I have heard a lot of debates lately between Calvinists and ... non-Calvinists. (Technically, like "Catholic" and "Protestant", you are one or the other. You either agree with Roman Catholicism or you protest them. You either agree with the particular five points in the Calvinist view or you do not. "Arminian" was simply defined as "We disagree with Calvin on these five points." If you disagree on them, that's "Arminian". But, hey, I get that we don't like to use those terms.) Something that has struck me listening to these dialogues has been the number of times that non-Calvinists have hurled accusations at Calvinists that, as it turns out, I agree with.
God doesn't force people to come to Him.
Being of the Reformed view, I agree with this statement. It is offered so often as a diatribe against my theology, and I just nod and agree. The notion is not that God drags some, kicking and screaming, into the Kingdom. Nor does He stand before some, pleading to get in, preventing them. The idea is that those whom God will save are given a heart of flesh in place of their heart of stone (Ezek 11:19), a new spirit (Ezek 36:26). From this new heart these people choose freely of their own will to come to Christ in faith and repentance. No force. No coercion. It is simply a removal of the part of Natural Man that blocks this option.
God doesn't program people to sin.
I've actually heard this very phrase in opposition to Reformed theology. I've actually agreed wholeheartedly. God does not program people to sin. Good! We're in agreement. Of course, they'll wag their finger and say, "Now you're being evasive! Don't you believe that God ordains all that comes to pass, even sin?" And I would have to agree with that. But is it necessary, in ordaining all that comes to pass, that God actively cause it? I believe He ordains all that comes to pass, but I don't think that requires in any sense a direct causal relationship to all that comes to pass.
God is not the author of sin.
It is argued that if God ordains all that comes to pass, including sin, then that makes God the author of sin. To which I would enthusiastically agree that God is not the author of sin. "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempts no one" (James 1:13). Agreed! But if God knows that you will sin tomorrow and if He has the ability to change that (Gen 20:6) and if He does not, then can it be truly said that He did not ordain it without having caused it? And, as such, wouldn't you still bear the responsibility for your sin even though God allowed it and even "meant it for good" (Gen 50:20)?
Humans have free will.
I find this one interesting. Interesting because I agree that humans have free will. And so we're in agreement, right? Except that the nature of this "free will" turns out to be in question. Is it "Libertarian" -- humans can do whatever they want (which, to me, is manifest nonsense)? If God knows all that will occur and knows it rightly, do humans (who will surely choose to do all that God knows they will choose to do) have free will? I say that a choice that is not coerced, even if it is foreknown and even predestined (without, remember, causing it) is still free since nothing outside of the chooser caused the choice. So I agree that humans have free will. (And I agree that the Bible teaches that we must choose Christ.)
I don't know. With all that agreement, perhaps "enemy" isn't a good term.
6 comments:
Here are some thoughts from John Hendryx and some from my own:
God doesn't force people to come to Him
We were running the other way, all of us, and God yet saved us from certain death. How can some call God "wicked" if He were to show mercy to rebels who have hardened their will against Him? People get angry and even hostile at the very idea of God saving someone "against their will". God certainly knows better than we do and if He violated our will to save us I am thankful that He did. My will is inconsequential. God's will is what counts. But the new life, once implanted, gave me the desire for what is good (not against my will), so that my will conforms to God's redemptive purposes.
God is not the author of sin.
The term authors is almost universally condemned in the theological literature. It is rarely defined, but it seems to mean both that God is the efficient cause of evil and that by causing evil he actually does something wrong. The [Westminster Confession] says that God “neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin” (5:4). Despite this denial in a major Reformed confession, Arminians regularly charge that Reformed theology makes God the author of sin. They assume that if God brings about evil in any sense, he must therefore approve it and deserve the blame. In their view, nothing less than libertarian freedom will serve to absolve God from the charge of authoring sin.
God does bring about sinful human actions. To deny this, or to charge God with wickedness on account of it, is not open to a Bible-believing Christian. Somehow, we must confess both that God has a role in bringing evil about, and that in doing so he is holy and blameless. . . . God does bring sins about, but always for his own good purposes. So in bringing sin to pass He does not himself commit sin.
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. (James 1:13-17)
Humans have free will.
“…if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” (2 Timothy 2:25)
Now if we are held captive to do someone else’s will then it is clear that our will is not free, and according to the above passage, freedom comes to an individual only when God's grants it. Likewise when Jesus promises freedom to the captives to sin, He says, “if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” (John 8:36) Clearly since the will has been subdued by the corruptions with which it has fallen, unregenerate man has a total lack of freedom. This passage reveals to us that the gift of grace is itself not an attribute of our unregenerate natures. Furthermore Paul describes mankind’s state as prisoners who are bound with chains of sin, that is, until we are set free by the Holy Spirit. Therefore we must conclude that those who continue to assert that man has free choice use a different expression than the Holy Spirit. For what Christian would dare to claim that we serve the righteousness of God by free choice which is innate within us, but not through the Holy Spirit which is given to us. For the Scripture declares that “no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3).
