God's Foreordination and Man's Responsibility

[RBerman]

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.

I read the overarching structure of Romans substantially differently than you suggest here. In Romans 1-3, Paul deals with the problem of God's wrath over man's sin. Chapter 3 ends with the provision of Christ as a propitiation which covers sin. Chapter 4 shows that Christ's work applies to those who share the faith of Abraham and David. Chapter 5 shows that those who have faith and forgiveness have new life instead of condemnation. Chapter 6 shows that those who have this new life will live differently because they have a new master. Chapter 7 shows that they nevertheless will continue to struggle with sin. Chapter 8 confirms that despite this struggle, we have a glorious destiny awaiting us. So I disagree with your idea that Romans 7 is about a struggle within the nonChristian. That's why Paul talks about himself, a Christian, using the first person pronoun repeatedly.

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 have to be very careful with your "logical consequence" where God's justice is concerned. It can often be a thin cover for saying, "If I were God, I would do this..." If the Bible teaches that men are responsible for their sin (which we agree it does) and also teaches that God is just (which we agree He is) but also teaches that the natural state of man is implacably imposed to God (which I believe is the case, but you apparently do not), then we must include all those truths in our assessment of what is or is not just. Your "dumb brute" idea is another idea not found in Scripture. That's why you don't find it anywhere.

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.

Well, first you have to buy the idea of divine election. If the Father has eternally chosen a specific group of people for himself, then the actions of the Son and the Spirit will be specifically on behalf of those very people, and none others. If you don't buy election, then limited atonement won't make sense independently.

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.

You don't seem to be grasping that when Romans 8 uses "foreknowledge," it needs to be interpreted in a way consistent with the way that the Bible speaks of God having knowledge of persons. That usage is not just propositional; it includes dimensions of love and intimacy. So when Romans 8 says that "those whom he foreknew, he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son," it means that God set his love on certain people in such a way that the end result is that they become Christ's brothers, and the Father's children.

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'.

OK. We'll get there.

[Phat8594]

God's change in a person's heart is not called brainwashing

well why not? He definitely changes their mind for them so that they do what He wants them to do (have faith).

Granted I think we can all agree that IF man couldn't want God, it wouldn't be so bad if God did brainwash people so that they could and would have faith....

Brainwashing has to do with using unethical, abusive manipulative techniques to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator

Well...call it what you want, but it seems to me that you are just changing definitions as it suits your needs, rather than being consistent.

People inherit a totally depraved nature from Adam.

OK...so was Adam totally depraved when he sinned? If not, who gave him the desire to sin?

[Phat8594]

Well, first you have to buy the idea of divine election. If the Father has eternally chosen a specific group of people for himself, then the actions of the Son and the Spirit will be specifically on behalf of those very people, and none others. If you don't buy election, then limited atonement won't make sense independently.

Individual predestined election to salvation to be exact. The question is whether membership to that group is open or closed.

You don't seem to be grasping that when Romans 8 uses "foreknowledge," it needs to be interpreted in a way consistent with the way that the Bible speaks of God having knowledge of persons. That usage is not just propositional; it includes dimensions of love and intimacy. So when Romans 8 says that "those whom he foreknew, he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son," it means that God set his love on certain people in such a way that the end result is that they become Christ's brothers, and the Father's children.

I actually agree with this..but of course...who are those whom God foreknew? In the context of Romans they are those that live by faith.

So I disagree with your idea that Romans 7 is about a struggle within the nonChristian. That's why Paul talks about himself, a Christian, using the first person pronoun repeatedly

The only problem is that the man in Romans 7 is a slave to sin. Christians, on the other hand, are set free from sin, and are thus no longer enslaved to sin. Whether or not a Christian accepts that they actually dead to sin doesn't change the fact that they have been set free. Thats why its important to remember and consider ourselves dead to sin. The use of the personal pronoun is a rhetorical device that Paul uses in his argument that the law can not do what Christ did (set you free, make you righteous...etc).

