In the debates between those who agree with the Scriptures that say that Man is dead in sin, inclined only to evil, hostile to God, unable to understand the things of God and, as such, must be first regenerated (born again), gifted with faith and granted repentance, and then come to Christ and those who believe that Man is not entirely dead, inclined only to evil, not so hostile to God that he can't respond, and not completely unable to understand the things of God and, therefore, is perfectly capable of generating his own faith and repentance to which God responds with new birth, it seems to me that both sides face ... issues. I tend to think of the difference as a conflict between the Sovereignty of God and Man's Free Will -- which will win? Others, of course, disagree. But it does seem to me that the real, core difference in the two is a God-based view over a Man-based view. Here, compare a couple of items between the two perspectives.
Reformed: Christ gave His life for His sheep. Whosoever comes to Him will be saved, but we know that unless God does a specific work in a person, no one will come. In this sense, then, Christ's atonement covers the Elect. Christ's death and resurrection actually procured salvation for those Elect.
Arminian: God wants to save everyone. Christ died to make Atonement for the sins of the world -- all sins. The free offer is for everyone and anyone at all is able to come to Christ to be saved.
As it turns out, both of these will run into difficulties that have to be addressed. You likely think that the one with which you disagree will have a problem, but it's not true. Both need to address some serious questions.
The Reformed Problem:
Is it a real offer if you say, "Whosoever will may come and receive salvation" and know that not everyone can? Doesn't Scripture say that He desires that all men repent and come to the knowledge of the truth?
The Arminian Problem:
God wants to save everyone ... but doesn't. Is it an inability or a refusal? We agree that "Whosoever will may come", but if everyone can, how does that align with all the Scriptures that say the opposite? If God desires the salvation of everyone and doesn't accomplish it, in what sense can it be said that "He works all things after the counsel of His will" or "He does whatever He pleases"?
And those are just a couple of examples of 1) the positions both sides take and 2) the problems they face. Now, I know how I answer the problems raised against my understanding of Scripture, but I don't know how the other side does. What I do see is that it appears to be an issue of God or Man. Here, let me explain.
From the Reformed point of view, God is Sovereign. Absolutely, completely, without doubt or exception. Man does indeed make choices without coercion, but only those that God allows and what He allows He does for His purposes. This includes salvation. Man doesn't decide if he will be saved; God does. He chooses whom He will save and certainly accomplishes it. That's the Reformed view. From the non-Reformed perspective (I choose that terminology because many, if not most, who disagree won't classify themselves as "Arminians"), God is sovereign, but we are constantly surrounded and involved in things that God didn't ordain. This may include natural disasters, disease, birth defects, and the like, but it certainly includes Man's Free Will. Man chooses whatever he chooses and God either works with it or works around it. "Redeems it" is the phrase some use. He takes something He never wanted to happen at all and figures out something good to use it for. He takes Man's Free Will lemons and makes lemonade, so to speak. Most importantly, though, is that God wants to save everyone but cannot because the salvation of any individual is predicated on his Free Will choice. A blanket salvation is laid out for everyone and you decide whether or not you will take it up.
Notice the direction of each view, then. One assumes a "God" direction, starting with His Sovereignty in everything and bringing it all the way down into who does and does not get saved. The other assumes a "Man" direction, starting with Man's Free Will as the primary deciding factor in what occurs and bringing God in to pick up the pieces -- to "redeem" our choices.
So which is it? I believe that the Bible is clear that we make choices. We are all agreed on that. But I believe further that the Bible is clear that, behind everything, God is Sovereign. He does whatever He pleases. He prevented Abimelech from sinning (Gen 20:6) and intended for Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery to save many (Gen 50:20). He opened the heart of Lydia to respond to Paul's words (Acts 16:14) and "works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13). )If He is at work in you to will to do His good pleasure, is He not intervening in your will?)
The other side argues that Man's Free Will is paramount. "God doesn't want robots" is the catchphrase. The question remains. If God knew from the beginning of creation that Adam and the rest of us would sin, has the ability to prevent it (like He did with Abimelech), and still made everything and allowed the sin, what does that tell us about God? If "love" means obtaining what is best for the loved one, God loves everyone equally, and God fails to save every single person, how does He "love everyone equally"? Is He not able to save? Is He stuck, like parents today who say, "My little Johnny felt like he was a she, so we renamed him Joanie and let him be a girl; what's a loving parent to do?" Bottom line, if God offers a blanket salvation for all humans and Man's Free Will determines if I get saved or not, isn't Man the final authority on salvation? How is that Sovereign (Eph 1:11), doing "as He pleases" (Psa 115:3; 135:6), or even loving?
