible circumstances is not the same as not being all powerful.
Perhaps you could clarify: Do you think God will make us to sin? If God is not able/willing to do that, does that mean a loss of God's sovereignty, to you?
First, your use of 1 Peter 3:9 causes serious rational problems.
1. It's SECOND Peter 3:9, not FIRST. A typo on my part. Sorry.
2. 2 Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord does not delay his promise, as some regard "delay," but God is patient with you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." The context of this quote is Peter speaking about the need for repentance. I take this passage to mean that it is God's will that all should be saved, and that God is patient with us, eagerly waiting for US to repent. God is waiting, it seems to me, for us to come to God and accept that grace by which we are saved. However, I think the further context of this passage is that we ought not wait indefinitely because "the day of the Lord will come like a thief..." (v. 10).
3. I take all of that to mean that God wishes for us to be saved IF WE will just accept the grace of God. Where in all of that do you find rational problems?
Second, you seem to define "free will" as complete autonomy. "I can choose to do anything at all."
I define "free will" as the ability to choose right from wrong. We have this ability. We can see it in practice on any given day at any point in our lives or in the lives of those around us. I call my daughter downstairs to help take out the garbage. She can ignore me or do as I ask. There have been times where she exercised her free will to ignore her father's direction. There have been other times where she's done as I have asked.
"Complete autonomy?" I don't know how you're defining that. We don't have the ability to live perfect lives and I don't define free will thusly. But at any given moment, we can choose to do the right or the wrong thing, or to do nothing at all.
Do you disagree?
The Bible calls unsaved humans "slaves to sin" ... which means we are not free to choose to do anything at all. Instead, we can only choose to do those things that are consistent with our nature. It is not our nature to stand atop a house, flap our arms, and fly away, so we cannot choose to do that (as a silly example). By the same token, being sinners by nature, we cannot choose not to sin.
Preposterous. Unsaved people choose not to sin all the time. How do you rectify this position with real world evidence to the contrary? For instance, I know a person with addictions who is not a professing Christian. He has often chosen to do drugs. Eventually, for at least a while, he chooses NOT to do drugs. He gets himself clean. At least for a time.
He is choosing not to sin.
What is your position on this evidence? That God is forcing him not to sin?
If that is your position, what is your definition of free will?
Dan Trabue: "What point am I missing?"
You're missing all the statements about God, His promises to keep His own, and the certainty that He can do it. From your perspective, He is only capable of doing it if we give Him permission to do it, so to speak.
No, I'm not missing that at all. God promises to save us, IF we are willing to be saved. God will not force anyone to be saved.
Consider the story of Jesus and the rich young man. Jesus LOVED the man. the man asked what he must do to be saved. Jesus told him to sell his goods, give it to the poor and follow him. The man walked away sadly and Jesus did not stop him. Jesus loved that man deeply. God was not willing that he should perish. But Jesus/God did not stop him from walking away.
The choice was his.
From my perspective, God will not act contrary to God's character and it's not in God's character to force people to do things they don't want to do. God won't, for instance, force you to sin (do you disagree?). Neither will God force you to NOT sin.
I think the Bible is quite clear on this.
Dan Trabue: "Do you think God will make us to sin?"
This is what's so baffling to me. Where would such a question come from? You believe that "God cannot" if Man doesn't allow Him to ... and that He's still sovereign in that. I believe that Man cannot unless God allows Him to and that He's sovereign in that. So ... what about that would hint at "God will make us to sin"?
Dan Trabue: (In reference to 2 Peter 3:9) "I take all of that to mean that God wishes for us to be saved ..."
That's your conclusion and you're welcome to it. The word used in 2 Peter 3:9 isn't "wishing", but "willing". And the subject of "any" ("not wishing that any should perish") you supply out of thin air. You read "any" to reference "all human beings" even though the text doesn't support it. So, reading it your way, we have God willing something that doesn't happen on people that don't exist. (Hint: The subject of "any" is not "all people", but "you" -- referenced in the text itself -- and the "you" refers to the believers to whom Peter is writing.)
But, here, help me figure out your view. Peter is trying to comfort his readers. "Don't worry. God hasn't forgotten His promise. He's on time. It just looks like He's delayed. The reason for the delay is ..." what? He really wishes that everyone would be saved and is waiting for ...? What? Where's the comfort?
Dan Trabue: "We don't have the ability to live perfect lives and I don't define free will thusly. But at any given moment, we can choose to do the right or the wrong thing, or to do nothing at all."
You don't see a contradiction in that statement? If you have the free will of which you speak, do you not have the ability to always choose to do what is right ("the ability to live perfect lives")? If not, why not? You're assuming ultimate free will -- I always get to choose -- and I don't see that.
Dan Trabue: "Preposterous. Unsaved people choose not to sin all the time."
Your choice. I tend to believe what I read in the Bible over your perception of what unsaved people do. But this was precisely my point. My reasons are unacceptable to you. "Just because the Bible says that stuff doesn't mean that it means that stuff."
I tend to believe what I read in the Bible over your perception of what unsaved people do. But this was precisely my point. My reasons are unacceptable to you. "Just because the Bible says that stuff doesn't mean that it means that stuff."
And this is precisely one of my ongoing points. You are confusing YOUR view of what the Bible says with what God says.
I, just like you, look to what the Bible says. I'm not saying, "I think the Bible says that unsaved people can't help but choose to sin, but I think the Bible is wrong," but rather, I'm saying, I don't think that the Bible teaches that unsaved people can't help but sin.
Yes, there are places that one could take that way, just as there are places that say that people can lose their salvation, that say we ought to rip our eyes out, that say slavery is okay, that say killing babies is okay. But these can be explained by calling them hyperbole or parable or what have you.
You and I both do this, interpret some passages literally and some less than literally. It is unhelpful for you to suggest "DAN uses his own understanding, but STAN relies upon the Bible alone." No. We both reason our way through the Bible and that is a good thing.
I have not said, "Just because the Bible says that stuff doesn't mean that it means that stuff." I have fairly consistently said that I don't think the Bible, as a whole, teaches X (that people always have to choose to sin, that it's okay to kill babies, etc).
Would you mind quit framing things thusly. It undermines your arguments and makes communication more difficult.
Dan Trabue: "You are confusing YOUR view of what the Bible says with what God says."
And ... you are not?
I read "X" and conclude "X". You read "X" and then analyze "Does that make sense with the other things I believe to be true?" Yeah, yeah, we both do that ... to an extent. When I see a contradiction with Scripture, I reevaluate. You see that as the same thing you do. It's not.
I read "It is impossible" and understand that to mean "It is impossible" and, without any biblical necessity, you conclude "It's hyperbole." I read "It's better to cut your hand off" and see that none of Jesus's disciples did so, so what did Jesus mean? I have biblical reasons to ask biblical questions.
I was suggesting you were claiming the Bible was wrong. I was saying that you were claiming that it didn't mean what it said. That's exactly what you claim. It said "impossible" and you said "hyperbole". We are not using the same type of reasoning, despite you're repeated attempts to say we are. And until you see that fundamental difference, you will not understand what I'm saying ... just like you can't seem to understand the difference between "Christian essentials" and "essentials for salvation".
Hey, Stan... think of this as not really joining in this long and involved conversation but just eavesdropping and then having a little exclamation I'd like to share...
Up until the beginning of this year, I have always been taught "free will" - vaguely defined as, people have the choice to accept or reject God's offer of salvation, i.e. we can follow Him or not. I don't remember anybody citing support for this argument and never invested time in searching the Scriptures for myself. but there were those passages that cropped up here and there that made me let out a "hey, but what about this?"
Then this year, my way of thinking about this doctrine has really changed. The best way I know to describe what's been happening is to say the Holy Spirit got a grip on my heart and won't let it go... and in the midst of this, the way I read Scripture has changed and texts that were confusing (or that my mind had rebelled against) made sense to me...beautiful sense.