Those who can repent and seek forgiveness are those God has regenerated. As one with new birth, he will always choose Christ without exception. For those whom the Father draws, He will raise up on the last day.
As to the authoring of sin, I think it was you that I learned from the idea that God is in fact a restraining force against sin. Humanity would be far deeper into sin if we were allowed unlimited free will.
Given a heart of flesh = Force to come to him. Can you refuse God, when he implants the heart of flesh inside of you?
Would you say a ruler of a country that ordains a genocide, is not responsible for the genocide, because he didn't actually kill anyone? The ordain/causal argument doesn't hold up.
If I create a computer program of a dog that barks at precisely 9:00 am every day. I can safely foreknow and predestine that each day at 9:00 am the dog will bark. No one would say the dog has free will. I am undeniably the cause of the barking dog. Explain to me how we are different than the programmed dog.
I am not going to try to convince you to change your mind but this is some of the reasons my mind was changed. The first thing a person needs to do is to set aside the traditions or preconceived concepts you were taught. You have to admit John 6: 37,44,65 says that the Father draws people (not every person) and each person the Father draws will come to Him (no failures, no frustrations) and will be raised up on the last day (perseverance of the saints). The reason why people don’t understand John 6 is that they don’t understand fully the nature of man. They seem to want to upgrade man goodness so that he is the one who decides salvation even if grace is involved. Man has an ego and wants to be in charge or at least have some part in salvation. (God’s 99% and man’s 1%). Since salvation only becomes possible at the cross (Arminian view), he is the deciding factor. Grace now becomes an obligation for God to those who choose Christ. On the other hand the person who has been given a heart of flesh (grace before a decision is made) is able to see the truths of Scripture he couldn’t see and understand before; he wants, not forced, to repent and live for Him. Now he has eyes to see and ears to hear. God gives him different desires to live for Christ that was once hostile to God. He sees the truth of who he is and who God is and responds in a positive way. I don’t see how this makes him a robot. In order to be consistent, if you will have a problem with robot theology when you become a Christian then you will have a problem with sanctification (cannot walk away from God - “for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure,” Phil. 2:13 and glorification in heaven where there is no choice to reject God whatsoever.
I think we would both agree to the following. Here are the choices of man governed by the sovereignty of God:
(1) Prior to the Fall, man was able to sin or not sin. Adam chose to sin.
(2) But after the Fall, unregenerate man is not able not to sin (slaves to sin).
(3) Fallen, but regenerated man is able to sin or not sin, and (no robots or puppets, or programmed dogs)
(4) Glorified man is not able to sin. (Some people may have a problem here)
If John 1:12-13 -the incapability (free will) of man and John 6 are true - the Father draws and those He draws will always come to Him, we have to conclude that verses that deal with choosing must mean something else other than free will.
Would you prefer tragedies and evils that happen in life with no purpose whatsoever, or a God who ordains them with purpose (no He is not the author of sin)? How could I pray to a God with confidence who is not in control of everything, or passive, or is always reacting? You may have a problem with the verse that says “all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose.” Either you have to believe in open theism (doesn’t always know the future and God only reacts to problems) or you would have change the meaning of this verse to fit your worldview.
These are some of the things I had to think through.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/freewill.html
Given a heart of flesh does not equal forced to come to Him. Given a heart of flesh equals able to come to Him, and all that are able to, do because why wouldn't you? Once you know the truth, why continue the lie.
You misunderstand ordain vs cause. Your dictator caused the genocide by ordering it. If there was a genocide and he did nothing about it, then he would not be the cause but he did ordain it because he allowed it to happen if though he could have stopped it. All that happens is God's will. Nothing happens outside of His will. But that does not mean He causes all things. But if something is going to happen He doesn't want to happen, He stops it because He does not ordain it. Allowing something to happen is not causing it nor does it make you culpable for it. The one that causes it is still responsible.
Due to your misunderstanding of ordain vs cause, your dog analogy is incorrect. God knows the dog is going to bark at 9am because the dogs wants to bark at 9 and only at 9. If God didn't want it to bark at 9 He would stop it. Everything we are going to do is known to God. Nothing we do is outside of His will but we still choose to do it. He stops what He doesn't want and allows what He does.
Josh, you would say that there can necessarily be no difference between "ordain" and "cause" or "force to happen."
Post a Comment