Here's the clearest example I can think of for how one side comes at it from God and the other from Man. Reformed theology holds that each individual that comes to Christ does so by God's prior election, that He predestines each one to salvation and brings it about. The other side argues invariably that the predestination is corporate. What they say is "God never predestines individuals to salvation. He simply predestined that there would be a body of believers." So, one side says that God chooses who will be saved and, in doing so, builds a body of believers (because both sides agree that there is a corporate "Body of Christ") and the other side says that God makes the setting for such a body but who is in that body is determined how? ... by the individual. One side says God chooses and the other says God does not, but Man does. That's what I'm talking about.
Please note: I don't offer these by way of tirade or assault. I don't understand. I see an issue here that I have not seen addressed. Is God Sovereign or has He surrendered that to Man's Free Will? Are we to approach these questions from God or from Man? Is Man the ultimate determiner of the outcome of salvation for the individual? These questions and more float around out there and I'm not getting it. I don't ask them as an enemy. I ask them as a confused observer. Because I'm not getting it.
48 comments:
Your problem is that you make people either Calvinist or Arminian. A large number of us are neither - we just read the Bible for what it says.
God does NOT surrender his sovereignty by giving man free-will choices. That is the main problem with Calvinist/Augustinian claims. It is in His sovereignty that he gives the free will. After all, God didn't make robots.
Just to be clear, Glenn (as opposed to "contentious" or some other "fighting words"), I am a "Calvinist" only because people have labeled me such. I even protest the classification. I have read very little of Calvin. I don't follow "a theological system". I've told people, "I'm not a Calvinist; I'm a biblicist. It just turns out that Calvin and I seemed to see a lot of the same things in Scripture." To put it succinctly, I just read the Bible for what it says.
The designations of "Calvinist" and "Arminian" are, today, shorthand for "Do you believe these five things or don't you?" If you do (because you have either been taught them or because you find them in Scripture), you're a "Calvinist" even if you never read the man and couldn't care less what he believed. If not (because you have either been taught otherwise or because you find something else in Scripture), you're an "Arminian", not because you're a follower of Arminius, but because you disagree with those particular points of doctrine. A lot of "Calvinists" I know (including myself) and even more "Arminians" I know disavow the terms "Calvinist" and "Arminian". They're just code for a particular set of beliefs. I find mine in the Bible.
Oh, and one more point for clarification. I do believe in free will. Just not Libertarian Free Will. Not autonomy. I believe that, if I am to align my views with Scripture, Man has freedom to choose, but to do so within limits.
Your point about the Arminian (or non-Reformed, or whatever you want to call it) view of God either refusing to save or being unable to save is important to point out to those that malign the Reformed view of God as being evil, etc. Because if they look carefully at the timeline they'll see that their view of God is virtually indistinguishable from the Reformed view on that point. If the Reformed view of God makes him a big meanie who created people knowing they would go to Hell, how does that differ from the other view which says that He created them knowing they'd go to Hell?
Neil, it seems to me, as you indicate, that the "non-Reformed" side has just as many problems with God as what they think the "Reformed" side has. They just don't seem to see them while they're dueling the "Reformed". If God wills that all be saved, why are they not? If God desires to save everyone, why does He not? If God does not plan for sin, why is there sin? Lots of difficult questions.
Each view does have its own set of issues. One of the issues that I have is the way we present the gospel as a result of our biblical world view. This is a little off topic but if you get the doctrine of man wrong and the doctrine of salvation wrong than the gospel that is presented may be wrong.
If you have the view that each person has the choice to either accept Christ or reject Christ and that salvation is in the hands of man, then you are in the Arminian/Semi-Pelagian/Pelagian camp. This camp represents the synergistic view of man. Salvation requires co-operation between man and God. God has done His part and now it is up to you to do your part. Your view of man is that he has a corrupt nature (from Adam) but not to the point that he cannot choose for himself salvation. Man may make a move on his own toward God and then God helps him the rest of the way (S-P); God may make the first move (prevenient grace) and then it is up to you to take the following necessary steps to salvation (A) ; man is not corrupt and is only a sinner when he sins (P). He can choose Christ without grace. The way the gospel is presented reflects these views in most churches today.
Counselors, with these views, with sincerity and earnest, usually are instructed that successful counseling must conclude with absolute assurance of salvation for the one who makes a "decision for Christ." They are often instructed to assure an individual that his salvation is certain because he has prayed a prescribed prayer and because he has said "yes" to all the right questions. 1. Do you personally acknowledge you sin? 2. Do you believe in Christ's substitutionary work? 3. Do you want to come to Christ and claim your personal share in what He did for everybody? Once he has done this he is now regarded a Christian and he needs to tell someone.