[Phat8594]

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.

You are making the distinction...not scripture. You are merely quoting two passages, without consideration of the context, and claiming them to be what you want.

In other words, the Bible makes distinctions between certain things...such as believers and unbelievers.....sin and righteousness....but where does it make the distinction between an internal call and an external call?

My guess is that its a distinction made within a systematic theology rather than scripture.

[RBerman]

Individual predestined election to salvation to be exact. The question is whether membership to that group is open or closed.

Indeed. Which speaks to the general question of whether God does anything in a general and open way, without exaustive and definive knowledge of it.

I actually agree with this..but of course...who are those whom God foreknew? In the context of Romans they are those that live by faith.

Sure, the two groups are one and the same, regardless of which way causality runs.

The only problem is that the man in Romans 7 is a slave to sin. Christians, on the other hand, are set free from sin, and are thus no longer enslaved to sin. Whether or not a Christian accepts that they actually dead to sin doesn't change the fact that they have been set free. Thats why its important to remember and consider ourselves dead to sin. The use of the personal pronoun is a rhetorical device that Paul uses in his argument that the law can not do what Christ did (set you free, make you righteous...etc).

I don't buy the "rhetorical I" argument. Paul does no such thing anywhere else in his writings, and it's not consistent with the overall flow of the letter. But you and I have discussed this topic before and failed to reach accord, and I don't foresee benefit from rehashing it with you while simultaneously discussing it with Ox, so I'll stop there.

[Phat8594]

Paul does no such thing anywhere else in his writings, and it's not consistent with the overall flow of the letter

Well Paul does a lot of unique things in his letters. But at least lets both be honest: both of our positions have Paul doing something unique.

In my case, its the use of the "rhetorical I" or dramatic present (or both).


In your case, its Paul diverging from his typical pattern in Romans of:

1. Asking a rhetorical question (e.g. What shall we say then? That the law is sin?)
2. Short answer (e.g. By no means! Yet if...)
3. Expound upon that answer in further detail (e.g. For I would not...)

But you and I have discussed this topic before and failed to reach accord, and I don't foresee benefit from rehashing it with you while simultaneously discussing it with Ox, so I'll stop there.

Very well. Enjoy!

[RBerman]

Well Paul does a lot of unique things in his letters. But at least lets both be honest: both of our positions have Paul doing something unique.

In my case, its the use of the "rhetorical I" or dramatic present (or both).


In your case, its Paul diverging from his typical pattern in Romans of:

1. Asking a rhetorical question (e.g. What shall we say then? That the law is sin?)
2. Short answer (e.g. By no means! Yet if...)
3. Expound upon that answer in further detail (e.g. For I would not...)

Is that the pattern? The first question doesn't even appear until 2:3-4. There are only a few questions in chapters 12 and 15, none using the "by no means!" answer. So there are some times in Romans where that formula appears, but its absence is hardly exciting.

[oxmixmudd]

I read the overarching structure of Romans substantially differently than you suggest here. In Romans 1-3, Paul deals with the problem of God's wrath over man's sin. Chapter 3 ends with the provision of Christ as a propitiation which covers sin. Chapter 4 shows that Christ's work applies to those who share the faith of Abraham and David. Chapter 5 shows that those who have faith and forgiveness have new life instead of condemnation. Chapter 6 shows that those who have this new life will live differently because they have a new master. Chapter 7 shows that they nevertheless will continue to struggle with sin. Chapter 8 confirms that despite this struggle, we have a glorious destiny awaiting us. So I disagree with your idea that Romans 7 is about a struggle within the nonChristian. That's why Paul talks about himself, a Christian, using the first person pronoun repeatedly.

While this is a relatively good summary of Romans up to Romans 6, you missed something in Romans 7. Consider Romans 7:5-7:

For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in [fn]the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [fn]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except [fn]through the Law; for I would not have known about [fn]coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT [fn]COVET."

