OK – in an usual word of restraint let me say this:

The word and concept of predestination is very profound and beyond our human ability to capture the entire thing in a systematic theology. Therefore, for an Arminian to suggest God set things in motion and went on vacation is ridiculaous and unscriptural.

And for a Calvinist to suggest God orchestrates everything is equally ridiculous. And for ANYONE to suggest they know how it all works is…well…uh…dumb (transliteration of the Greek word – DUMB)

Nice comic!

Phil – I was covering all bases. A measured Arminian still must confess incomplete knowledge of how it all works together. God’s sovereignty kisses man’s free will and you wind up with history.

We will know one day. When I get to heaven, I might see John Calvin sitting in a corner writing over and over:

“I will not limit God. I will not limit God. I will not limit God:

John – your wife called, she reveals you are far from having it all figured out!

I really don’t see the problem.

God’s Will = Free Will = His eternal plan. I refuse to argue with God as well.

“That’s actually something more akin to Deism.”

Bingo! Explains everything I have ever read here or on the emergent blogs.
Welcome ot othe age of the neo-deists.

The real foundation is that there is NOTHING that is not FOREKNOWN by God.
Therefore, any and all variants of open theism are heretical.

To me, thinking of God in those terms makes Him infinitely more powerful than the picture of a God who has everything predetermined.

Amen.

John Cobb, a process theologian, argues that God is all powerful not because God is theocratic (or rules by might and determinism) but God is all powerful (omnipotent) in that he is maximally relational and related to all things.

God’s love is not an attribute of his sovereignty but God’s sovereignty is an attribute of God being love. God is sovereign in love.

peace.
Chad

I think Chris P and Chris L are the same person, the Chris P alter ego being used as satire. No person can be that incoherent without being incoherent on purpose.

Chris L, what about the policy of not posting under two names?

I thought Chris L was actually Ken S. The plot thickens…

And I am actually Ingrid.

“But is his foreknowledge causative?”

Sometimes…

When He decides…

On special occasions…

We’ll find out…

OK serious question for the non-Calvinists.

I became a Christian in a moderately Calvinistic church. I got my masters from a Calvinist, but not all that Reformed, seminary. This is the heritage from which I come, though even now I hold the TULIP rather loosely. Can you give me the short answer how these concepts fit into Arminianism?:

1. Predestination – God predestined believers from before the foundation of the world.

2. That believers are unable to turn to God apart from a work of the Holy Spirit’s part.

3. Can I be Arminian and hold to eternal security?

Thanks

1. Predestination – God predestined believers from before the foundation of the world.

2. That believers are unable to turn to God apart from a work of the Holy Spirit’s part.

3. Can I be Arminian and hold to eternal security?

1. I think most would say that the verses referring to the Elect are referring to a collective entity. A very rudimentary example would be something like a bus schedule. Like the #3 bus will go from Elm St. to Main St. at a predestined time, but it’s not predestined who will be on that bus. So when Paul says certain things are predestined, it’s referring to events that apply to the collective entity, not necessarily individuals.

2. Prevenient Grace is the typical explanation.

3. I believe in eternal security in the sense that God will never leave me, but I do believe it is possible to turn away from God. Otherwise, the numerous warnings of apostacy seem rather meaningless.

Can I be a neo-neo-semi-predestinarian-arminian?

Neil-
I get the awesom pleasure of sitting in lectures each week with Dr. J. Kameron Carter here at Duke. Nearly every 5 minutes I and 160 other MDiv students say “WOW.” I am thinking about putting my lecture notes together and posting them on my blog – they are worth reading. If you would like I can send you the stuff on election and how Israel is the predestined One.

peace.

There’s probably no doubt that God predestines something. It’s the ‘what’ that boggles all minds.

I just finished listening to a series of 19 lectures (38 CDS, 45-50 mins each) by a Reformed professor, Dr John Currid. His exposition of Judges-Song of Solomon was simply amazing. Until. Until he got to Ecclesiastes where he thoroughly lost me by asserting time and time again that God has absolute control over every single thing that passes on the earth. (He had hinted at it elsewhere, but it was blatant and horrifying in his exposition of Eccles.)