Romans 9:6-29 is the example that came to me at this moment as a straightforward, explicit passage that yes, God is a sovereign God that does the choosing Himself. The more I consider this, the more exciting and beautiful it is and the more questions fall into place.
Just thinking aloud - I mean quietly thinking onto the computer screen - If belief in Jesus is central to salvation (John 3:16, Acts 16:31, etc.), how does anybody hear a story about a man who claims to be the Son of God and believe it? Because God Himself reveals the truth to us (Matthew 16:17, John 6:60-65). If we must repent to live, how can sinners with deceitful, divided hearts even desire to repent, must less actually repent? Because the Spirit convicts us and works in us to repentance (2 Corinthians 7:9-10, Romans 2:4, 2 Timothy 2:25). If true Christians bear fruit, i.e., obedience as evidence that we are really His (Matthew 28:20, 1 John 2:3-6), how can weak and sinful creatures obey Him? Because He is working in us to sanctify us (Ephesians 2:10 and Philippians 2:13! and 3:21). In every part of this process from believing to living the belief, the Scriptures point to God's work. And, indeed, this is a wonderful place to rest!
Ruth,
It's the same place to which I was dragged, kicking and screaming, by the force of Scripture. (I mean, seriously, how does one read things like the Romans 9 passage and conclude anything else?) Amen.
Dan,
It seems to me that a lot of this comes down to the understanding of free will. If free will is simply defined as "being able to choose right or wrong," then what does Scripture mean when it says that, without Christ, we are enslaved to sin if it doesn't mean we're bound to choose sin? I understand that sinners can do seemingly "good things," but then what does Scripture mean when it says that no one does good, no, not even one? And what is the definition of "good" or "right" under this assumption? Upon what basis do you derive this definition of free will? How could it only extend to right and wrong? Wouldn't that be a limit on the will (why can't it choose something neutral or amoral, for instance)?
Yeah, I tried that, Ryan. He classifies all that "slave of sin" and "none who does good" stuff as hyperbole as demonstrated by simply observing life. Taking it at face value is "too literal".
And yet you don't take many passages at face value or literally, either, Stan. We all have to weigh scriptures against each other, against the teachings of Christ, against church tradition, against the leading of the Holy Spirit and against our own God-given logic. And sometimes, we will come to different conclusions.
Ryan asked...
but then what does Scripture mean when it says that no one does good, no, not even one?
Ryan, what bible passage or reason would you have for saying that "no one does good, not even one"? Or is that just a reference to Romans 3?
What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
I agree that there is no one perfectly righteous and, as the Bible says, as compared to God, "all our righteousness is as filthy rags."
But all of that is not the same as saying we can't choose to do good or right. Again, people do it every day, even unsaved people.
There is no honoring of the Bible to take it literally even if it contradicts what we can see with our own eyes. That would be a clue that we need to reevaluate OUR PARTICULAR interpretation. And note, reevaluating our particular interpretation is not to reject God or the Bible, just OUR INTERPRETATION.
Ryan also asked...
And what is the definition of "good" or "right" under this assumption?
Good question. What do you mean by it?
I mean that people do, in fact, do acts of kindness, love and goodness all the time. Even people who are not Christians. I don't believe the bible suggests otherwise. In fact, the Bible says that expects people to act good.
Jesus says, "Even the sinners do this..." speaking of doing good acts to those who are good to you.
Ryan asked...
Upon what basis do you derive this definition of free will?
Just a fairly reasonable definition.
Free will (Merriam Webster):
1 : voluntary choice or decision
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
What definition of free will do you use?
The Bible does not use the term, "Free will" that I know of (either to say that we have it or don't), but consider all the many passages like this:
"For this command which I enjoin on you today is not too mysterious and remote for you.
It is not up in the sky, that you should say, 'Who will go up in the sky to get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?'
Nor is it across the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea to get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?'
No, it is something very near to you, already in your mouths and in your hearts; you have only to carry it out.
(God speaking to Israel about doing the right thing, in Deut 30)
Ryan, do you think you have no free will? Do you think you, as a human, don't have the liberty to make choices for good or bad?
Well, the question of most importance to me there is the question of the basis upon which he derives his definition of free will. I don't understand how he can limit the freedom of the will to only right and wrong choices, but not to anything else. I'd like to clear this up first...
This is a very interesting thread, Stan. Following the links backward, I see that your original challenge for reconciling these numerous, seemingly contradictory passages entailed certain rules that I don't believe Dan is following.
"You can't discard passages because they don't fit your view. You can't place extra weight on passages just because they fit your view. You have to read these passages with equal simplicity. That is (for instance), if you're going to read 'imagery' into one group because they just don't fit, then you'll need to read 'imagery' into your favorites as well. In other words, as far as you possibly can, take them all at face value."
That last rule, Dan doesn't seem to be following. Here he writes, "I don't think that the Bible teaches that unsaved people can't help but sin."
"Yes, there are places that one could take that way, just as there are places that say that people can lose their salvation, that say we ought to rip our eyes out, that say slavery is okay, that say killing babies is okay. But these can be explained by calling them hyperbole or parable or what have you."
The problem is, he cannot justify this move from the actual text, particularly with the historical accounts of divine commands to wage wars of annihilation and, here, with the teaching that no one is good but God (see the story of the rich young ruler, which Dan mistakenly invokes to suggest that Christ taught salvation by good works).
In a series of lengthy comments in my dialogue with Dan, I tried to explain by analogy why the set of all possible biblical worldviews must be constrained by certain limits on interpretation.
I) Each interpretation affirms the text's authority.
II) Each interpretation affirms the text's veracity.
III) Each interpretation is plausible and reasonable.
I claimed and still believe, "An interpretation that does not meet these criteria is practically equivalent to discarding the passage altogether."
Dan dismisses difficult passages of Scripture as figurative. He says, "these can be explained by calling them hyperbole or parable or what have you."
But he's not explaining them: he's explaining them AWAY. His worldview doesn't account for these passages, not really; it's as if they didn't exist.
All of this makes clear the importance of the belief of the Bible's inerrancy and clarity.
None of us are perfect, but if we start picking and choosing which passages we take seriously -- discarding the rest, either by being honest about it and dismissing them as error, or by reaching the same result by "calling them hyperbole or parable or what have you" when the text cannot justify doing so -- then our different views can never converge toward a single goal.
True progress becomes impossible: we're left with people validating the views they already have by upholding the passages they like to the detriment of everything else.
Dan:
"From my perspective, God will not act contrary to God's character and it's not in God's character to force people to do things they don't want to do. God won't, for instance, force you to sin (do you disagree?). Neither will God force you to NOT sin.
"I think the Bible is quite clear on this."
You write that you believe the Bible is quite clear that "it's not in God's character to force people to do things they don't want to do."
Pardon my incredulity, but where precisely does the Bible teach this?
Never mind whether the Bible teaches this more frequently than the "handful of places" where the Bible discusses homosexual behavior: on certain subjects, not all, you act as if the Bible has to declare something more than two or three times in order for you accept it. And never mind whether the Bible teaches this more clearly than, say, the idea (affirmed by Christ Himself) that God made us male and female so that a man (male) would become one flesh with his wife (female).
I don't know where the Bible teaches this AT ALL.
I don't see how it could, since in II Corinthians 5:10, Paul teaches that "all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil."
Surely God doesn't ask whether we want to appear before Christ the Judge, and brings to the dock only those who agree; surely there are those who would not come before His judgment willingly. And yet I'm guessing that God's quite willing to impose judgment on them, despite your claim that it's not in His character "to force people to do things they don't want to do."
All of Christ's own teachings about judgment, the day of judgment and wrath, emphasize its inevitability and His active role.
(There are times where you seem to emphasize the "natural" consequences of sin rather than God's active and decisive judgment against it. I wonder if this emphasis suggests an unconventional and unbiblical view of judgment.)