Paul does a turn here. I've hi-lighted the use of past and present. In the past tense, Paul speaks of before Christ. In the present tense he speaks of 'in Christ'. But the set up for the rest of the conversation in chapter 7 is in the past tense. Paul's entire discussion from this point remains focused on what the law does apart from Christ, life without Christ, focusing likely on his own struggle with the sin nature and the law before Christ, and does not return to our position in Christ until the very last verse of the chapter: Indeed the conversation spirals almost to despair in vs 24:

Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from [fn]the body of this death?

But then snaps back to the incredible work Christ has done at just the last minute:

Romans 7:25 - 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.

You have to be very careful with your "logical consequence" where God's justice is concerned. It can often be a thin cover for saying, "If I were God, I would do this..." If the Bible teaches that men are responsible for their sin (which we agree it does) and also teaches that God is just (which we agree He is) but also teaches that the natural state of man is implacably imposed to God (which I believe is the case, but you apparently do not), then we must include all those truths in our assessment of what is or is not just. Your "dumb brute" idea is another idea not found in Scripture. That's why you don't find it anywhere.

As an aside: I am curious why it is ok to use logical consequences to derive critical doctrines not found in scripture (Limited Atonement) for Calvin, but It is not ok to use Logical consequences to point out flaws in that same Calvanistic position by Jim?

Be that as it may - may I assume where you say 'imposed', you mean opposed? imposed is certainly a usage in this context I'm not familiar with.

On the whole though I would agree we must be careful when trying to deduce what is righteous or just or in any way 'moral' for God. But not because it is implying one is saying "If I were God. I would ....". It's more subtle than that, and a bit less arrogant. The problem is that we tend to anthropomorphize, to apply to God the same standards that apply to us, which is a significant error. For example - just using the idea of brainwashing being tossed about in the other conversation paralleling our own. Gods position and unique nature change the rules so to speak. So God can 'wash our brains' and be absolutely good and pure in doing so, whereas for us it's very dangerous and mostly used for evil. Christ can proclaim that all should come unto Him and he will give them rest, but we would be megalomaniacs to say the same thing.

As for the dumb brutes - you seem to have missed my point entirely. But I will admit it was a bit of a stretch, so I'll concede the point.

Well, first you have to buy the idea of divine election. If the Father has eternally chosen a specific group of people for himself, then the actions of the Son and the Spirit will be specifically on behalf of those very people, and none others. If you don't buy election, then limited atonement won't make sense independently.

Nope, I don't think that 'logical consequence' is any better than my 'become as brutes' logical consequence. There is nothing necessary about the conclusion at all. God is a gracious God and gives to us liberally. There is nothing at all inconsistent about God providing the potential for salvation to every human who ever lived, regardless of whether they would receive it or not. There is no waste for the infinite. Indeed it speaks of His infinite love that he would not hold back anything from the payment made.

What I can grant is that Limited Atonement is a possibility - God knowing exactly who would come to him He would necessarily be able to pay only that which is necessary if it suited His purpose. But this is not the Calvanist position. It is one of the 5 points, a key fixture, not merely a possibility.

But there is another element of this that I find interesting - and which stands against the entire concept. In this 'consequence' is the implicit assumption that God's payment for sin involves some bounded fee. And I wonder about that. If we were allowed to live forever un-redeemed, our sin dept may well accumulate to what is infinite. And It would be just as logical then that the payment for any one of us is in fact identical to the fee for all of us. That there is in fact no such thing a Limited Atonement because for Christ to redeem any one of us is for Him to redeem all of us. And even and regardless of that speculation, seeing as how the scripture makes no such explicit valuation of what is required for our redemption beyond the sacrifice of the perfect and spotless Lamb of God, and seeing as how the death of Christ is in fact the same death once and for all, a penalty required equally for one as for all, it would seem to me there is not one leg to stand on for Limited Atonement as a sure doctrine of the faith. That is, the payment of the Cross is in fact the same for one as it is for all.