Here is the problem. A man may make a profession of faith without ever having his confidence in his own ability shattered. He has been told absolutely nothing of his need of a change in nature which is not within his own power and if he does not experience such a radical change, he is okay with it. Also repentance is not even mentioned or just glossed over in the counseling session. It is frequently said that a man who has made a decision with little evidence of a change of life may be a "carnal" Christian who needs instruction in holiness. If he loses interest in Christ and the church, the fault is frequently attributed to lack of follow-up.
According to Jesus, the new birth is the sovereign work of God's Spirit in the heart of man (John 3:8). The difference between modern evangelism and biblical evangelism hinges on this basic question whether true religion is the work of God or man. The method used today by many churches attributes the new birth partly to man and partly to God.
Man is spiritually dead in trespasses and sins and cannot please God (Eph 2:1; Rom 8:8). Our Savior Himself portrayed man's condition as one of utter helplessness: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:44,65).
This state of death and bondage to sin cannot be changed by making a decision or walking an aisle. A man cannot make himself a Christian. Only the Spirit of God can create a new man in Christ. God and His grace gives men new hearts. Only then can they be willingly repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ ( Ez 36:26,27).
Neil,
The difference is that with the latter, God gave them a choice. Just because he knows what their choice will be that doesn't mean he is creating them solely to send to hell.
Our non-"Reformed" understanding says that God desires all to be saved, which is why Christ died for ALL of mankind, but God never forces people to choose to follow Him. That's why over and over again in Scripture God talks about choosing to obey him or not.
We understand God's omniscience, which is something the "reformed" people don't seem to understand. We understand God's foreknowledge is not fore-ordination, which is something "reformed" people don't understand.
Us biblicists who take the Bible for what it says understand that with sovereignty, God can still allow man the free will to follow Him or deny him. We understand that God isn't a puppeteer with pre-programmed robots who CANNOT reject God because God programmed them from the beginning to choose salvation. We understand that a person pre-programmed to Love God really DOESN'T Love. Love cannot be forced to be real love.
Interesting that "Reformed" only refers to Calvinism, yet Calvin was a johnny-come-lately. How come Luthanism isn't included in the "Doctrines of Grace" and "Reformed" theology? (Even though they teach pretty much the same Augustinian theology).
Glenn, not wanting to argue with you, I just wanted to point out the difficulty. We will assume that each human has his own choice (not coerced or anything) and that God is Omniscient, knowing in advance what people will choose. If God knows in advance that Bob (our fictitious example) will certainly choose to refuse God, there is no possibility that Bob will ever choose God (because God already knows what will happen) and, therefore, Bob is destined for Hell from birth. So ... why didn't God just choose not to have Bob born at all? (Rhetorical question, just intended to point out the difficulty.)
Just for clarification, I don't know anyone who believes that God prevents people from choosing Him.
Oh, and if you are "reformed" you can never know if you are saved, because you can't ever know if you are one of the Elect. Even R.C. Sproul has said that bothers him. Jay Adams in counseling says to NEVER tell someone that God loves them because you can't know if they are Elect.
What a sad way to live.
I'm sorry, Glenn. I'm sorry that it comes down to "Us biblicists" vs "you Reformed". I'm sorry that it cannot be "I disagree with your understanding of Scripture" instead of your version -- "You're not following Scripture." I could point out the falsehoods like "Reformed people don't understand God's omniscience" and "Reformed people don't understand foreknowledge", but it's all just the same thing. On this subject, at least, it is a contention, a contest, a conflagration, not a dialog between two fellow believers and fellow students of the Word discussing what they see in the pages of Scripture.
So, I'm sorry. I only hope that I don't come across that way -- "I follow the Word, but you disregard it" -- to you. If I do, please forgive me. I don't intend to.
Just for clarification, I don't know anyone who believes that God prevents people from choosing Him
Well, if God regenerates only those he chooses to give the ability to choose to follow him, then by NOT giving the same ability to other he is de factor preventing them from choosing to follow him.
Stan,
You called yourself a biblicist, and I just pointed out that I am also a biblicist. You say that your understanding of Scripture agrees with Calvinism (or properly Augustinianism), and I point out that I disagree with Calvinism.
Then the whole thing boils down to the responses I always get from "your side" - we reject the sovereignty of God, we are man-centered, and some "Calvinists" even call us heretics.
When God offers a person a gift of salvation, it is not "man-centered" to say a man can accept that gift. Nor does a man do anything to deserve the gift, nor does he save himself. Yet that is the standard canards from the "reformed" side of the fence.