It's an improvement for you to appeal to what the Bible clearly teaches rather than present, say, question-begging appeals to "the lives of moral, Godly people" who nevertheless engage in behavior that mocks Christ's stated reason for why we were created male and female in the first place, to justify your position on what the Bible says about marriage -- or appeals to modern (or post-modern) studies about child-rearing to justify your position about what the Bible says about discipline.
It's an improvement, but I'd like to see the substance behind the appeal.
You claim that the Bible clearly teaches that God will never "force people to do things they don't want to do," and I would like to see the evidence.
Stan, following the trail of links even deeper, I noticed that, in a late comment to your original challenge you point to a great entry about effective warnings.
It's essays like that that remind me of my pastor's son, and deep conversations we had while walking the pastor's dog. For a moment, I think I really grasped his -- and Bonhoeffer's, and (I suspect and am trying to determine) Scripture's -- view of election that does not diminish the importance of faith: God elects only those who He knows will respond in faith.
For a moment I saw it with clarity: the struggle to see this mystery (indeed even the theological idea of "mysteries") absolutely requires trust in everything the Bible teaches: we have come to the doctrine of the Incarnation, for instance, because the Bible is simultaneously clear about Christ's deity and clear about His humanity.
Perhaps your use of Acts 27 would be more clear with a hypothetical involving two ships.
Paul left one one ship, and suppose that at the same time another Christian named Dave left on another ship.
(U2 fans will know why I chose that name.)
God knew that on Paul's ship, the crew would respond in faith to God's promise to spare their lives (but not the ship) and His warning (or command) not to abandon ship. So He sent the promise and then sent the warning.
But suppose God also knew that the crew on Dave's ship would not have responded in faith to both, so He wouldn't have sent either: He didn't send the promise to preserve them, and He didn't send the warning about staying on-board.
God's warning is always effective as part (but certainly not all) of His method of keeping His promise, but it's not always sent, just as the promise isn't always sent.
In our case in the 21st century, we don't have different crews being given different sets of messages by God through different messengers: we all have the same Bible, and we are witness to the preaching by the same universal church.
But is it possible that God through His Holy Spirit calls (and later instructs) only those He knows will respond in faithful repentance and later obedience? I'm (slowly, in fits and starts) beginning to think that's the best and most elegant way to reconcile the seemingly contradictory passages.
I think the crux of this issue comes back to predestination, really. Because if God chose those who are saved, then it's not possible to have a true believer who falls away. In that case, God never chose the person to start with, although that person might have thought they were saved. I think this is a good explanation for the passages found in Hebrews 6 and Romans 9, coupled with Matthew 7:21-23. The problem for us as humans is that WE can only judge by their fruits, we cannot see into their hearts. That is reserved for God alone, but he tells us that "by their fruit you will recognize them". (Matt. 7:20) So our job, as you discuss, is to "train our senses to discern good and evil" (Heb. 5:14) through the study of His Word.
Good post. It dovetails nicely with the Hebrews study I'm doing!
Bubba said a good many things. I'm not sure how much of what he has said is about the actual topic "Can you lose your salvation?"
My position is that we can. We have free will (with "free will" being defined using the standard English definition).
It is my position that God does not force us to do anything. We have been created with a free will, that is, the will to decide right and wrong for ourselves, to decide whether or not to accept God's grace.
I don't believe that the bible anywhere effectively argues against free will (although there are a few passages where some might take it that way). I think the bible, as a whole, argues in favor of good will and that logic backs it up.
We DO, in this world, have the ability to decide to do right or wrong.
"CHOOSE YOU THIS DAY who you will serve..." Joshua challenged the people of Israel.
"you should follow in Jesus' steps..." Peter writes in his first epistle.
"love your enemies," Jesus commands us.
Over and over we are given instructions we are expected to obey. Why in the world would God give commands if we are incapable of obeying them?
Why would God expect pagan nations to turn from their ways if they weren't able to turn from their ways?
Beyond repeated biblical teachings, we have our own eyes as evidence. I have seen people choose to do wrong and I've seen people choose to do right. Clearly, they have free will.
I believe in free will.
Do you disagree and, if so, in what sense?
I'm sorry, I intended to include this line in the previous...
"And, if you agree with me that we have free will, do you not also agree that we can choose to leave God's grace behind? That we can choose to reject God's salvation?"
Bubba: "But is it possible that God through His Holy Spirit calls (and later instructs) only those He knows will respond in faithful repentance and later obedience?"
The position is popular and even has its own theological name: "Middle Knowledge". So you wouldn't be alone in that view. You would be without me. :)
Here's my problem with Middle Knowledge. No matter where you put the "respond in faithful repentance", if God conditions His election on me, then I have something about which to boast. Knowing it in advance or not knowing until, it's still up to me, isn't it? Either way, God ends up conditioning His election on Me (with a capital "M").
Stan, election is definitely one issue where I'm not quite sure what the Bible teaches, and so my conclusions remain tentative while I continue to try to find the time to study further.
One concern I have about wholly unconditional election is that I'm not sure it's compatible with God's universal love.
Much more than that -- because there are instances where we must trust God's character even as we don't understand His actions -- is the fact that I believe the Bible clearly teaches salvation is through God's grace, by our faith, in Christ's death.
"But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus." - Rom 3:21-26
The source of salvation is God's grace, its ground is Christ's death, and its means is faith.
Are "those who are saved" and "those who are elect" identical groups? I believe they are: all of the elect is saved, and all who are saved are elect.
If election and salvation aren't strictly identical -- and I'm fine saying that the former leads to the latter -- then what is the relationship between God's election and our faith?
If election isn't conditioned on faith, does that not logically require that faith is conditioned on election? Is there then any real difference between that and saying that faith is a product of salvation rather than the means?
No, I believe that faith saves, and saving faith produces works: I don't believe faith is just another result of salvation.
Stan, you write, "if God conditions His election on me, then I have something about which to boast."
The thing is, Paul didn't see a problem with salvation depending on faith, as we see in the very next verse following what I quoted above.
"Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith." - Rom 3:27
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God -- not the result of works, so that no one may boast." - Eph 2:8-9
If Paul writes that no one may boast because we are saved by faith and not by works, I'm not sure how we could boast if our election is also conditioned by faith.
Dan, it seems to me that this discussion was framed in a larger context about the importance of using a reasonable and even-handed approach to reconcile seemingly contradictory passages of Scripture.
To be absolutely clear, I believe in the eternal security of the believer. Those who are saved, remain saved; those who were ultimately lost, were always lost.
At any rate, I don't think you've cited any clear teaching of the Bible to justify your belief that "God does not force us to do anything."
None of the Bible's commands and instructions implies any such thing.
They may (and I believe do) imply the existence of human free will, but proof that the Bible teaches the existence of human free will DOES NOT IMPLY that it teaches the INVIOLABILITY of human free will.
There are two separate claims:
1) God gave us free will.
2) God does not ever violate that free will.
The two aren't related; the second is not a corollary of the first.
But, in response to a request to justify your position -- the second, more controversial claim -- you provide proof for the first and wholly unrelated claim, and you apparently think you've done your job.
You haven't, and you're doing the same thing that you frequently do regarding "gay marriage" -- essentially claiming that marriage is androgynous and defending this claim by citing passages about how God blesses marriage, which does NOTHING to support your position.
Inquisitor: "Your Honor, I have a question for Mr. ______. I'd like to him to explain his position on 'the elect'. How can he justify that God's elect would include those whom he defends when Scripture clearly condemns the very things he defends?"
Mr. _____ "I object".
Inquisitor: "on what grounds?"
Mr. _____ "give me 2500 words and I'll explain it to you simpletons."
Inquisitor: "question withdrawn - I thought it was clear..." what do I know...
Bubba,
Let me start by saying I thoroughly enjoy friendly discussions with people who disagree with me. I appreciate it when two brothers in Christ can say, "I love you; I just don't agree with you" and we can discuss where we disagree. Thanks for that.
