God's Foreordination and Man's Responsibility

[oxmixmudd]

You are correct. My point is that you make "brainwashing" sound like a bad thing. It would be a bad thing if done by a human, for mean human purposes. But when God does it, it's both good and necessary. You may not want your brain washed, until it's washed, and then you're very glad it happened, and you freely trust the God who did it.

This is an argument in the Calvanists favor I suppose. Would God be just to allow us all to refuse to have our brain's washed, knowing that in the end if we let Him wash our brains we'd be far better off, and far happier? Not to mention in line with God's will and intent for our creation in the first place.

Jim

[siliconwafer]

That may be so. But if all it takes for us to be responsible for our actions is that we act in accordance with our strongest desire (appropriately caused) then it still looks as if this view has it that we are responsible for coming to Christ and therefore that our so doing resounds to our credit. But the view that such is the case is anathema to Calvinists. So Calvinists, imo, should reject this picture of free will (even though it has been and still is widely held among them). I think there is a real inconsistency here in a number of Calvinist systems that hasn't often been brought to light.

Would it be better to say that we are responsible for our SINFUL actions when we act in accordance with our strongest desire (appropriately caused)?

[Kenny]

Would it be better to say that we are responsible for our SINFUL actions when we act in accordance with our strongest desire (appropriately caused)?

Then you would need to explain why the same is not true of our actions that are not sinful. As it stands, it looks like such a view would be entirely ad hoc. It would lose all of the initial plausibility of the original account.

[RBerman]

This is an argument in the Calvanists favor I suppose. Would God be just to allow us all to refuse to have our brain's washed, knowing that in the end if we let Him wash our brains we'd be far better off, and far happier? Not to mention in line with God's will and intent for our creation in the first place.

I don't know why God would be unjust if he didn't wash anyone's brains. He doesn't owe sinners anything except damnation. If God would be unjust not to save some particular person, then salvation would have become a matter of justice rather than grace.

[RBerman]

Come on RB. I would hope by now that you would know I did not mean it in a derogatory fashion. If I ever gave you reason to think I would mean it such a way, I do apologize; it has never been my intent to deride people or their beliefs. Although I do not buy the 5-points, I by no means ever want to speak in a way that is derogatory or disrespecful....especially of or to my fellow brothers in Christ who hold to a Reformed view. After all, I have dear family and friends who are in the Reformed tradition whom I love and respect greatly. I was merely trying to get SW to examine his own definition (he brought up the term brainwashing) in light of his own theology. That is all I was trying to do. I wasn't trying to begin a discussion on the merits of brainwashing.

OK. Sorry if I assumed the tenor of your post. I've simply never heard anyone use "brainwashing" except in a negative light. Like, ever.

[RBerman]

Because it assumes that it is impossible for someone to fall away.

Impossibility is different than circularity, though. I don't derive the doctrine of perseverance from 1 John3:20. I derive it elsewhere, and then I notice that 1 John 3:20 says that when people leave the church, it's because they were never really "of the church."

[RBerman]

Interesting. I honestly believe this is one of those times where what we assume to be true, or what we've been taught to be true, colors what we see. There are very subtle shades of meaning in each of these passages (and many more) that get lost in our base assumptions. For example, John 3:14-16, and I include 18,19 as well for context.

"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Mn be lifted up; so that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life, For God so loved the world, that He gav His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life ... He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgement, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, for their deeds were evil ..."

The is a very clear subtext here of choice. It it not JUST about what happens if we believe, it is about what happens if we don't, and presenting it that way presents it as a choice, something we choose. I believe you only divorce this from choice and will because that is your predisposition. The subtext there is strong. As a matter of fact, the subtext of choice and judgement is found in just about everything Jesus says.

You see, when Moses lifted up the serpent, the people had to choose look upon it, there was not some arbitrary decision from on high of who would get to look and who would not, anyone could look on it and be saved, they just had to make the effort to do so. Likewise in vs 18b and 19, where Jesus squarely condemns the choice of the people to reject the light, not to look on He who is the Light. Throughout this passage and many many more, the will is in play, and life or death are the consequence of our will, our choice.

Likewise Rev 3:20,21

Behold, I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him and he with Me. He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with me on My throne ...