Glenn, noting first that I said, "I don't ask them as an enemy. I ask them as a confused observer. Because I'm not getting it", I want to clarify that I try to make my understanding of Scripture agree with Scripture, and I think it appears that this whole "Calvinism-Reformed Theology" also seems to agree with that. I have repeatedly said that no genuine Christian rejects the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God; they just see it differently. And the fact is that some from "my side" (I hate that, as your "scare quotes" suggest you do, too) call some from "your side" "heretics" isn't made any better when I point out that some from "your side" call me the same. That is, bad people in both camps say bad things. (Unless, of course, you'd prefer to call me a heretic. Then it would be "Bad people from my camp say bad things, but you would say the same." I prefer to think better of you.)
The confusion I have (because, again, I am speaking in this post as a "confused observer") is not about man saving himself, but about who determines if any individual gets saved. I think the Bible says that God does. You think the Bible says that the individual does. We both think the Bible says what we think it says, so it isn't a question of which of us is biblical. But it appears that one side leans more toward Man as the final arbiter of one's salvation and the other leans more toward God as the final arbiter of one's salvation and that is my confusion. (Thus the title: "God or Man?", complete with question mark.)
Stan,
I do NOT say that man determines who gets saved, nor have I EVER heard/read a non-calvinist make such a claim. GOD made the condition (contrary to the "reformed" unconditional election) that in order to be saved man must have faith in the work of Christ which paid for his sin. If man fulfills the condition, then he is saved because God made the determination of the condition for salvation. 1 John 13 says that we can KNOW that we have eternal life if have such faith. Yet the "reformed" view says we CAN'T know if we are the elect because the faith we THINK we have may not be the result of God pre-choosing and pre-programming us.
Maybe I'm not expressing it properly. You believe (as I do) that Christ obtained all that was necessary for salvation. We both agree that not everyone is saved. So we stand here at this precipice. If Christ obtained all that is necessary and, yet, not all are saved, what is the difference between the saved and the unsaved? You say it is the choice the person makes. I say it is the choice God makes. You say "man fulfills the condition" and I say God enables the man to fulfill the condition first.
Please, stop with the "preprogramming". No one believes that on your side or mine. You don't like me to misrepresent your understanding. Show me the same courtesy since I categorically deny that the Bible teaches that God preprograms people to reject Him or to choose Him.
Note, also, that what "the Reformed view" is on not knowing if you are elect is irrelevant to me. I believe that I cannot know if you (anyone) are among the elect, but I can know if I am. I read Peter's "be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election" (2 Peter 1:5-10) and John's "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13) as demonstrations that an individual can make his election, his salvation sure. But, of course, that's because I am a biblicist, not a Calvinist.
You know, this may be a part of the problem. Perhaps you are associating me (remember, a biblicist who comes down on the Reformed side as opposed to a Reformed person reinterpreting Scripture) with "Reformed" instead of "Scripture". In that case, you assume that I agree with every other person who carries the classification "Reformed" or "Calvinist" when, in fact, I don't.
If God selects the person by regenerating him without him even considering God, and He does this only for the people He decides to regenerate without any condition on the person's behalf, then that is indeed pre-programming whether or not you choose to call it that.
I would never suggest the we can know if SOMEONE ELSE is saved; we don't know their heart. But we can know if we as individuals are saved simply because we fulfill the conditions.
It is good to hear different views of salvation. We are either monergistic or synergistic. Salvation comes from God alone or co-operation with man and God. I don't think there is a third option.
Can anyone explain how man can chose salvation in reference to John 1:12-13? What I would do is take the verse that is explicit in its meaning - not by the will of the flesh nor the will of man but by God and use that meaning to interpret the verses that mention human responsibility or that God desires all men to be saved. There are no verses in Scriptures that say that man has free will and can choose salvation. It only tells us what we ought to do not what we can do. Man can choose a hamburger over a hot dog but he is not morally able to choose God in the flesh or in his sin nature. A bad tree (unbeliever) cannot produce good fruit. (John 15). If nothing good comes from the flesh (Romans 7:18) where does faith come from? If it comes from God then a mixture of faith from God and the flesh still cannot produce good fruit. If one becomes a believer only by God (monergism) then how does it happen? He has to be drawn by the Father as stated by the same author and in the same book John 6:44,65. God then must change the person's heart so that he has the true freedom to repent and trust in Jesus otherwise he will always resist God until the day he dies. (Ez. 36:26,27).
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13).
Which view is man centered? God alone can save and the only thing you bring to the table is your sin or salvation is only available to everyone but it is up to man to make that choice. Man is the deciding factor.
I am confused by the statement Oh, and if you are "reformed" you can never know if you are saved, because you can't ever know if you are one of the Elect. 1 John 5:13 - these things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. The Holy Spirit will reveal that to every believer and every believer is part of the elect.