Now, two important features here. First, you mention "God's universal love". I would urge caution with that type of phrasing. There is a sense in which God loves everyone, but very clearly He loves some different than He loves others, and in no sense does He love His creation more than He loves the Creator. The most famous "universal love of God" passage of all is John 3:16. It is largely misunderstood because of the English translation which says "God so loved the world ..." as if to say "God loved the world so much ...". That is not what the text intends (nor is it what versions in other languages say). It is not a quantity, but a quality -- not "so much", but "in this way". In what way does God "love the world"? He loves those who believe in His Son.
But the real problem is in the concept of Election. First, the genuine doctrine of Election does not negate the necessity of faith. So many people think it does, but it doesn't. The genuine doctrine of Election confirms the necessity of faith. But here's the problem. Where does faith come from? According to the Bible, Natural Man is sinful, spiritually dead, hostile to God, intent only on evil, slaves of sin, and incapable of understanding the things of God. From that premise ... produce faith. That's a problem. The doctrine of Election says that God produces (or, more accurately, gives) that faith. He does it when He produces the necessary changes to that Natural Man to make him spiritually alive, no longer hostile, no longer a slave to sin, and capable of understanding the things of God. Having been made alive and given faith, this elect person then exercises that faith and ... well, we have the proper sequence of "saved by grace through faith in Christ". Without this intervention by God on the part of the Elect, no human would have the ability to respond to the Gospel.
I cannot read passages like Romans 9 (yes, the entire chapter) without concluding that our salvation does not depend on what we do or what we choose (9:16), that God has mercy on whom He desires and hardens whom He desires (9:18), that He actually plans for some of His creation to be a demonstration of His wrath (9:21-22). We are familiar with John 1:12 -- "As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" -- but too often miss out on the rest of the thought in verse 13 -- "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." According to Paul and Jesus, we do not (first) choose to come to Christ. According to Election, that choice is first God's choice, and then He enables us to make it. In Election, then, our faith and our choice is a gift from God and, therefore, something we can't boast about. But, do not mistake Election to say we do not need faith or choice. Election offers the source of those two necessary items -- God. If I am the source, on the other hand, I do have room to boast.
To be clear, I don't believe that God's universal love entails universal salvation.
I definitely get what you're saying about how the depravity of man prevents even a response in faith, and I see how that position makes sense.
I'm just still on the road to figuring out what the Bible teaches about election and the source of faith and seeing if I can grasp it: it might be that God's sovereignty and our freedom are reconcilable in ways that (like the Trinity and the Incarnation) we cannot fully grasp as human beings limited in space-time. We may have no choice but to hold in faith that both sides of the equation are equally true.
I like what John Stott said in his commentary on Romans, in the conclusion of his chapter on Romans 9.
"Liberal commentators are not lacking who insist that, by ascribing Jewish unbelief now to God's purpose of election and now to Israel's own blindness and arrogance, the apostle was contradicting himself. But that is a shallow conclusion, and inadmissible to anybody who accepts Paul's apostolic authority. No, 'antinomy' is the right word to use, not 'contradiction.' Dr Lloyd-Jones sums up Paul's position in these words: 'In verses 6 to 29 he explains why anybody is saved; it is the sovereign election of God. In these verses (30-33) he is showing us why anybody is lost, and the explanation of that is their own responsibility.
"Few preachers can have maintained this balance better than Charles Simeon of Cambridge in the first half of the nineteenth century. He lived and ministered at a time when the Arminian-Calvinist controversy was bitter, and he warned his congregation of the danger of forsaking Scripture in favor of a theological system. 'When I come to a text which speaks of election,' he said to J.J. Guerney in 1831, 'I delight myself in the doctrine of election. When the apostles exhort me to repentance and obedience, and indicate my freedom of choice and action, I give myself up to that side of the question.' In defence of his commitment to both extremes, Simeon would sometimes borrow an illustration from the Industrial Revolution: 'As wheels in a complicated machine may move in opposite directions and yet subserve a common end, so may truths apparently opposite be perfectly reconcilable with each other, and equally subserve the purposes of God in the accomplishment of man's salvation.'"
(Note that the conclusion of contradiction is "inadmissible to anybody who accepts Paul's apostolic authority." A serious claim, not applying, it seems, to either of us, but possibly others.)
Stott believes, and I'm currently convinced, that Romans 9 points both to God's election and man's responsibility.
I'm still seeing if the Bible requires a balance between the two, and if it does, whether that balance can be comprehended. If it can't, I'll hold to the balance as a mystery.
But, yeah, cordial clarification and disagreement is great. :)
Bubba said...
But, in response to a request to justify your position -- the second, more controversial claim [God does not ever violate that free will]-- you provide proof for the first and wholly unrelated claim, and you apparently think you've done your job.
So, you believe that God gave us a free will... except when God does not allow us to exercise that free will?
So, that seems to me that you're arguing in favor of something other than free will. Again, I am just using the standard English definition of "free will," the ability to make one's own moral choices.
It seems you're suggesting some sort of half-free will. Is that a fair summation of what you believe? That God sometimes (most of the times? Half the time? Occasionally?) lets us make our own decisions about what to do, which path to choose, but other times, God chooses for us?
No, I have not tried to provide biblical support for this other option. I was speaking of free will given the standard English definition of the word. I didn't know I needed to also argue against this Other "half-free will" idea.
What biblical support do you have for this "half-free will" idea do you bring?
I'd also have to ask, if you believe that God only part of the time allows us to make our own decisions, then is that really free will?
As it relates to salvation, what biblical support would you bring that suggests that we can't choose to leave Christ? If we can't make that choice, do we still have free will?
I guess my response would be, I guess God COULD violate our free will, take it from us and make us operate more like a robot and less like a creature in God's image. God is God and can do whatever God wants that does not clash with God's nature. (Although, this seems to me to come close to an idea that would clash with God's nature.) Anyway, I guess God COULD do this. I just don't think God does do this.
Passages like "God hardened pharoah's heart" seem to me to be fairly clearly metaphorical, not literal (the metaphor being that when we refuse to listen to God's law written upon our hearts, our hearts DO harden, it's the way we were made... not that God literally causes us to ignore God's will).
What reason would you have for taking such passages literally?
Dan Trabue: "So, you believe that God gave us a free will... except when God does not allow us to exercise that free will?"
I'll let Bubba handle his own conversation, but this thing just strikes me as really, really misguided. It appears that you believe that in order for "free will" to be "free will" it must always be free. If you get the freedom to choose 98 times and prevented from choosing 2 times, it's only 98% free will and, therefore, not free will. Or, in terms of the discussion, if God were to say, "You're free to make decisions within the parameters of My will", would it not be free will in your mind?
if God were to say, "You're free to make decisions within the parameters of My will", would it not be free will in your mind?
I don't know what you mean by this.
Do I or don't I have the free will to accept God's grace and decide to follow Jesus by that grace?
If you're saying God allows us to commit ten sins but stops us from committing an eleventh sin, well, I see no logical nor biblical justification for that. If you're saying that God allows some people to decide to accept God's grace but God does not allow others to do so, I see no biblical or moral or logical justification for that.
"Come unto me ALL ye who are weary and heavy laden," is how Jesus said it. I take that literally. You?
It appears that you believe that in order for "free will" to be "free will" it must always be free.
Well, that IS the definition of "free will," as I understand it. Perhaps you could offer another definition of free will?
It seems like you and Bubba both are speaking of some definition other than the standard English definition. You'll understand my confusion, I hope, if I'm not clear on what you mean because you aren't using standard English understandings.
Once again, here are the definitions of Free Will as offered in dictionaries...
Merriam Webster:
1 : voluntary choice or decision
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
The Free Dictionary:
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice:
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
What definition are you all using?
Well, I spent a good hour last night responding to this thread, and it must have been lost in cyberspace...I think there are still some important things that need to be made clear that aren't, but I don't have the time right now to do it. I will reply as soon as I can.
That's too bad, Ryan. (And then I got two repeats of your telling me it got lost.) Try again. I'm looking forward to it.