In this verse there is more than just telling what God is going to do. It is telling what God will do in response to our choices. And it is in our choices that the will comes into play. When one sees only what you see, it seems to me something is blocking full recognition of what the passage is about, because the passage is full of ACTION, of WILL, of God responding to what people choose. And so will IS an important part of the equation.

I agree with everything you say here. Go back and reread my previous post. I affirm that humans make choices, and that God saves us in response to those choices. But if you'll pop the hood and look underneath, you'll discover how we make choices. We act according to our nature. If you want to have different sorts of actions, you need a different sort of nature. In order to trust God, you need a will which is willing to trust God. Humans don't have that kind of will by default, though. They have a will which runs from God, which rebels against God. In order to will to trust God,they need a new will. This leads nicely into your next bit:

You last statement is part of the connundrum I suppose of the Idea of Total Depravity. That in our fallen state there is no possibility even of choosing to follow God. And again, I think this overstates the case. Jesus, for one, never assumes the people to whom He is talking are utterly incapable of even deciding to following Him. The call goes forth, and some respond, and others don't, and the scripture has no problem at all laying full blame on those who choose not to come. If only to those God grants the ability to come are even able to respond, then there is nothing to judge for not responding. Clearly, in this view, if God called everyone, everyone would respond. Which is contrary to what scripture teaches. There are those (many in fact) who reject the Gospel, and they are judged for it.

"Call" can mean either the external call that men ought to repent, or the internal call of the Holy Spirit which changes the hearts of men. Jesus issues an external call to repentance so that those "with ears to hear" will accept it. That external call is issued indiscriminately, even to those without ears to hear. You are correct that God blames those who reject Him. The Bible doesn't say the bit above which I boldfaced. I commonly hear people claim such a thing to be true, but it's not a topic Scripture addresses.

Yeah, the limited atonement thing doesn't work for me either. "For God so loved the world, that ANYONE". The implication is that the option is available to all. Limited atonement says it simply is not. God came to save the world. Only a subset will come to Him, but the salvation God gave is available to all mankind. In a way its just sort of a slight of hand that arrives at limited atonement anyway. It's sort of like, well only a subset of mankind will be saved, God knows who that subset is, so (big assumption) God only paid for that many salvations. I don't get it. And I can't find it in scripture.

You ought to accept an argument based on the unity of God's will; the Father doesn't fight with the Son and the Spirit about who's going to be saved. But OK, let's put that aside for the moment. If I could show you a passage where Jesus said that he came to die for specific people, would that affect your thinking on this?

So you don't believe foreknew means foreknew either? Why is it translated foreknew if it doesn't men foreknew? Why isn't it translated "those whom God chose to know" or "Those who God will know". But it is translated "Those whom he foreknew". Is there nothing in the text that implies this? Do all the translators just make it up as they go along?
There is a REALLY HUGE difference between what you think it says and what every text of the Bible I'm aware of says that it says:

KJV: For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
NIV: For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
ESV:For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
NASB:For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
Young's Literal: because whom He did foreknow, He also did fore-appoint, conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be first-born among many brethren;
Darby's: Because whom he has foreknown, he has also predestinated [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, so that he should be [the] firstborn among many brethren.

I mean come on - surely someone out there could figure out the Greek meant something other than 'foreknew'

But notice some of the above emphasize the 'fore'knowledge with 'fore-ordained', making it even more clear that God planned this long ago and set it up to work its way out.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you? I'm just not following how this verse can mean something other than that God knows who all the folks are that will be saved, and that He has made sure all of them will come to Christ. That's how every translator I know of translates it into English. Does that not tell us something about what the Greek really likely means? There is not even a hint it might mean something else.

Anyway - I look forward to you response on this - I'd really like to understand what takes you away from that meaning given the above evidence it seems that is bascially a universally agreed upon wording for that text.

Of course I believe that "foreknew" meant "foreknew." That's tautological. The real question is what it means to "foreknow" a person. Not a fact about the person, but the person itself. Look at the way the verb ginosko is used with respect to persons in the New Testament. It means "to have intimate familiarity":

Galatians 4:9

But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?

Today I sat in a conference with one of the translators of ESV. He talked about how the role of the translator is to deliver these sorts of textual ambiguities intact to the reader, rather than to delivery a predigested interpretation that obscures the ambiguity. That's why all those translations say "foreknew," because that's the simple rendering of what the underlying Greek text says there.