You don't seem to be grasping that when Romans 8 uses "foreknowledge," it needs to be interpreted in a way consistent with the way that the Bible speaks of God having knowledge of persons. That usage is not just propositional; it includes dimensions of love and intimacy. So when Romans 8 says that "those whom he foreknew, he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son," it means that God set his love on certain people in such a way that the end result is that they become Christ's brothers, and the Father's children.

I grasp it - I don't see that it makes any difference. For fun, lets use an example from the Latest Star Trek movie. In it Spock has been sent back in time. As such he has foreknowledge, a very close friendship with James Kirk and the other players that exist before he meets any one of them in the past. As He comes upon them He knows each of them as they will be, not just as they are, yet for each of them the knowledge has only just begun.

Likewise God's intimate foreknowledge of us has no bearing on the 'before' part of 'fore'knowledge. The key element is that it is knowledge, and God has it before we exist.

OK. We'll get there.

OK


Jim

[Phat8594]

Is that the pattern? The first question doesn't even appear until 2:3-4. There are only a few questions in chapters 12 and 15, none using the "by no means!" answer. So there are some times in Romans where that formula appears, but its absence is hardly exciting

Sorry..you are correct....it is not THE pattern...but A pattern...But in either case, I meant a typical pattern of his in Romans.

This is why I highlighted "For". Sometimes Paul expounds upon his short answer by answering another question, and sometime he continues rattling off point after point. But he also has a pattern of what I listed above. I guess my point is that, it would be an odd change in pattern for Paul to

1. Ask the Rhetorical Question
2. Follow with his short answer
3. Change topics by saying "For ..."

Typically, if we see Paul saying "For..." its a continuation of thought, or further exposition on a topic....rather than a new topic entirely.


But I am happy to watch from the sidelines for now on Romans 7 if you wish to only engage Oxmixx

[RBerman]

Sorry..you are correct....it is not THE pattern...but A pattern...But in either case, I meant a typical pattern of his in Romans. This is why I highlighted "For". Sometimes Paul expounds upon his short answer by answering another question, and sometime he continues rattling off point after point. But he also has a pattern of what I listed above. I guess my point is that, it would be an odd change in pattern for Paul to

1. Ask the Rhetorical Question
2. Follow with his short answer
3. Change topics by saying "For ..."

Typically, if we see Paul saying "For..." its a continuation of thought, or further exposition on a topic....rather than a new topic entirely.

My point is that Paul has no typical pattern of which Romans 7 is a violation. The use of gar (for) can mean a variety of things, including, as you say, the presentation of the next point in a single argument. Look at the string of close gar in John 5:19-29. in which Jesus answers Pharisaic complaints about his Sabbath attitudes by linking his own work to God's work, and his own nature to God's nature. Romans itself is a single long and sustained argument (concerning the way Jewish and Gentile Christians are joined by their common salvation by faith in Christ, necessitating cooperation in the local church), so that presence of gar in a particular verse doesn't help you decide whether Paul is moving on to the next point in his immediate argument, or the next point in his larger argument. Nor does the absence of gar in and of itself prove that Paul hasn't moved on to the next point in his argument on either scale.

But I am happy to watch from the sidelines for now on Romans 7 if you wish to only engage Oxmixx

I don't mind addressing new topics with you. Just not the question of the larger structure of Romans, since you've already heard my argument on that and rejected it, such that presenting it again wastes both our time.

[Phat8594]

My point is that Paul has no typical pattern of which Romans 7 is a violation.

As I am sure you already know, I disagree...but I do not think this thread is the best place to discuss Pauls patterns and arguments throughout the book of Romans.

Perhaps another time though...although it may be somewhat tedious as Paul's letter to the Romans is no light read. Just let me know. (:

[siliconwafer]

well why not? He definitely changes their mind for them so that they do what He wants them to do (have faith).