Dan,
Your teenager comes to you and says, "Can I go to the store?" and you say, "Yes." He comes to you and says, "Can I go to the movies?" and you say, "Yes." He comes to you and says, "Can I go to the party?" and you say, "Yes." He comes to you and says, "Can I go to a friend's house?" and you say, "No, we have to do something." He complains, "You never let me do anything!" Sounds like the same thing to me.
If "free will" must be defined as "always and in all ways without interference", then you have some problems. First, you won't find that in Scripture. Second, you have a very scary God whose will is held captive by His creatures, since He is obligated to always allow them to do whatever they want to do. It is inevitable that at some point someone will do something that will be outside of God's will and God's sovereignty will be completely terminated (instead of "mostly dead" like it is now). The final problem is this. I can offer a biblical example where God prevented someone from choosing something. It isn't vague. God says, "I prevented you from sinning." So linguistically, biblically, logically, and theologically you have difficulties with your concept of "Ultimate Free Will".
(Please note with your definitions: None of them say, "In all cases at all times without exception".)
If "free will" must be defined as "always and in all ways without interference", then you have some problems.
Such as?
Also, I note that I didn't define it that way. I defined it as "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention" and "voluntary choice or decision."
THAT is the definition of "free will" English speakers use, that I'm aware of.
Again, I'd suggest that perhaps it would help if you offered what definition of "free will" you're using.
Stan said...
First, you won't find that in Scripture.
Nope, you won't. Nor will you find ANY definition of "free will" in the Bible. Not your definition (whatever that may be) or the standard English definition. "Free will" is not mentioned by name in the bible.
However, the expectation that we should and could make right choices is throughout the Bible. Yes?
Stan said...
Second, you have a very scary God whose will is held captive by His creatures, since He is obligated to always allow them to do whatever they want to do.
Scary, how?
God will not make us sin. Does that mean we serve a weak and puny or scary God because our God would limit God's Self in such a way?
God decided to create us in God's image, with the ability to reason and make choices for ourselves. And, since God has made us thusly, God allows us to live as we were made. I don't see how in the world that makes for a "scary" God. Could you elaborate?
Also, perhaps it would help if you offered in what way you think we DON'T have free will. Some concrete example, perhaps?
Ryan, sorry you lost your comment. You can always email me directly if you'd like to ask me a question and get a direct answer with perhaps less chance of losing what you wrote. My email can be found by following my link.
About this argument...
He comes to you and says, "Can I go to a friend's house?" and you say, "No, we have to do something." He complains, "You never let me do anything!" Sounds like the same thing to me.
I'm not sure how this touches on free will. It sounds like you're referring to rules that I expect my son to obey, but then the question comes to, WILL he obey that rule? Which lies on him.
To me, it sounds like the analogy you're shooting for is my son asks if he can do ten things and I say yes to all of them, but on one I say, "NO, you can't go out and, in fact, I'm going to tie you up and drug you to keep you from going out - you don't even get the option of deciding, I'm taking that from you."
Is that how you think God operates? And, if so, in which areas do we have our free will taken from us? And, if so, what logical biblical justification would you have for believing such a thing?
I'm striving to wrap my mind around what you're trying to say Stan. You say...
It is inevitable that at some point someone will do something that will be outside of God's will and God's sovereignty will be completely terminated (instead of "mostly dead" like it is now).
Are you saying that people NOW do everything that is within God's will? That when Hitler killed millions, THAT was within God's will?? That when rape and child abuse occur, THOSE are within God's will?
I can't imagine you truly think that, but you tell me.
As I see it, people do stuff outside the will of God all the time. That is our problem - doing stuff outside the will of God. Sin.
Saying that God has a hand in everything, working even awful things out to the good, that's one thing. But saying that sin is God's will seems contradictory to Christianity. Could you clarify please?
You say...
I can offer a biblical example where God prevented someone from choosing something. It isn't vague. God says, "I prevented you from sinning."
Perhaps if you offered your example, we could talk about it. I'd suggest places that sound like this are clear examples of hyperbole or metaphor. We know that it is so because otherwise you have a dictator god, preventing people from free will choices and people are just part time automatons, jumping when dictator god says jump.
re: kept from sinning, I assume you're referring again to the Abimelech story?
And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
Okay, we have a case here where a guy had the potential to sin by raping a woman not "belonging" to him (and a further sin against God and humanity in the very notion of people "belonging" to others and women specifically "belonging" to men for their sexual pleasure, but that's another topic...) God DID intervene. God let Abimelech know that Sara was a married woman.
But did God actually PREVENT (ie, NOT ALLOW) Abimelech from sinning? Was it not possible that Abimelech could STILL have chosen to rape Sara? Sure it is. In fact, all we have here is God "preventing" someone from sinning by educating them as to the wrong nature. But God did not physically stop Abimelech from making the wrong choice. The "prevention" came via education, not coercion.
That's the sort of thing where I'm saying that it's perhaps just a bad understanding of a biblical passage rather than God actually saying "I have stoppeth them physically from sinning by removing their free will!" There's really not anything in that passage that suggests that Abimelech had lost his free will, right?
Good plan, Dan. "Overwhelm them with lots of words." Ought to work.
You've done a nice little dance. You said to Bubba), "So, you believe that God gave us a free will... except when God does not allow us to exercise that free will?"
I asked, "It appears that you believe that in order for 'free will' to be 'free will' it must always be free."
You answered, "Well, that IS the definition of 'free will,' as I understand it."
Now you deny that it's the way you define "free will", can't figure out how it relates to someone who doesn't get to choose freely in one instance and complains about it, and are quite sure that nothing in "free will" resists God's sovereignty.
Well, since God's method of "preventing" Abimelech from sinning is after the fact and "a bad understanding of a biblical passage", since the straightforward reading of the passage (which says, "I also kept you from sinning against Me" -- past tense and not arrived at by telling him she was someone else's wife) leads me to conclude that God kept Abimelech from sinning, since I've already offered specific examples of God intervening in human will and you ask me for examples, and since I don't make any sense to you on this, I suppose we're done, right? I mean, I certainly know that I have no capacity to correlate "Sovereign" with "people do stuff outside the will of God all the time". We're not making sense to each other and all I'm left with is repetition and my understanding of Scripture, so we're finished.
since I've already offered specific examples of God intervening in human will and you ask me for examples, and since I don't make any sense to you on this, I suppose we're done, right?
Well, no, not unless you want to be. I still don't know what definition of "Free will" you are using.
Also, you could answer...
God decided to create us in God's image, with the ability to reason and make choices for ourselves. And, since God has made us thusly, God allows us to live as we were made. I don't see how in the world that makes for a "scary" God. Could you elaborate?
Also, perhaps it would help if you offered in what way you think we DON'T have free will. Some concrete example, perhaps?
If you'd like to make your case more clear, don't you think it would be helpful to answer?
Here we are talking about free will and I still don't even know what you mean by it, other than it means SOMETIMES we have free will but sometimes God doesn't allow us to have free will. But that's not a definition, really. That's laying out that you think there are exceptions to free will, isn't it?
You seem unhappy that I've asked questions persistently. I'm just trying to understand your position, I don't intend to irritate.
I fully understand that once you understand what I'm saying and I understand what you're saying and we still disagree, well, then, perhaps there's not much more to say. But we still have not reached that point yet. I don't know that I disagree with you at all.
If you're merely saying that there might be EXCEPTIONS to free will - that God, being God, might decide to remove our option for free will at times - well, that's one thing. I guess from there, I'd wonder what those exceptions are in your mind and why you have them. But, if you have some other definition of free will, then that would be helpful to know, too.
Regarding Abimelech, read the whole story...
Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister" So Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah.
But God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night, and said to him, "Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is married."
Now Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, will You slay a nation, even though blameless?
"Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she herself said, 'He is my brother ' In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this."
Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her.