When someone says, "God is Sovereign over all" and you say, "But Man makes his own sovereign choices", that other someone might say, "You don't accept God's Sovereignty whether you choose to call it that or not." I do you the courtesy of not accusing you of denying God's sovereignty. Do me the courtesy of not assigning to me beliefs I don't have on "preprogramming".
The idea is that God enables the person and the person, of his own free (enabled) will, freely and without preprogramming chooses God. In home-wiring terms, God flips the switch and the light comes on. That is, with power applied, the light lights itself. The switch does not "preprogram" the light (as evidenced by a light that is burned out not lighting up).
The problem I have with a full acceptance of your understanding on Man choosing God first is that I can't make that line up with every other Scripture on the topic of Natural Man's condition. That's my problem.
And on knowing if you're saved, you and I are saying the same thing. We both concur that an individual can know if he is saved. You've informed me that I don't believe that. I'm correcting that misconception.
The light switch analogy is still poor. That makes God turning the switch only for those He feels like allowing to make choices. The Bible says all have the ability to make such choices.
God is sovereign even over choices man makes, except He allows man to chose to accept or reject him without forcing one way or another. Other choices man may make may have God interfering in order to accomplish his purposes; e.g. a person makes a poor choice to drive through a flooded stream and instead of letting the person drown He provides him a way to make a safe exit. A man could select a porn site on the computer and God may have the computer fail. God is sovereign over everything, but in His sovereignty he sovereignly allows mankind to choose or reject Him. Paul says that God's moral law is planted in our hearts, and he says the evidence for God is all around us, but that men choose to suppress such evidence and reject God. So the LIGHT is there for everyone who seeks God, and the Scripture over and over and over again has God telling men to seek him. IF they are unable of their own free will to seek or reject God, then the command to seek Him is meaningless and a lie.
The light switch analogy is indeed weak, but not for the reason you suggest.
If you could (because this is exactly one of those questions I've had without anyone offering an answer), could you please point me to the text(s) that say "all have the ability to make such choices." (I'm not asking for anything silly like a word-for-word text. Just something that demonstrates what you said.) I read things like "no man can", "dead in sin", "hostile to God", "that which is born of flesh is flesh", and such and wonder how I can conclude that Natural Man is perfectly capable of making the right choice here. It appears to me, if these things (and more) in Scripture mean anything, they would preclude "perfectly capable" (since, for instance, many of the texts say "cannot"). So if you can point to some text or another that says that "all have the ability to make such choices", that would be very helpful.
I believe that God never forces anyone to choose Him (as I've indicated repeatedly in the past). We agree. I disagree that God never interferes in Man's choices (take Abimelech (Gen 20:6) as an example), but I think you agreed with me on that, too. But the notion is not that God 1) forces anyone to choose Him or 2) prevents anyone from choosing Him. The idea is that Natural Man will of his own free will reject God and God doesn't interfere with that free will choice unless that person is among the elect. If he/she is among the elect, God enables a different choice for them that they make of their own free will.
One other point. "If they are unable of their own free will to seek or reject God, then the command to seek Him is meaningless and a lie." I need to point out that this is patently false. If I say, for instance, "In order to get to the moon, you must leave the planet", is it true or false? Is it false (a lie) if you don't have the ability to leave the planet? "You must" is an imperative that does not indicate who can. (That would be an indicative.)
I just need to point out, once more for clarity, that the objections I have to your view are not due to a commitment to an ideology. I run into conflicts with Scripture and get stuck. So that's where my problem lies.
Ron,
From the very first time I read John 1:12-13, I understood it completely different than what I later learned was the “Reformed” interpretation. God provided the way of salvation, not man - it was not man’s will that a way of salvation was made. Man had nothing to do with the plan of salvation. It says that those who received him were born of the will of God. In other words, their being born again wasn’t by normal human birth, but by “receiving” Christ as their savior. It is only those who received him - receive the salvation God offered - who become children of God.
There are plenty of verses in the NT which says that man has the choice to accept Christ, to place their faith in His work for salvation. If that was not the case, then there would be no point to preaching the gospel, because when the offer of salvation is made to everyone, by Reformed theology it would be a lie.
Calvinists continue to assert that man is not morally able to choose God, but there is no passage in Scripture which says this.
John 12:31-32 says Jesus draws ALL men to himself. Reformed teaching says this means “all kinds of men” - adding to Scripture in the same manner as the cults. And, by the way, the Ezekiel passage is about Israel. The church is NOT Israel, no matter how much Romanists, Lutherans, and Calvinists like to say so.
God determined the way of salvation, God provided the sacrifice of His son, God gave the condition that man accept that work by faith in order to be saved. Man therefore accepting that condition does not make it “man-centered.” It is all centered around what God did for man.