Granted I think we can all agree that IF man couldn't want God, it wouldn't be so bad if God did brainwash people so that they could and would have faith....




Well...call it what you want, but it seems to me that you are just changing definitions as it suits your needs, rather than being consistent.



OK...so was Adam totally depraved when he sinned? If not, who gave him the desire to sin?

Adam was not totally depraved when he sinned. Adam came into existence as a good person. He was not a sinner when he was originally created. He became a sinner after he sinned and he became totally depraved after he sinned. I don't know who gave him the desire to sin.

[Phat8594]

Adam was not totally depraved when he sinned. Adam came into existence as a good person. He was not a sinner when he was originally created. He became a sinner after he sinned and he became totally depraved after he sinned. I don't know who gave him the desire to sin.

Well if man only makes decisions based on his desires, and those desires are only created in legitimate ways (as you would say)...then Adam acted according to his desire did he not? And that desire was a result of his nature, was it not? The issue then becomes, God is the one who gave him Adam his nature....which, IMO, would implicate God in sin (which in no way can be true).

To me this is a huge problem...and one of the reasons why I don't buy the "acting according to our nature/desire" view of free choice.

[RBerman]

While this is a relatively good summary of Romans up to Romans 6, you missed something in Romans 7. Consider Romans 7:5-7:

For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in [fn]the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [fn]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except [fn]through the Law; for I would not have known about [fn]coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT [fn]COVET."

Paul does a turn here. I've hi-lighted the use of past and present. In the past tense, Paul speaks of before Christ. In the present tense he speaks of 'in Christ'. But the set up for the rest of the conversation in chapter 7 is in the past tense. Paul's entire discussion from this point remains focused on what the law does apart from Christ, life without Christ, focusing likely on his own struggle with the sin nature and the law before Christ, and does not return to our position in Christ until the very last verse of the chapter: Indeed the conversation spirals almost to despair in vs 24:

Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from [fn]the body of this death?

But then snaps back to the incredible work Christ has done at just the last minute:

Romans 7:25 - 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.

The first part of Romans 7 is logically part of Romans 6, the contrast between what we were (sinners who love to sin) and what we are in Christ (new men who must resist sin and serve our new master, not our old one). But verses 14-24 are in the present tense, because they are about Paul's present experience.

As an aside: I am curious why it is ok to use logical consequences to derive critical doctrines not found in scripture (Limited Atonement) for Calvin, but It is not ok to use Logical consequences to point out flaws in that same Calvanistic position by Jim?

We haven't yet gotten to the Scriptural support for Limited atonement. I asked if you would be convinced if I provided you with Scripture on that topic, but you did not answer.

Be that as it may - may I assume where you say 'imposed', you mean opposed? imposed is certainly a usage in this context I'm not familiar with.

That's correct. Sorry for the typo. Natural man is opposed to God, hates God, and will not choose to trust God unless God works in his heart.

On the whole though I would agree we must be careful when trying to deduce what is righteous or just or in any way 'moral' for God. But not because it is implying one is saying "If I were God. I would ....". It's more subtle than that, and a bit less arrogant. The problem is that we tend to anthropomorphize, to apply to God the same standards that apply to us, which is a significant error. For example - just using the idea of brainwashing being tossed about in the other conversation paralleling our own. Gods position and unique nature change the rules so to speak. So God can 'wash our brains' and be absolutely good and pure in doing so, whereas for us it's very dangerous and mostly used for evil. Christ can proclaim that all should come unto Him and he will give them rest, but we would be megalomaniacs to say the same thing.

I agree 100%. That's why I see no ground for us to say "It would not be fair for God to demand that we do something that we can't do unless he changes our hearts." Where does the Bible say any such thing? Just because you think a man would be unfair to make such a demand, does that mean it's unfair for God?