Well primarily it's circular because it assumes what you want to prove - that person who is saved can't fall away. And there is this set of verses in chapter 6 of Hebrews that talk about what happens when someone does fall away, that they can't be renewed again to repentance. I've heard it dismissed as simply being a 'hypothetical text' that can't happen if one is truly saved, but again, that kind of is contrary to the text being there in the first place - it's a warning. And it clearly talks of one who has been enlightened and tasted the Heavenly gift and been made partakers of the Holy Spirit. Can someone do/be all that an not be 'truly saved'? The verse appears to be talking about someone who was a Christian but fell away. But the Calvanist believes no true Christian can fall away, so they just arbitarily dismiss the clear meaning of the text cause it just isn't so. Yet this is one of the key texts that implies it IS possible! It's kind of like the Atheist dismissing the Gospels and/or anything the church has ever had its hands on as evidence for Jesus being real person, and then saying there is no evidence Jesus ever lived!

Jim, you assume that I "want to prove" some particular thing. I don't, and I assure you that the Calvinist position is anything but arbitrary. All I care about is believing what the Bible demonstrably teaches. I used to believe what you believe, and it was precisely through the study of Scripture that I changed my view. I can certainly see how Hebrews 6 can be read compatibly with your view, and I'm available to discuss why I don't read it that way, but these posts are getting long as it is. Let's deal with some of these other issues first, and I'll be happy to get back with you on that one subsequently if you're still interested.

PS - don't read any hostility into my words. There isn't any. They may be forceful in terms of communicating my objections to specific ideas, or what I perceive as being contradictions, but there is NO hostility, NO intent to be personal in any way. Just to understand and to question.

I appreciate that. I don't perceive you as hostile. You are well-spoken.

[siliconwafer]

Not really....you will have to give further clarification to how desire is appropriately generated. In other words...what constitutes appropriately generated?

One problem is that people are deceived...are they not? And then you throw in Total Depravity...is Totaly Depravity an appropriate means? What causes Total Depravity? Who decideded that men would be Totally Depraved?

And then Irresistable Grace....isn't that God essentially changing someone's mind for them.,..i.e. brainwashing? If so, one could argue that Irresistable Grace, by definition, shows that people don't freely accept the gospel. Neither can they accept it freely when you throw in Total Depravity.

So once you think about it....by your definition of what constitutes free choice...no one does or can freely accept the gospel....(because they must have their minds changed by God). In essence, God brainwashes people to come to faith.

Whatever does not come as a result of brainwashing or hypnotism would be appropriately generated. Having desires that come from one's total depravity would be appropriately generated. God does not brainwash people. God changes people, but that change that God makes in a person's heart is not brainwashing.

[oxmixmudd]

I agree with everything you say here. Go back and reread my previous post. I affirm that humans make choices, and that God saves us in response to those choices. But if you'll pop the hood and look underneath, you'll discover how we make choices. We act according to our nature. If you want to have different sorts of actions, you need a different sort of nature. In order to trust God, you need a will which is willing to trust God. Humans don't have that kind of will by default, though. They have a will which runs from God, which rebels against God. In order to will to trust God,they need a new will. This leads nicely into your next bit:

I'm not 100% sure your characterization of the problem of sin is entirely correct. From my perspective, what I understand the problem to be is not so much that we don't have the capability of trusting or turning to God, but that we have a problem resisting temptation. Perhaps you see that as the same thing, but I'm not sure it is. To be sure, the moment we give in to temptation, we turn from God, but that doesn't mean we don't desire to be the kind of being that would not do that. Paul goes over this in Romans 7. It does not seem he is at all simply talking about a person's state after salvation, indeed quite the contrary, He seems to be making a very strong case that even apart from Christ there can be a kind of deep desire to be a righteous person who seeks God and desires to do what God wishes, but that the flesh with its fallen desires causes, even forces him to do that which he does not wish to do, that which he knows is wrong. He concludes thusly:

Romans 7:21-25

21 I find then the [n]principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God [o]in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in [p]the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner [q]of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from [r]the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

This appears to be to me far less than the Total Depravity of Calvanism. There IS a desire to seek God, to know God, but there is an inability, apart from the work of Christ, to follow through, to be able to be set free from the dominion of sin over the desire to be what God wishes us to be. Indeed, he completes the thought in the opening of Romans 8:

Romans 8:1-4

1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life [a]in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, [b]weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of [c]sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

IOW, we no longer are judged by our inability to fulfill the Law because of the Grace of Christ. And now if we walk in the Spirit, we can put to death the desires of the flesh. This is not, however, saying that we would be completely incapable of ever seeking God apart from the grace of Christ! Indeed, it says the total opposite. We ARE capable of desiring to know God, but our sin nature makes the fulfillment of that desire impossible.