Does man have the ability to make free-will moral choices for God? The Bible makes it plain that man does indeed have this ability:
Josh. 24:15: Choose to serve God or not to serve God
2 Chron. 15:2 – “If you seek him…but if you forsake him” indicates choice
Ezra 8:22 – “everyone who looks to him” vs “all who forsake him” indicates choice
Ps. 10:4 – “does not” indicates choice not to seek God.
Ps. 86:5 – one chooses whether to call on God
Jeremiah 29:13 – choice of seeking God
Mark 16:16 – “whoever believes” and “whoever will not believe” indicates choice between the two
Luke 8:12 - The devil must prevent them from believing
John 1:12 – choice to receive or not
John 3:16-18 – “whoever believes” vs “whoever does not believe” indicates choice
John 3:36 – “whoever believes” vs “whoever rejects” indicates choice
John 5:24 – “whoever…believes” is a choice
John 5:40 – “you refuse to come to me”; refusal is a choice
John 20:31 – “by believing” indicates choice
Acts 16:31 – “Believe…” is choice
Acts 17:30 – choice of repenting
Rom. 1:16 – “to everyone who believes” makes it a matter of choice
1 Cor. 15:1-2 – the Gospel was received and taken a stand for, i.e. choice
2 Cor. 4:4 – Unbelievers must be blinded so they can’t choose
1 Tim. 1:16 – “those who would believe” vs those who wouldn’t is choice
Heb. 11:6 – must believe God exists, which means he must have the ability to believe or not
1 Pet. 3:1 – the husband has a choice to become a believer
Rev. 22:17 – “whoever wishes” indicates choice
If man does not have these real choices, but rather the choices are only hypothetical without real ability, then these passages are all nonsense.
Can man seek God on his own? The Bible says he can:
Deut. 4:29 - "But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul."
1 Chron. 16:11 – “seek his face”
1 Chron. 28:9 - “If you seek Him, He will be found by you”
2 Chron. 15:2 – “If you seek him…” Many more in 2 Chron.
Ps. 9:10 – “those who seek you”
Ps. 22:26 – “they who seek the Lord”
Ps. 34:10 – “those who seek the Lord”
Ps. 40:16 – “all who seek you”
Ps. 69:6 – “may those who seek you”
Ps. 119:10 – “I seek you with all my heart”
Is. 55:6 - “Seek the Lord while He may be found”
Jer. 29:13 - "And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."
Hos. 10:12 – “it is time to seek the Lord”
Zeph. 2:3 - “Seek the Lord”
Acts 17:27 - “so that they should seek the Lord”
2 Cor. 3:12-18 - “Whoever turns to the Lord”
Heb. 11:6 - “He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him”
If man does not have a real ability to seek God without God regenerating him first, then all these passages are nonsense. They all say that man has the ability to seek God, and be rewarded for doing so.
Okay, Glenn. Thanks. Sigh. I had hoped for something ... indicative. You offered a host of imperatives. "You must choose" is an imperative that doesn't tell me who can or can't do it.
The problem for me (for me, mind you ... obviously not for you) is that when I read, "No one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:11-12) and things like it I can't seem to fill in "Man seeks for God." You're fine with that, but I can't do it. I can't fit "People seek for God all the time" with "No man seeks for God."
Nor can I correlate "Man is perfectly capable of choosing good" with "There is none who does good" (and the emphatic, "No, not one").
As I said, it's a biblical problem, not a "Reformed" problem.
And, as I indicated, "You must do this" doesn't require "You can do this" to be true.
(By the way, if God changes the nature of a person to enable him to seek Him, then He would indeed be the rewarder of those who seek Him. In other words, I agree with the texts you offered but don't see anything in them that indicate natural human ability.)
Ah, the favorite proof text of the “Reformed” position. Rom. 3:10-11. Which of course is Paul citing Psalms 14:1-3 or 53:1-3. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard that one does not take doctrine from the poetic passages of Scripture. Psalms and Proverbs both have a lot of generalizations about the propensity of man, but they are not hard and fast rules. The Psalms often have hyperbole, which I think is included in this one.
Paul’s use of the Psalms is to show that Gentiles are just like the Jews in that none of us is able to obey the law 100%. I see the Psalm as discussing the people who say there is no God, since that is the opening line. Also, Scripture often shows evil people doing good, which means if the Psalm is to be taken literally it would be a falsehood. Even Jesus says that evil people know how to do good (Luke 11:11-13).
“There is no one righteous,” and yet God talks about the righteousness of Abraham. If you take it literally, then we have dead people in our throats, and snake poison in our mouth. Most people are NOT “quick to shed blood,” and even many unbelievers have a fear of God.