I got to thinking about that suicide funeral I did a week or two ago. I got to thinking how would this guy’s understanding of God and God’s sovereignty work at that funeral? “Yes ma’am. You can take comfort that God caused your son to commit suicide because God is in control and God, ultimately, received Glory from his death.” Somehow, I just don’t think that would wash as a introduction to the mysteries of life and death.

I could be wrong, and I will submit to the Lord to teach me through those much wiser than I. But I simply cannot accept that God is a causative agent in the evil that exists here on earth. I don’t profess to know how providence works, but I feel fairly certain that I am no puppet on a string in his hands.

I just don’t see how God can be essentially good if he is ‘behind evil’ the way Reformed theologians teach.

Any help here? Is it wrong for me to believe this way?

jerry

Jerry,

Is what we see as evil and what God sees as evil the same thing?

I would say no, for throughout scripture He uses things that are evil and things that are good to make His children more into the image of Christ.

The verse romans 8:28 comes to mind, but it all too often used in a trite way. 8:29 is the verse that is really important, all things are for the Good…..and the good, explained in 8:29 is that we would be made into the image of His Son.

I don’t recommend using that in the immediate pain of a death, suicide, illness. But, looking back, so often in the midst of tragedy we see those who are followers of Christ being molded by that tragedy and in relying upon Christ for help they become closer to Him, and more like Him. Of course, this can also go the other way for a time. But it is all in God’s sovereignty, and He knows the beginning from the end, and He works out all things for the Good of those who love Him, that we might be conformed to the image of His Son.

Sorry if I rambled.

Is what we see as evil and what God sees as evil the same thing?

Scripture gives us some pretty clear signposts of what God sees as evil. So in a sense, yeah, it is the same thing – although I think we as humans miss the entirety of what truly is evil and engage in it all the time without even knowing it (in this I am thinking of how we mix patriotism with Christianity and defend such nonsense as just-war theory or economic exploitation and call it “capitalism” and “freedom” – just some examples).

Regarding prevenient grace; on what scriptures is this based? There is no single passage that describes it that I know of, so I assume it is a doctrine that is pieced together systematically – kinda like “The Trinity.”

Well, I guess like many elements of systematic theology, it’s an attempt to take an underlying theme of Scripture and congeal it into a single idea. I guess I start at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry where John the Baptist sees Jesus in John 1:29 and says, “”Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”.

He doesn’t say, “”Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the Elect!” or of Israel, which would have made sense to the Jews. He makes a point to say Jesus’ ministry will be for all, not just some. God is doing something through Israel for the benefit of the whole world.

Henri Nouwen talks about how God can chooses each of us but not at the expense of others in a small book called Life of the Beloved. So God calls us all his beloved, but we aren’t are walking in it.

Phil,

I don’t think we can accept your definition of prevenient grace because you referenced a heretical mystic to make your point.

jerry

nc-
Good looking out. I will redouble my efforts at obfuscation, if not for their benefit then my own.

yikes…

ignorance must truly be bliss…

Discussing the mechanics of predestination as well as the chronology of it all, is like asking ants to provide architectural blueprints for the Taj Mahal.

Scotty,
I don’t think your a simpleton. Actually, I think you are selling yourself short and the evidence for that is the fact you are here, on a forum such as this, discussing matters such as these. To me, that indicates a thirst for knowledge, regardless of how we try to skirt around it.

What I find troubling with many in the Church today is a sense of real laziness when it comes to studying and understanding the most important thing in our lives. Jesus did tell us to love God with all our mind, not just our hearts, yet sadly, so many want to settle for just the “simpleness” of it all. I don’t really beleive the Gospel is “simple.” It is incredibly rich, deep, complex and robust. We will never understand it fully and that is part of the joy and wonderment of it, for we will never exhaust God. Every person who ever utters a word is a theologian. The question is: what sort of theologians are we?