"Call" can mean either the external call that men ought to repent, or the internal call of the Holy Spirit which changes the hearts of men. Jesus issues an external call to repentance so that those "with ears to hear" will accept it. That external call is issued indiscriminately, even to those without ears to hear. You are correct that God blames those who reject Him. The Bible doesn't say the bit above which I boldfaced. I commonly hear people claim such a thing to be true, but it's not a topic Scripture addresses.

Well, its kind of a logical consequence. God is Just, and he judges us absolutely fairly according to his standards. Apart from the law, then by our own understanding of right and wrong, if under the law then according to the law (At least this is what Paul says) or if in Christ, according to Christ. In all cases but by the grace of Christ in the end we are condemned - because of that sin nature which can only be overcome/redeemed in Christ. But all of this is based on being morally capable of comprehending and responding to the moral choice itself. God doesn't judge the brute animals, they are not moral agents. In effect, if the only possible response is based on God allowing us to respond (as opposed to us choosing to respond) then we are no more than dumb brutes. I just don't see that in scripture - anywhere. We can chose to follow God, that's why we are held accountable when we don't.

You ought to accept an argument based on the unity of God's will; the Father doesn't fight with the Son and the Spirit about who's going to be saved. But OK, let's put that aside for the moment. If I could show you a passage where Jesus said that he came to die for specific people, would that affect your thinking on this?

I don't follow you at all here. I don't see how limited atonement has anything to do with the unity of God's will. Perhaps you could explain. It seems to me there is no necessary conflict if God's salvation is offered to all men, but only procured by those who of independent free will chose to receive it. We've already been assured in Rom 8:29 no one who would choose Christ will be left out.

Of course I believe that "foreknew" meant "foreknew." That's tautological. The real question is what it means to "foreknow" a person. Not a fact about the person, but the person itself. Look at the way the verb ginosko is used with respect to persons in the New Testament. It means "to have intimate familiarity":

Galatians 4:9

But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?

Again it seems you are mixing apples and oranges. What does the kind of intimacy involved in the knowledge have to do with when the knowledge came available. If God exists at all times 'at once' so to speak (which I believe is the case - a logical consequence of omnipresence understanding space and time are not distinct physical elements ) then He knows and foreknows 'simultaneously'. The intimacy you speak of is no less diminished if God knows me over all time. I only experience that intimacy during my life, but God 'experiences' it for all time.

Thus the key element here is 'fore' and 'predestined', which plays into the issue that God has definite knowledge of 'the future'. This, in a linear conceptualization of time 'seems' to contradict free will - which was my point in the previous post.

Today I sat in a conference with one of the translators of ESV. He talked about how the role of the translator is to deliver these sorts of textual ambiguities intact to the reader, rather than to delivery a predigested interpretation that obscures the ambiguity. That's why all those translations say "foreknew," because that's the simple rendering of what the underlying Greek text says there.

Sure, but given every translation I can find uses 'foreknew', the strong, even overwhelming implication is that knowing before is a strong characteristic of the 'underlying textual ambiguity'. That means a translation that drops the time element becomes one of those predigested interpretations translators try to avoid.

Jim, you assume that I "want to prove" some particular thing. I don't, and I assure you that the Calvinist position is anything but arbitrary. All I care about is believing what the Bible demonstrably teaches. I used to believe what you believe, and it was precisely through the study of Scripture that I changed my view. I can certainly see how Hebrews 6 can be read compatibly with your view, and I'm available to discuss why I don't read it that way, but these posts are getting long as it is. Let's deal with some of these other issues first, and I'll be happy to get back with you on that one subsequently if you're still interested.