The timeline, then, is
1. Abraham "gives" his wife to Abimelech.
2. God appears to Abimelech telling him the truth about Sarah.
3. Abimelech fears God will kill him, but says, "wait, I haven't done anything yet!"
4. God says, "I know. I have kept you..."
Past tense, but past tense as in "I have just now kept you from doing this bad thing..."
It is similar to a person getting ready to drink poison and I stop them saying, "Hey! That's poison!" and he says, "Wow. That was close." and I say, "Yeah, I just kept you from drinking poison..."
It IS past tense, but that is not an indication that I subverted his free will. At all.
Same thing in this Genesis story.
Doesn't that make more sense?
Dan,
I think the most important thing we can look at right now is defining a few terms. You said earlier that you
...define ‘free will’ as the ability to choose right from wrong. We have this ability. We can see it in practice on any given day at any point in our lives or in the lives of those around us...We don't have the ability to live perfect lives and I don't define free will thusly. But at any given moment, we can choose to do the right or the wrong thing, or to do nothing at all.
There seems to be a contradiction of thought here. If a person has the ability to choose good or evil in each individual situation where each choice is equally capable of being chosen (what I’m assuming based on your comments you would define as free), how come we don’t have the ability to live perfect lives? Why can’t I choose good every time? How can the will be free in this case? You say you don’t define it in those terms, but why not? Is that not the will? And what about choices that are amoral or neutral in nature...are those choices freely made or not? I feel like you’re trying to limit your definition in order to try to make your point, but upon what basis do you claim your definition is valid? You can’t just point to what the world thinks, or what is the common use of the term, because it’s not actually that.
I would also like to take a look at your definition of the word, ‘good.’ I’m going to assume, based on the arguments you’ve made to this point that if you saw on elderly woman on a street corner, you’d say that choosing to help her across the street would be a good action, and ignoring her may be bad. I’m not as worried about the evil aspect here, because we’re defining ‘good.’ An unsaved person goes and helps her across the street, and you, observing, would say that he did a good thing, because “we can see it in practice on any given day at any point in our lives or in the lives of those around us.” I would submit to you, based on God’s definition of ‘good’ (God alone being good), that that action was not actually a good action. I would submit that there are simply two choices, God or self. The unbeliever in this case would have done this deed, not for God’s glory, but because, a) he wanted others to observe how good he is, b) he wanted to feel good about himself, c) he wanted some sort of reward from the elderly woman, or some other thing that was related to self. So what you observed and called ‘good,’ I would say was not actually good. He could not choose to glorify God because he doesn’t serve him, so his choice was ultimately for self. This is why Scripture says things like:
Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately wicked; Who can understand it?”
Romans 7:18 “I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.”
Romans 8:7 “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Romans 14:23 “But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.”
Ephesians 2:1-3 “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.”
Hebrews 11:6a “And without faith it is impossible to please Him...
Just because a choice appears good on the surface, does not mean that it actually is. God looks at the heart, right? And notice, none of this needs to be categorized as hyperbole. It can be easily understood if we understand what ‘good’ actually is.
Thanks for the input Ryan. And, Dan, no, that makes no sense. " I did not let you touch her" means "in the future"? Straightforward reading of the text requires that God intervened in Abimelech's choices, just as He didn't get Saul's input before He knocked him off his donkey (etc.). The only reason to read it otherwise is an a priori dedication to "God cannot and/or will not intervene in Man's choices."
Ryan asked...
There seems to be a contradiction of thought here. If a person has the ability to choose good or evil in each individual situation where each choice is equally capable of being chosen... how come we don’t have the ability to live perfect lives?
We have free will, the ability to make choices of right and wrong for ourselves. We DON'T have the ability to do so perfectly correctly. We all make mistakes (ie, sin) and fail to hit the mark in various ways at some points (MANY points) in our lives.
But the inability to lead perfect lives does not change the reality that at any given point, we have the free will to make the right choice, as best we understand it, on any given action.
I don't see how one thing (our inability to be perfect) reflects on the other (our free will).
I suppose you agree that, in theory, a person can bowl a perfect strike any time they bowl. There is absolutely nothing, short of a lack of skill, that would stop someone from bowling a strike, even twelve strikes in a row, in any given game. People do it all the time.
However, the good bowler's ability to get a strike on any given frame does not mean that he/she will bowl perfect games all their lives. They won't. Still, any given frame CAN be a strike.
Does it not seem that way to you?
If not, on which choice(s) are you NOT able to choose to do the right thing?
Ryan said...
An unsaved person goes and helps her across the street, and you, observing, would say that he did a good thing, because “we can see it in practice on any given day at any point in our lives or in the lives of those around us.” I would submit to you, based on God’s definition of ‘good’ (God alone being good), that that action was not actually a good action.
I would submit that it may very well have NOT been a good action, perhaps the person was hoping for a reward. HOWEVER, it is just as likely in the real world, that they did it for wholly unselfish reasons.
I know unsaved folk who would do such a thing without a second thought, just because it is a nice thing to do to help an elderly person across the street. I can see it in the real world, therefore, for what reason would I accept your hypothetical answer if it does not hold up to real world experience?
As to "God's definition of 'good,'" I was unaware that God defined the word for us. The Bible tells us that there is "no one righteous, no not one." (Romans 3), but that is not a definition of "good," rather, it is a hyperbolic statement to point out our own failings and God's own goodness.
It is also (in context) Paul explaining to the Jews that they're not somehow righteous in a way that the Gentiles aren't. There are NONE righteous, Paul says, in a bit of hyperbole to point out that the Jews aren't some special holy group in a way that the gentiles can't be.
"for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are ALL under sin;
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one"
I await Ryan's response, but I am wondering, Dan. On what do you base your assessment that the passage in question -- Rom 3 -- is hyperbole?
Well, in that particular case, it is more a matter of thinking YOUR take on the passage is off-kilter. That is, people DO do good things, so the notion - if it is found in the Bible (and I believe that the NIV - which translation I don't believe you trust - DOES translate that line "no one does good," instead of "no one is righteous") - that people can't/don't do good acts would be hyperbole, since that is observably not true.
However, if we're merely talking about whether people are "good," then we probably agree. People aren't wholly good. We are sinners, in need of salvation, in need of God whose righteousness makes ours look puny in comparison - but which is not to say that we are wholly incapable of good, just that we aren't wholly good or good as compared to God.
In short, it is the suggestion that people don't ever choose to do good would be what I would consider hyperbole. If you are agreeing with me (and the evidence) that people DO in fact sometimes choose to do good things, then we aren't necessarily disagreeing.
Interesting that you turn my simple question for information into a personal insult. Why is that? I didn't suggest your thinking was off kilter. I asked what led you to it.
So, here's where I interpret what you said and you correct me if I misunderstood. It looks like you're saying, "I know that it is hyperbole because if it is literal, it violates my experience of seeing people who do genuine good works."
Did I understand the basis for your concluding that it is hyperbole correctly?
FYI, every version I know of says something similar: "There is none that does good, no, not one."
Rom 3:10-12 (KJV) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Rom 3:12b (YLT) There is none doing good, there is not even one.
(ESV) No one does good, not even one.
(NASB) There is none who does good, there is not even one.
(GLT) Not one is doing goodness, not so much as one!
(NIV) There is no one who does good, not even one.
Shall I go on? (We -- Ryan and I -- were not referencing verse 10, but verse 12).
Interesting that you turn my simple question for information into a personal insult. Why is that? I didn't suggest your thinking was off kilter. I asked what led you to it.
First, let me apologize. That was in no way meant to be an insult. I was thinking that your take on the verse was askew, as I was thinking of and looking at verse 10, not 12. I thought you were misquoting the passage and that was why I said off kilter. There was nothing intentionally insulting in that comment and I apologize for the appearance of such.
And thanks for the clarification. I had not noted that verse 12 said it that way.
Stan said...
It looks like you're saying, "I know that it is hyperbole because if it is literal, it violates my experience of seeing people who do genuine good works."
Did I understand the basis for your concluding that it is hyperbole correctly?