But to say that no one seeks God means that no one is ABLE to seek God, is adding to the text.
If it is impossible to seek God, then why is man held accountable for something he has not been given the ability to do? God commands men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30), but if God hasn’t given man the ability to do so, isn’t this deceitful to command it? That’s like God commanding me to fly to Mars, but if I’m incapable of flying to Mars, then how can a just God hold me accountable for not obeying His command?
Well, you will believe the way you want to believe, and I will believe the way I want to believe. We are obviously not going to change our positions, so the discussion is fruitless and pointless. And I've spent too much time on it already.
Appreciate the conversation. I hope we end this discussion as friends.
I know it's slightly off topic and goes back to the beginning of the comments, but the complete outrage that happens when people get "labeled" something is mind-boggling to me. Glenn, you classify yourself as a Biblicist. That tells me absolutely nothing about your theological take on a particular issue. Theoretically, we should all be Biblicists, but we add labels to help facilitate discussion. And typically, at least from the conversations involving this blog, when someone is "X" theologically, they tend to agree on other areas of a particular label. Not necessarily 100%, but enough to have a basic understanding of someone's theological slant. Do you agree with it all, most likely not, but it gives you an idea on that topic how someone is thinking. "I'm a biblicist" tells me nothing about what you believe.
I don't "de-friend" people because of theological differences. That would be silly.
David,
I'm a "biblicist" in response to Stan's claim to be a "biblicist."
I'm a Christian who believes in the inspiration of the Bible, and I take it as it reads, as meant to be understood by those who penned it; i.e., the historical, grammatical method of hermeneutics. If you really want to know what I believe, it's much easier to just visit my blog than for me to try to spell it all out here.
Yes, but you both say you're biblicists but come to different conclusions. So, how do you differentiate your view from other? Label it with something. And in the context of a blog comment section, I don't need to know your entire theological system, only that part which regards the post and in the case Reformed or Calvinist or whatever would be sufficient to give an shorthand
David,
I don't label myself under any man's system. I am a fundamental Christian. I adhere to orthodox Christian doctrines, including the historical creeds.
I think I've put enough of my ideas on this comment string for you to know where I stand when it comes to the "reformed" theology. I think anyone who follows Augustine's teachings are just one step away from the Romanist church.
Surely, Glenn, you can see the humor in that last claim. A step away from the Romanist church? The church that declared such teachings not merely wrong, but anathema? Now that's funny stuff.
Of course, many in the Reformed camp consider your theology a step away from the Pelagian heresy, so I suppose more name-calling could be had, couldn't it?
Stan,
The reformed churches didn't get far enough away from Rome. They held to infant baptism, replacement theology, Lutherans have consubstantiation replacing transubstantiation but pretty much the same, Episcopals, especially the high church, venerate Mary, and like Catholics, reformed theology, according to R.C. Sproul, doesn't give you assurance of salvation because, as Sproul says, you can never know if you are one of the elect; Romanists say it is presumptuous to say you are saved. Much of this came from Augustine, who also came up with the idea that is now known as Calvinism.
So, yes, the mainline denominations which fall under the Reformation Protestant denominations, are still close to Rome.
You must have a different definition for reformed than I do. Based on what I can understand from your explanation, basically all Protestants are reformed. Others have been more progressive than others. I consider myself Reformed, but I certainly don't align myself with ANY of those denominations you listed, nor do I agree with any of those doctrines you claim are reformed theology. In fact, I see most Lutherans and Episcopalians as very liberal theologically. How they could both be reformed and liberal is beyond me. So, I guess I can see the problem with labeling someone, since the label can mean 2 completely opposite things to people.
David,
You just hit the nail on the head! One of my biggest complaints about Calvinism is the claim to being the only "reformed" theology. Yet all those denominations which came out of the Reformation by rights are "Reformed" in their theology. And yet Calvinists absconded with the term as their own.
As for Lutherans, only the ELCA branch is liberal. The original Episcopal/Anglican theology was not liberal, and there are some individual assemblies who refuse to go along with the liberal leadership.
So perhaps instead of using "Reformed" when one means Calvinism, one should just say what they mean - TULIPs
See that's the difference. I understand Reformed to almost be it's own denomination. I've even seen Reformed Lutheran and Reformed Presbyterian. So, by your definition, those churches are basically being redundant in their naming. Does Reformed include TULIP? Certainly. But today's Reformed is not supposed to be connected to the Reformation, as I understand the term Reformed.
And that's the problem. Calvinism absconded with the term "reformed" as if it belong to them and means only their TULIP ideology.
Another pet peeve about Calvinism is the claim that they have the "doctrines of grace." Every Christian faith has doctrines of grace. It is by God's grace he created, it is by God's grace he provide a way of salvation, it is by God's grace He blesses us, etc.