As for the dumb brutes - you seem to have missed my point entirely. But I will admit it was a bit of a stretch, so I'll concede the point.

It's not that I missed your point. It's that I reject your premise; neither of us would accept that term within our own belief system. It's not a helpful term. Let's move on.

Nope, I don't think that 'logical consequence' is any better than my 'become as brutes' logical consequence. There is nothing necessary about the conclusion at all. God is a gracious God and gives to us liberally. There is nothing at all inconsistent about God providing the potential for salvation to every human who ever lived, regardless of whether they would receive it or not. There is no waste for the infinite. Indeed it speaks of His infinite love that he would not hold back anything from the payment made.

It would not be inconsistent for God to do such a thing. The question is: Does God say he has done such a thing?

What I can grant is that Limited Atonement is a possibility - God knowing exactly who would come to him He would necessarily be able to pay only that which is necessary if it suited His purpose. But this is not the Calvanist position. It is one of the 5 points, a key fixture, not merely a possibility.

Are you saying that God thinks of things only in possibilities? I don't understand how the term "possibility" applies to God's plans.

But there is another element of this that I find interesting - and which stands against the entire concept. In this 'consequence' is the implicit assumption that God's payment for sin involves some bounded fee. And I wonder about that. If we were allowed to live forever un-redeemed, our sin dept may well accumulate to what is infinite. And It would be just as logical then that the payment for any one of us is in fact identical to the fee for all of us. That there is in fact no such thing a Limited Atonement because for Christ to redeem any one of us is for Him to redeem all of us. And even and regardless of that speculation, seeing as how the scripture makes no such explicit valuation of what is required for our redemption beyond the sacrifice of the perfect and spotless Lamb of God, and seeing as how the death of Christ is in fact the same death once and for all, a penalty required equally for one as for all, it would seem to me there is not one leg to stand on for Limited Atonement as a sure doctrine of the faith. That is, the payment of the Cross is in fact the same for one as it is for all.

You are right that each of us is guilty of infinite sin, because we are guilty against an infinitely holy, infinitely worthy God. But that doesn't follow that "the fee for one of us is identical to the fee for all of us." If you're familiar with math, you're aware that not all inifinities are equal in size. Some are bigger than others. Some are infinitely bigger than others. But that's not even the key point of the doctrine of Limited Atonement. The point is that God has always known exactly for whom Christ was dying. But you're right that if God had intended to pay for the sins of all, Christ's one sacrifice on the cross would have been adequate for that purpose.

I grasp it - I don't see that it makes any difference. For fun, lets use an example from the Latest Star Trek movie. In it Spock has been sent back in time. As such he has foreknowledge, a very close friendship with James Kirk and the other players that exist before he meets any one of them in the past. As He comes upon them He knows each of them as they will be, not just as they are, yet for each of them the knowledge has only just begun. Likewise God's intimate foreknowledge of us has no bearing on the 'before' part of 'fore'knowledge. The key element is that it is knowledge, and God has it before we exist.

Are you arguing that a scenario which you label "foreknowledge" in a Star Trek movie should be used to exegete the way the word "foreknowledge" is used in Romans 8? I don't see the relevance of your response. My point is that the sort of foreknowledge described in Romans 8 poses no problem for the Calvinist doctrine of election. That is, it does not provide particular support for the view that God's election is a response to something that starts with us, rather than with God.

[RBerman]

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

Those are systematic terms, not terms which are themselves found in Scripture. The external call to all men is exemplified by texts like this:

Matthew 11:28-30

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

And the internal call to the elect is here:

Romans 1:6-7

including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 8:28-30

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 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. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

1 Corinthians 1:1

Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus...

1 Corinthians 7:17

Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.

And so on. In a way it's similar to the two ways Scripture speaks of God's will. Sometimes it's in a general sense of things that God commands that don't necessarily happen (like the external call). Sometimes it's in a specific way of things that will certainly happen (like the internal call).