That is one basis, not the only basis, but one. There is also the basis of what ELSE the Bible has to say.
But still, let's think about it: I know you don't put much stock in "real world experience" - if you see something with your eyes and yet the Bible says something else, you have stated you'd believe what the Bible says over your own eyes.
However, is that a logical, moral or biblical position to take? Does the Bible ever tell us we should take its literal words over common sense or our own senses?
Yes, we should follow God no matter what anything, even our own senses, tell us. But following God is not the same thing as taking the Bible literally. We have already agreed (I believe) that the Bible has metaphors, hyperbole, parables and other non-literal story-telling devices. I think we agree that we have to use our senses, along with what the Bible says, to divine which parts are to be taken literally and which parts not.
So, if you see a line that suggests, for instance, that the earth is square (the corners of the earth) and we have no biblical reason NOT to take that as a metaphor, AND YET, we DO KNOW from easy observation that the earth is not square, would we not understand that to be not literal based on our senses alone?
Dan Trabue: "So, if a saved person helps someone across the street"
Your definition of "good", then, is "helping someone across the street", right? You're going to ignore all that was said about motives, intentions, purpose. You're going to ignore Jesus's words when He condemns giving alms or praying for the wrong reasons. No, of course, you're not. That's just what it looks like to me.
No, a saved person who does good does so because he or she is motivated and empowered by God to do things for God's glory. It is not the thing done that is in question.
Dan Trabue: "You appear to have a theological definition of "good" that you have not shared specifically with us (not that I've noticed)."
Last time and then I give up. The first divine standard of good is "no other gods". The first standard of unregenerate humans is "Me first" (or "I will be like the Most High"). The primary command to humans is "Love the Lord your God with all your hearts ..." and the primary condition of humans is "hostile to God". The primary definition of "good" is by God and for God.
Dan Trabue: "God does the calling and the soldier does the repenting."
No, not calling. God gives a general call to everyone. And your idea, then, would be that God grants repentance to everyone ... and now it's in their court. That's not the language of the text. That's not what it suggests in the least.
Tell ya what ... let's drop it. You will continue with your "standard English" definition of good (even though the standard human definition of "good" is predicated on human standards, not God's standards) and mine will always be wrong. I offer Scriptures ("no other gods", "hostile to God") and you ask me "Where do you get that?" I point out that every translation says, "There is no one who does good" and you assure me that it violates Scripture. You apologize for perceived insults and continue to insult by assuring me that my biblical view isn't biblical and telling me that I'm a follower of Calvin. I offer explanations and definitions and you ask me for explanations and definitions. So I have nothing on which to stand. I take my position from the Bible and you tell me that this is not logical, moral, or biblical. Since there is no basis for my views that you will accept, why not just go back to your dusting off and leave this poor foolish blog alone? I have nothing to offer you because of my hardcore belief in the Bible as it is written and your only offering for me is "Stop trying to conform your worldview to the Bible." I am taking a stand that God is Sovereign and Man is not, and you are asking me to give up that stand and accept that Man's Free Will is sovereign ... a place I cannot tolerate. I am taking a stand where you find it intolerable and you're asking me to give up any firm footing and ... just give up. Thanks ... but no.
Your definition of "good", then, is "helping someone across the street", right? You're going to ignore all that was said about motives, intentions, purpose. You're going to ignore Jesus's words when He condemns giving alms or praying for the wrong reasons. No, of course, you're not. That's just what it looks like to me.
Yes, you're right. That's just what it looks like to you. I have not SAID that intentions and motives don't matter, have I? In fact, I said quite specifically that the motive was love. The love of a child for their mother, for instance, the love of a man for his friends. THAT was the motive.
So, having clarified that: IS the child who gives his mom a hug and a present choosing to do a good thing? IS the man who sacrifices his life to save his friends choosing to do a good thing?
I say, yes, by definition, he is. How about you?
Stan said...
The primary definition of "good" is by God and for God.
Okay, perhaps we can see where the confusion lies. You're using a non-standard English definition for the word, "good," or for the term, "Good deed." Can you understand that IF you are using a non-standard definition for "good act" and then use it in a sentence, how someone expecting the common definition would be confused?
So, when Jesus referenced people who do a good act, it is your opinion he MEANT to say "he did an act by God and for God"?
If that is the case that you think this and I, Dan Trabue, do a good act - not motivated by anything other than love - and you think Dan is not a Christian, then is that an indication that Dan did a Christian act, yet isn't a Christian? Or what do you do with that example?
Dan Trabue: "I say, yes, by definition, he is. How about you?"
I say let's drop it. You will always define "good" by the standard you choose to, and I will always define "good" by the standard I choose to, and never the twain shall meet. Your view requires that other passages be read as hyperbole; my view confirms them. You see Jesus saying that unbelievers are doing genuine good and I don't. Once again, we disagree on fundamental grounds that cannot be breached. So ... let's drop it.
(And, seriously, do you really want to go down that "you don't think I'm a Christian" path again? Seriously?)
I say let's drop it. You will always define "good" by the standard you choose to, and I will always define "good" by the standard I choose to, and never the twain shall meet.
Whether we drop it or not is up to you. I find this conversation interesting but if you wish to end, that's fine with me. Or I'll carry it on with Ryan if he wants to.
But again, I have to wonder, do you really find it unusual that I did not understand what you were saying when you were using some other definition for "good acts" than the standard English definition?
But, if you are advocating for a different theological definition, there's no reason that "the twain" might not meet, you just need to cue me in.
If you had said at some point, "When I'm talking about good, I'm not talking about it in the normal sense of the word. Yes, of course, people DO good acts all the time, saved and non-saved people do good acts by the normal definition. However, in the Bible, I think the 'good' spoken of is ACTUALLY speaking of perfection, which we don't meet..." or something like that, then we could have possibly sped up getting around to what you actually meant.
As to disagreeing on fundamental grounds, I'm not sure what that would be. We both agree that the Bible sometimes uses hyperbole and metaphor. In the case of "no one does good," I think it is clearly hyperbole because 1. the Bible mentions doing good, so we know it's possible and 2. in the real world, we know people DO do good, so it can't be literal using standard definitions.
Now, you seem to choose to resolve this by re-defining "good," to something beyond standard English. But my question would be, Why?
When you see the Bible speak of "the four corners of the Earth," there is not a single biblical reason not to take that literally. And yet, I imagine you DON'T take it literally because it is obviously a metaphor. But you don't take it as metaphor based on anything other than real world observations that show it can't have meant to be literal. Am I correct?
I suspect that you and I agree that sometimes, something is obviously non-literal based purely on our observations in the real world, not on biblical reasons. So, what "fundamental grounds" do you think we disagree about?
I say let's drop it. You will always define "good" by the standard you choose to, and I will always define "good" by the standard I choose to
How about this: Would you agree that the child giving his mother a hug and present out of love for his mother do a good thing as the word is defined in the English language?
The Muslim/pagan/anabaptist fella who sacrificed his life out of love for his friends, did HE choose to do a good thing as the word is defined in the English language?
As to this:
God gives a general call to everyone. And your idea, then, would be that God grants repentance to everyone ... and now it's in their court. That's not the language of the text. That's not what it suggests in the least.
To clarify, my notion is this: IF God's people who are called by God's name humble themselves and pray and seek God's face and turn from their wicked ways, then God will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, as the Bible says in 2 Chronicles 7.
Or, as Jesus preached to the lost (in Mark 1)...
"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
The presentation is there to all "Now is the time," the message is there for all people, "Repent and believe in the good news," and some people heard, repented and were saved and some did not.
As the Bible says.
Again, the presentation is to ALL humanity, as Acts 17 shows us...
Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that ALLL people EVERYWHERE should repent, because God has fixed a day in which God will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom God has appointed, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead."
As the Bible says.
And so Jesus calls us all to repent, as he did in Luke 13:
"I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."
As the Bible says.