Yet while we attempt to speak of this God we must always remember that we see through a glass dimly. We must ALWAYS remain humble and recognize the value others bring to the table (past and present) when they reflect on God. Discussing the things of God should not be about “winning” an argument or proving another wrong but about following the lead of the Spirit as we all seek to know Truth more deeply.

peace.

I think you missed my point a bit, Chad. I don’t need to know what Calvin thought, Luther, or any other writers or authors on the subject of the Bible. God through the Holy Spirit is going to give me what I need to know at any particular point in my life. As long as I’m listening, listening being the hardest part of it all.

I think you missed my point a bit, Chad. I don’t need to know what Calvin thought, Luther, or any other writers or authors on the subject of the Bible. God through the Holy Spirit is going to give me what I need to know at any particular point in my life. As long as I’m listening, listening being the hardest part of it all.

I do agree with this sentiment. The only thing I would say is that there are many authors that I feel God has used in my life as instruments of the Holy Spirit. I do believe the Holy Spirit will speak to us individually, but I also believe He speaks to us collectively through different people as well.

I think you missed my point a bit, Chad. I don’t need to know what Calvin thought, Luther, or any other writers or authors on the subject of the Bible. God through the Holy Spirit is going to give me what I need to know at any particular point in my life. As long as I’m listening, listening being the hardest part of it all.

I can understand the sentiment behind this but will feel there is more that needs to be said. I think this is dangerous ground to be on and presupposes that you or I as an individual entity can be reliable and trustworthy when it comes to understanding the mysteries of God. God made us for community (in fact, God IS community) for a reason and has given us the church for a reason. While we certainly can be “enlivened” by the Holy Spirit in our own prayer closet we must not and should not ever enter our prayer closet at the neglect of the body of Christ.

In myself I am nothing. Jesus said where “two or three are gathered” there he is also. I do not even know myself if I look within myself. I do not even know myself if I rely on you to show me. Who we are is only known in community with God in Jesus Christ as the mediator, revealing to us not only who we are but what God’s will is.

One final thought: None of us comes to scripture objectively. We ALL carry with us baggage or bias and a lens through which we read. We need to collective voices of the past and present to help us see more clearly (albeit imperfectly).

peace.

lol Rick.

And it’s funny – sometimes when you bring your argument back to the Bible, people actually get a little perturbed or see you as myopic.

Oh, Paul –

You shortchanged us a word in your translation of 2 Cor. 11:3. It should read:

But I am afraid that, as the (E)serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

Paul is not saying the gospel is simple but reminding the people of the simplicity and purity that comes with being followers of Christ.

Or an even better rendering of that verse you quoted is: …led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Not simple at all.

What I am saying is that the first deception was religious in nature – adding to the simple commandment of God. Christ never made the gospel complex, but the Pharisees certain did.

The Pharisees were the most well-read group of their day, but they couldn’t recognize the one they were waiting for when He was right under their noses.

I am not saying that we are strictly to read the Bible and the Bible alone, but, as Paul experienced, he had to flush his certificates and credentials before he could be used by the Lord.

Amazingly, the only apostle with any formal “bible school” training was Paul. And before the Lord could use him, he had to be emptied. When Elijah died, did God go to the prestigious “school of the prophets” or choose the servant, Elisha? When did God finally use Moses, when he was the prince of Egypt or after he had spent 40 years in the wilderness and was fluent only in the Sheepish?

This isn’t exactly true. Yes, the disciples were fisherman, but they were Jewish, and all Jewish children were trained in the Torah. They probably had most of the Scripture memorized. The Jews held education and learning in very high regard. Here’s a good summary.

I still puzzling to me to so much anti-intellectualism in Evangelical circles. It has gotten a little better since I was a child, but I still run into people who really seem to have a chip on their shoulders against learning.

I still puzzling to me to so much anti-intellectualism in Evangelical circles.

If only there was as much pursuit of Christ as there is in the study of Him!

Man has ever been religious – it seems to be genetic.