Sure, lets see how it flows. There is a lot about Calvanism that does not make sense to me based on what I see in scripture. I've been wanting a discussion on the topic with someone who can present it and hear my objections w/o it becoming a matter of right faith or wrong faith. Perhaps in the end I'll see it in a better light, perhaps not. But no rush on the issue of 'falling away'.

I appreciate that. I don't perceive you as hostile. You are well-spoken.

Thanks,


Jim

[Phat8594]

The is a very clear subtext here of choice. It it not JUST about what happens if we believe, it is about what happens if we don't, and presenting it that way presents it as a choice, something we choose.

Although I agree with your statement (not to mention the that the idea of an "open invitiation" is also there too..IMO)...you will need to define what exactly choice is.

The reason I say this is:

I believe you only divorce this from choice and will because that is your predisposition

RB doesn't divorce it from choice. However, RB's definition of what "choice" is differs from mine...and probably yours too.

[Phat8594]

To be sure, the moment we give in to temptation, we turn from God, but that doesn't mean we don't desire to be the kind of being that would not do that. Paul goes over this in Romans 7. It does not seem he is at all simply talking about a person's state after salvation, indeed quite the contrary, He seems to be making a very strong case that even apart from Christ there can be a kind of deep desire to be a righteous person who seeks God and desires to do what God wishes, but that the flesh with its fallen desires causes, even forces him to do that which he does not wish to do, that which he knows is wrong. He concludes thusly:

Romans 7:21-25

21 I find then the [n]principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God [o]in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in [p]the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner [q]of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from [r]the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Oxmixmudd...can I just say that I love this statement...I am giving an AMEN to this post simply because of this one statement...

Unfortunately many Calvinists see Romans 7 as the struggle of a believer...rather than an unbeliever. The idea being that an unbeliever would not want to do good, because they are Totally Depraved.

Of course, I think the evidence for it being an unbeliever (an unbelieving Jew in context) is overwhelming....and the idea that is conveyed that before Christ..the flesh and sin enslave you....and that after Christ (so that even though you want to do good..you still sin)...you have been set free from the law of sin and death. Thus, as Paul shows...desire to do good isn't the issue...the issue is the ability to be righteous (which apart from Christ...is impossible)

[Phat8594]

"Call" can mean either the external call that men ought to repent, or the internal call of the Holy Spirit which changes the hearts of men. Jesus issues an external call to repentance so that those "with ears to hear" will accept it. That external call is issued indiscriminately, even to those without ears to hear. You are correct that God blames those who reject Him. The Bible doesn't say the bit above which I boldfaced. I commonly hear people claim such a thing to be true, but it's not a topic Scripture addresses

RB, out of curiousity....where in scripture do you see the distinction made between the internal call and the external call?

[Phat8594]

Whatever does not come as a result of brainwashing or hypnotism would be appropriately generated. Having desires that come from one's total depravity would be appropriately generated. God does not brainwash people. God changes people, but that change that God makes in a person's heart is not brainwashing.

SW, there is no difference between the "heart" and the "mind" in Hebrew culture. That is definitely a western idea that would be foreign to the writers of the Bible.

And as we have discussed...in Calvinism...God does brainwash....not that its a bad thing....but he does change a person's mind for them.

Having desires that come from one's total depravity would be appropriately generated.

Why? And how did people get a Totally Depraved nature? Aren't they (those who are totally depraved) essentially "hypnotized" so that they are unable to appreciate God's truth?

[siliconwafer]

RB, out of curiousity....where in scripture do you see the distinction made between the internal call and the external call?

Romans 8:30 teaches that those whom God has called will be justified. This is called the internal call.

Matthew 3:2 gives us the command to repent. People call this the external call.

[siliconwafer]

SW, there is no difference between the "heart" and the "mind" in Hebrew culture. That is definitely a western idea that would be foreign to the writers of the Bible.

And as we have discussed...in Calvinism...God does brainwash....not that its a bad thing....but he does change a person's mind for them.






Why? And how did people get a Totally Depraved nature? Aren't they (those who are totally depraved) essentially "hypnotized" so that they are unable to appreciate God's truth?

God's change in a person's heart is not called brainwashing. Brainwashing has to do with using unethical, abusive manipulative techniques to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator, to the detriment of the person being manipulated.

People inherit a totally depraved nature from Adam. Being totally depraved is not the same as being hypnotized.