Calvinists should really ID themselves as Augustinians or TULIP preachers.
And that, Glenn, is my problem with the term "Calvinist", as if it means the same thing to me as it does to you. Clearly, Augustine didn't follow "TULIP". (It wasn't invented yet.) Worse, I am labeled a "Calvinist" because I find the principles found in "TULIP" in the pages of Scripture, but as soon as the label is applied to me, I become a follower of Calvin and/or Augustine. So the attempt at a shorthand explanation of what I find in the pages of Scripture on the topics covered in the acronym, TULIP, rather than making things quick and easy to understand, becomes completely obliterated. So much for helpful communication, eh?
You really don't like Calvinism. And I don't mean you merely disagree, you dislike. I know it's a shortcoming of text, but the way you write I can't help but hear you hissing out the word as if we're anathema. You use forceful words when describing our actions like absconded. To our view, we are reforming to Biblical teachings, not to history. As Stan said, what we understand from our Bibles agrees with Calvin, but we don't follow Calvin. Another problem that I have found, there are a lot of 4 point Calvinists, so to call yourself a TULIP teacher would be hard, and TULI just doesn't have the same ring to it.
David, a small point of information ... you know, for educational purposes. Most "4-pointers" don't drop the "P". They drop the "L". It's the "Limited Atonement" that gives them pause. Of course, "TUIP" isn't any better.
I have seen Calvinism cause church spits, and I have seen it cause solid Christians to be in turmoil as to whether they are elect. I have also seen it do damage in families because the parents, although very solid Christians, won't teach their children because they say that if their children are elect then they will learn the faith on their own. I have also known Calvinist families who say that if they are elect, then so are their children.
I really think Calvinism is a horrid theology and I don't see where it agrees at all with the Bible. Stan has all sorts of Questions on the other article which I never had a problem with because I don't hold God as unable to allow man to have free will as to whether he can choose to follow God. I find nowhere in Scripture where it says that. I think you limit God to say that he can't let man choose.
I find Calvinism - TULIPism, if you will - to have a capricious, unloving, God.
David,
In short, then, yes, Glenn considers your beliefs (and mine) "horrid", heretical, blasphemous (in the sense of insulting the God he loves). But it's okay because we're still friends.
Yes, and I'm still friends with many Catholics, and I think their belief system is also horrid.
I've known a few that had a problem with the Perseverance of the Saints. And any one that says to not teach their children is ignoring the rest of the Bible for one theology. And please don't make it sound like we're the only ones splitting churches. There are plenty of other theologies to for that bill. And I find non TULIPism to be a timid obsequiesent God clasping His hands hoping everything will turn out as He hopes. Also, the fact that ANYONE is saved is cause enough for a loving God. We all deserve damnation, the fact that some are saved for any reason is proof of a living God.
Oh, and what you see as capriciousness, I see as Justice.
I find non TULIPism to be a timid obsequiesent God clasping His hands hoping everything will turn out as He hopes
Gee, in my 40 years as a Christian I have never known a non-TULIPer to think this way. We see that God gave man free will rather than have pre-programmed robots. The fact that He knows the end from the beginning doesn't change the fact that HE gives man the responsibility for all his own choices.
It is "justice" to command people to repent knowing they are unable to do so unless God first fixes them to allow them to repent? It is "justice" for God to tell people to seek Him knowing all the while that they are unable to do so unless God first fixes them?
I see that as capriciousness and outright trickery and lying.
Aww, Glenn, we were headed in the right direction. What went wrong?
Glenn: "Well, you will believe the way you want to believe, and I will believe the way I want to believe. We are obviously not going to change our positions, so the discussion is fruitless and pointless."
And here we are, name-calling, "heretic" calling, and more. I avoided referring to you in any negative sense and that hasn't worked for you. Why?
In truth, I've never known anyone who reads the Bible and sees what I see who believes that it is "Romish", "horrid", or "insulting to God", but because you've never known a "non-TULIPer" to think the way David does, it must be true that David is an idiot for seeing your view of God as obsequious and timid. Of course you don't see it that way. I've never known anyone who sees what I see in the pages of Scripture that sees God as capricious and tricky and deceitful, but because you do, that's the way it is. Because you fail to comprehend just what it is I do see in the pages of Scripture, you respond not with Scripture, but with insults.
Come on, Glenn, we are brothers in Christ. We can do better than this. In fact, we could just go back to ignoring the topic and be friends. (Of course, I won't ignore the topic but, after all, it is my blog.) If you see one of these "offensive" ones, just turn away, okay? I mean, why work so hard to make an enemy when "We are obviously not going to change our positions"?
Post a Comment