Men were pursuing knowledge about God with fervency when Christ arrived on the scene, yet how does Isaiah describe Him? As a “root out of a dry ground.”

After Malachi, the last prophet before Christ, religion went on unhindered though God was not speaking through the ministry of the prophet. No problem for Israel who had largely forsaken God, settling more for the formality of religion. Where no prophets were, doctors and lawyers took over like weeds. Sound familiar to our day?

God has given us minds, curiosity and the like, but there is a simplicity in Christ, the gospel and salvation that is largely lost in favour of heady debate.

Chad – I agree with most of your point. I too see the gospel as grand. I also see the importance of study. I am not advocating ignorance as I said before.

What I am saying is that I agree with Scotty: all this veneer overlaid on the gospel (Calvinism, monergism, pre-mil, a-mil, and all that other stuff) is unnecessary and detracts from the gospel. This, I believe, is the message Paul was conveying in large part in both epistles to the Corinthians.

The Bible is what is important as it is our foundation. Burn all the other books and it shouldn’t detract from the grandeur of Christ and the Father. Not to say they have nothing at all to add, but they can quickly become the focus.

How many times I’ve heard Christians say, “I’m reading (such and such). I just finished __________. After this I’m going on to _______.” What about the Bible? Often it plays second fiddle.

Paul,
I agree.

I am reminded of the eunuch that Philip ran accross in Acts 8. The eunuch is reading from Isaiah and Philip asks him if he understands what he is reading. The eunuch’s answer is illimuminating: How can I, unless someone guides me?

Such is the role of the church and all the saints that make up the great cloud of witnesses who have come before us, are beside us and will carry us forward. We cannot disparage all of that or think it unnecessary.

It is easy for us who are Christians, sitting in our studies with our books and our education and many of us raised in the church or at least here in America where the name Jesus is used for everything, even to curse. We forget that we make up on 6% of the world’s population and that for the majority of the world they have no reference point to even begin to read the gospels. To them, it is “foolishness.” They cannot understand unless someone guides them. That is the task of theology and that is our task. It is not a means to complicate the gospel of make it burdensome but exactly the opposite. As Christians seeking to understand the history of our faith and how we have come to believe as we do we do so (I hope, in our best moments) so that we can be faithful guides to the “eunuchs” we meet along the road.

In all the hub-bub of religion, there was a single man representing and speaking for God at that time. Religion has no care as to whether God is speaking or not.

Well, there were people who claimed to speak from God in that period (Judas Macabee), but that’s another debate. I still think the portrayal of all of the Jewish leaders as hopeless legalists during this period is a bit misguided. There were still Jews who were faithful to God at this time. Remember, Jesus was born into this culture and raised in it.

Wholeheartedly agree. It’s all the other junk that can get in the way though – that’s Scotty’s point as I understand it.

Certainly a lot of the stuff in Christian bookstores is junk, but there are still a lot of very good Christian theologians who write a lot of very helpful stuff. It’s actually because of work by people like them that the Bible is translated into languages it hasn’t been before.

I guess my point is that I don’t see the problem in many churches being too much education. A lot of churches could do a lot better in instilling a love of learning into people. Instead I see many churches railing against education and fostering distrust against education. Churches have helped to foster a false dichotomy in many ways.

So what’s the difference between prevenient grace and common grace?

Obviously I think simply reading the Bible is a great thing, something we all ought do… and yet, it seems arrogant, maybe naive is a better word, to think we should just read it and not bother with what better minds have said about it before us…

“So what’s the difference between prevenient grace and common grace?”

One you say before a regular meal, the other on special occasions.

This parsing of grace is nothing more than systematic theological inventions of man. It diminishes the word. God’s grace comes through the cross, everything else is just God’s kindness.

The cross was established before the foundation of the world, that redemptive grace flowed to the OT saints butit was still the cross represented in the sacrificial system.