So, when you say, "That's not the language of the text," WHAT text are you speaking of exactly? Because I AM looking at the text and it says we are ALL offered the opportunity to repent and we can ALL choose to say yes or no.
Dan Trabue: "I have to wonder, do you really find it unusual that I did not understand what you were saying when you were using some other definition for "good acts" than the standard English definition?"
No, of course not. I would expect "the standard English definition" to be a human-based, sinful standard. I would not expect the standard English definition to succumb to God's definition (even though the root of the word "good" is actually "God"). One might think that by my repeatedly referencing biblical passages offering biblical standards for the word "good" the casual reader might begin to see that I'm using a different definition, but apparently not. Repetition often works, but not in this case. And I wouldn't be surprised in the least that the worldly definition of "good" would refuse to allow for a godly definition -- a literal understanding of the biblical passages -- because, well, it is foolishness*, isn't it?
You suggest there's reason to hope that you might be able to figure it out soon if I just "cue you in". Cue? I've thrown down Scripture, references, quotes, logic, explanations, parallels, metaphors ... every possible way I can think of to say it and you say "cue me in". I did say that people are capable of doing "good" by human standards, but not by God's standards, but that didn't work either.
Here's the real problem, isn't it? I want to read my Bible at face value. Lacking any genuine reason to deny that it is meant as written, I take it as written. You, on the other hand, want to defend Man's Free Will. Limitations on Man's Free Will are not allowable. I need to believe that the Bible means what it says and you're happy not to. No common ground. To you, if God gave Man sovereignty, that's great. To me, if God gave Man sovereignty, we are without hope. Truly, Dan, if I believed what you believe, I would surrender all hope. No way to read the Bible and make sense. No real Sovereign God. No atonement. It is a lot of hype, hyperbole, metaphor ... pretty much whatever someone wants it to mean. Nothing genuine, nothing logical, nothing on which to stand. Continuing to demand that I agree with you that it's a good thing for a mother to love her child doesn't bridge this gap. People aren't that bad. God isn't that good. Man isn't that helpless. God isn't that sovereign. And I cannot follow you there.
On your last comment, you are reading things that are not there. Saying, "If you don't repent you will likewise perish" does not require "You can repent". I could say "If you don't use a rocket ship you won't get to the moon" and it doesn't mean that you have the ability to get to the moon. The command to do something doesn't require the ability to do it. You are drawing inferences that aren't there. When the implicit denies the explicit, the implicit is wrong. Nothing in the texts you offered say, "Unsaved people do things that, by God's standards, are good." It's not there. Still, you tell me "Passages about homosexuals don't condemn all homosexuals" even though the texts clearly condemn homosexual behavior, but you'll stand firmly on implications that deny the explicit texts. It's your own double standard, and I won't play the game anymore.
*In case you missed the reference, I am pointing at 1 Cor 1:18-31.
I would not expect the standard English definition to succumb to God's definition
What IS God's definition? God has not defined "good." God HAS given the Ten Commandments, but that is not a special definition of Good, that is the Ten Commandments.
BECAUSE I value the Bible and BECAUSE I don't want to claim to speak for God what God has not said, I would not suggest it wise to say, "God's definition of good is..." without having God said that. So, what is it you think "God's definition" of good is?
And now, a few misunderstandings that I will try to correct. You said...
Lacking any genuine reason to deny that it is meant as written, I take it as written.
No. We BOTH recognize that sometimes a passage ISN'T what it literally says. When the Bible says "the four corners of the Earth," you don't take that literally, do you? And yet, you lack no "genuine reason" - EXCEPT, that is, your own observation that the world does NOT in fact have four corners. Am I right?
The thing is, observation IS a "genuine reason." We weren't given eyes and a brain for naught, were we?
You said...
You, on the other hand, want to defend Man's Free Will.
No, I want to pursue God's Will. I want to take the bible seriously. And, in the process, I believe that we have free will, AS YOU DO. We BOTH believe in humanity having a free will, the ability to choose right and wrong, you have said that you believe this. Just that there are "limitations," but I believe you have left any limitations undefined.
To you, if God gave Man sovereignty, that's great.
Except that I HAVE NOT SAID THAT NOR DO I BELIEVE IT. I don't believe humanity has sovereignty over God. But humanity has free will, as you and I both agree.
If you believe there are limitations on that free will - some places where we DON'T have free will, by all means, make that case, tell me where we don't have free will. Where YOU don't have the freedom to choose right and wrong. I don't know of any such areas.
Nothing genuine, nothing logical, nothing on which to stand.
You may think this, but I don't. I think God is the genuine logical thing on which we stand and rely. God and God alone. Not some magic book. Not some perfect knowledge of God's will on our part. God and God's grace alone.
Continuing to demand that I agree with you that it's a good thing for a mother to love her child doesn't bridge this gap.
I have NOT demanded that I agree with you, I have asked you a question which you have continued to not answer. Is it a difficult question to answer? Is there some reason why you can't answer it?
It seems fairly straightforward to me: IF a child does a kind act towards his mother in love, IS that a good act? IF an unsaved man lays down his life for his friends out of love, is that a good act? What's hard to answer about that?
People aren't that bad. God isn't that good. Man isn't that helpless. God isn't that sovereign. And I cannot follow you there.
I have not asked you to follow me anywhere. I've just asked you some questions to clarify what you mean.
I have not said that people aren't that bad. I've said that we ALL have a sinful nature (as the Bible says and as reality supports). I've just said that we're not utterly depraved (as the Bible does NOT say and as reality supports).
I've certainly NOT said that God isn't THAT Good. GOD IS PERFECTLY GOOD and HOLY and RIGHTEOUS. Please don't misrepresent my position.
Nor have I said that God isn't sovereign. That's your wording, not mine. God IS sovereign and God DOES give us free will. You seem to agree with me and then disagree when I restate it, which is what I find confusing. Right? You agree with me that God IS sovereign, yes? AND you agree with me that God DOES give us free will, the ability to choose right and wrong, yes? You just place some vague limitation on it, suggesting that God doesn't give us UNLIMITED free will, which I still don't know what means. DO we have the ability to choose right and wrong or not?
Again, I think this has to do with your calvinist leanings, which you cling to too tightly, in my opinion. TULIP is not in the Bible. Consider that prayerfully, brother.
I would expect "the standard English definition" to be a human-based, sinful standard. I would not expect the standard English definition to succumb to God's definition
You think the English language has been designed in opposition to God?? Do you have your own God-dish definition for every word in the English language?
It's just words. Ways of communicating. There's nothing inherently WRONG with words, they're how we communicate with one another. It's just when some people start using OTHER meanings for existing words that we have trouble communicating.
I mean, do you have a different meaning for "Up," too? Is the English definition for "up" also a human-based, sinful standard. Is your "UP" actually defined as "down?" because that's God's definition of UP?
Come now, brother. Let's reason together reasonably. No need to attack the English language...
Dan Trabue: "I don't want to claim to speak for God what God has not said."
Is there some point at which you might recognize your own hypocrisy with that line? You don't want to speak for God, but you are quite sure that Jesus said, "Unsaved people can do genuine good."
Look, Dan, I'm finished here. You are going to continue to beat this dead horse until it is pulp. I've explained what I believe (Natural Man cannot choose to do good) and I've given my biblical sources for it (which you reject as "hyperbole") and I've defined what I mean by "good" (which you reject as "not standard English") and I've repeated it all multiple times. I've said it in as many ways as I can and you still tell me "We BOTH believe in humanity having a free will, the ability to choose right and wrong, you have said that you believe this. Just that there are 'limitations,' but I believe you have left any limitations undefined." You continue to tell me to throw out my beliefs and embrace the air you breathe (because to me there's nothing solid there). I can't keep answering the same questions, offering the same reasons, explaining the same ideas endlessly. I'm finished. If Ryan (or someone else) wishes to chime in, I'll be glad to let them. Further comments to me on this subject, however, will be blocked because I'm finished. I've said it twice before and now I will finish it officially.
Post a Comment