This parsing of grace is nothing more than systematic theological inventions of man. It diminishes the word. God’s grace comes through the cross, everything else is just God’s kindness. – Rick

Many things come to mind as a response to this condescension… but suffice it to say – if you think our discuss on the grace of God insults our Lord and diminishes his word (though I cannot see how), I suggest you refrain from contributing. Lest you too become part of its diminishing… Meanwhile, I will wrestle with the intricacies of the grace I have received.

To suggest that rain on a lost farmer’s crops is “grace” just as the cross is “grace” only with two different adjectives is to diminish the word “grace”. It is like suggesting that giving a person a plate is the same thing as giving a person a plate with food. God is not interested in providing a small party for sinners on their way to hell, He is interested in extending the offer of His grace which is the power of God to salvation.

God has given every man the measure of faith and whether a lost man can respond because he has a God given capability to respond to the drawing of the Holy Spirit is actually either true or not. But the mechanics of conversion are moot, preach the gospel and see who believes. The means is the gospel, the fruit is salvation, the mechanics are a mystery of the Spirit.

“So what’s the difference between prevenient grace and common grace?”

Thanks for proving my point exactly…

butthose are the same people

Rick-
Who or what is a “butthose”?

Chris L.,

Thanks much. Let me rephrase to see if I understand: the issue is not so much ability as it is the extent of grace. If we follow a strict reformed systematic, grace to even respond in faith is limited in it application – it is given only to the elect who are predestined. By contrast, prevenient grace is a measure of grace given to all so they are able to respond, thus leaving the onus up to them.

Thanks much. Let me rephrase to see if I understand: the issue is not so much ability as it is the extent of grace. If we follow a strict reformed systematic, grace to even respond in faith is limited in it application – it is given only to the elect who are predestined. By contrast, prevenient grace is a measure of grace given to all so they are able to respond, thus leaving the onus up to them.

And I think the scripture supports a middle ground; That God is the one who draws all men to Himself, that we can (and should) respond to his mercy, but he knows who will and who will not respond. We have free will within God’s will; something hard for most to understand. He does not will that any would perish, but that all would come to repentance. Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for all people, but not all will respond; in fact, most will suppress the truth that is revealed to them. No one will die and go to Hell because they did not hear about Christ, they will die and go to Hell because they have refused the clear voice of their conscience and will not repent and respond in faith and trust in God their Savior.

I believe that people who do not hear the gospel cannot be saved. But I find my commitment and or consuming passion to reach those same people embarrassingly lacking and on some level rendering me a hypocrite. To argue the doctrine concerning the fate of unreached sinners with a greater zeal and passion than our efforts to reach them, exposes us as hypocritical arguers and not faithful goers.

Like watching a house burn down with people inside and instead of attempting to help them escape we pridefully represent our view that everyone in the house will die. I often feel I talk about more than follow hard after the footsteps of Christ. To my shame…

because they have refused the clear voice of their conscience

It’s not often that I hear a Calvinist argue for a divine spark in humanity Careful, pastorboy – you are sounding like a mystic!

bogged down in all this “Bible talk.” Sure takes all the fun out of it.

Since when is Bible Talk no fun?

Rick –
I agree!

“Representing what may be termed ‘evangelical Calvinism,’ Thomas Forsyth Torrance’s doctrine of election is, with critical modifications, recommended as a model worthy of contemporary acceptance. Torrance follows Barth’s christologically conditioned doctrine of election closely, but not slavishly, and presents a view of universal atonement and even universal pardon, but not universal salvation. Torrance contends that the word ‘predestination’ emphasizes the sovereign freedom of grace and so the ‘pre-’ in predestination refers neither to a temporal nor to a logical prius, but simply to God Himself, the Eternal. For God, election is not an event of the past but rather an action internal to God (a se). Because Christ is the ground of election, and Christ came in space—time, election took on a temporal component. Election derives from the Divine initiative of grace and Torrance is highly critical of Arminian theology at this point, accusing it of being semi-Pelagian; he is equally critical of Roman Catholicism which, according to Torrance, is also semi-Pelagian if not Pelagian outright.”

HT: Jason Goroncy