God's Foreordination and Man's Responsibility

[oxmixmudd]

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.

This is not a very good argument against the point I make. First of all, If Romans 6 and 7 are in fact as you say a contrast between what we were as sinners and what we are in Christ (on which we agree) then there is nothing that says that the flow must traverse that path only one time as the conversation flows. Indeed, it is often true in an argument that one must move from a base point concerning A, then to some information about B, then BACK to A making use of the scaffolding constructed about B so as to elaborate more fully on A. And I believe that is precisely what is happening here.

There can be no doubt vs 5 is about the old nature: "For while we were in the flesh ...". Paul uses old man and flesh almost interchangeably at times. And they are what we are outside of Christ, not in Him. Verse 6 pops back to the redeemed state. "But now we have been released from the Law ..." This is clearly in Christ. Apart from Christ we are judged by the Law.

7 is special. It sets up an argument which is to follow. It is clearly speaking outside Christ: "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 through the Law;" Clearly this is before Christ, We must be aware of sin before we can repent.

The remaining argument follows, it is a description of life apart from Christ, aware of what sin is but unable to conquer it. The movement here into present tense is not a movement back into our life under grace, but takes the discussion of the old life into the present for emphasis. This is the simple logical flow of the text. Consider vs 14, clearly now part of the ongoing text from 7 to 25 and now in present tense: "For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin". Are you seriously going to tell me this describes the believer? NO! We have been bought and paid for, released from our bondage to sin, no longer enslaved to it! A believer is not 'sold into bondage to sin'.

Paul has clearly returned to the topic of our state before Christ to elaborate upon that as it relates to the Jewish Law itself, to elaborate on how it(the law) is good, even though in our sinful, unredeemed state it becomes a curse to us.

And if this is indeed our state in Christ, then I would like to understand how you can justify an aspect of that state being described as 'sold into bondage to sin'.

Indeed, consider what finishes this section of the discussion: 7:24 "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death!"

And the answer is?

7:25 "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" and then in 8:2 "For the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death"

What can be more clear? The state being discussed in 7-24 of Romans 7 is the state that Christ sets us free from! So how can the state that Christ sets us free from be the state we are in when we are in Christ?!?!?!?

Anyway - it seems clear this is not our state in Christ (or it's not supposed to be anyway :) )

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.

I did answer what I thought you were discussing, but you are correct, I did not answer that question. That kind of question can't really be answered in that it presumes the evidence you will present is overwhelmingly convincing. My primary goal is to understand scripture and follow it. So clearly, if you can show me scripture that I see as supporting that POV, I will accept it. And I will be glad to listen to any scriptural evidence you have for it, but I'm not going to promise to change my mind just because you are convinced by it. I mean, right now as far as I am concerned I have given you almost irrefutable evidence that Romans 7 is about out state outside Christ, but do you see it that way? I can't imagine how you could possibly not be convinced by the case I've given. But do you see it that way? If it was as simple as the question you ask, there would be no denominations. It just isn't that simple. But I would very much like to know what in scripture you see as supporting the idea of Limited Atonement, because at this point I don't see it there.

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.



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?


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.

Sounds good

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



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

No, I am not saying God thinks of things only in 'possibilities'. I am saying that God may chose to go beyond the necessary because He is fully gracious and full of loving kindness. But I think the more complete argument against Limited Atonement being something we should codify in "TULIP" is what follows.

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.

Ok - so we almost agree here. Lets pursue this a tad. First of all, yes I am quite aware of the fact there are levels of infinitude, 3 known mappings, but theoretically infinitely many. But we are not dealing with differing levels of infinity here. We are each capable of effectively the same level of infinitude in terms of sin. And there are finitely many of us. To go from one level of infinitude to another, one must take the power set of a given level, which is itself an infinite compounding of the given set. Since there have only been a finite number of us since creation, we are left with what happens with a finite compounding of an infinite set, which is the very same infinite set. That is, the sum of all the sin all of man has ever committed or over could commit in eternity is precisely equal to, in terms of the relative ordering of infinity, the sin any one of us has committed or ever could commit in eternity. And so the payment for one is exactly equal to the payment for all. Thus there can be no 'Limited Atonement', except in the degenerate case, in that the Atonement is a single solution to the problem, no matter how many of us it is applied to.

Or perhaps better said: The power of the Atonement is such that it remains undiminished no matter how many times it is appropriated.

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.

No - my analogy simply shows that the time element which you eliminated in your rendition of the text, but which exists in EVERY translation of the text done by language scholars, can not be eliminated simply because the knowledge discussed is relative to an intimate relationship between God and the redeemed. But I am beginning to suspect that we are in reality on this topic addressing two different topics that for some reason are similar enough we are not aware of the fact we are addressing two different topics. The post you responded to (IIRC) where I addressed this topic was to another person, and it addressed the issue of God's DEFINITE knowledge of the future. And it was on the topic of my proposed duality of free will and predestination. The person I was addressing was making the case that there is no definite future, and therefore no need for duality for free will to be a reality. I was making the point that Rom 8:29 does in fact imply a definite future that God is aware of, while at the same 'time' free will is also clearly expounded as a reality in scripture.


Jim

[Phat8594]

Those are systematic terms, not terms which are themselves found in Scripture.

I can appreciate terms not found in scripture that describe a concept found in scripture. However, for the internal and external call, I still find no warrant in scripture to make this comparison.

Essentially, without going into too much detail....from your quotes I see the following:

1. the "external call" is essentially attributed to the public proclamation of the gospel

2. The "internal call" distinction is made from a believer described as "called".

The problem still remains, however, that scripture makes no clear distinction between an "external call" and an "internal call". Sure, believers are those who are called effectively...(as in, they come to faith)...but this in and of itself does not give good reason to make a distinction between an "internal call" (which is ALWAYS effective) and an "external call". Rather, it presumes that those who were not called effectively, were never called "internally".

[RBerman]

I can appreciate terms not found in scripture that describe a concept found in scripture. However, for the internal and external call, I still find no warrant in scripture to make this comparison.

Essentially, without going into too much detail....from your quotes I see the following:

1. the "external call" is essentially attributed to the public proclamation of the gospel

2. The "internal call" distinction is made from a believer described as "called".

The problem still remains, however, that scripture makes no clear distinction between an "external call" and an "internal call". Sure, believers are those who are called effectively...(as in, they come to faith)...but this in and of itself does not give good reason to make a distinction between an "internal call" (which is ALWAYS effective) and an "external call". Rather, it presumes that those who were not called effectively, were never called "internally".

Well, that's a different question. You just asked me on what basis I distinguished between an external call and an internal call in the first place. You didn't ask me to defend the proposition that everyone who receives the internal call, accepts it.

[Phat8594]

You didn't ask me to defend the proposition that everyone who receives the internal call, accepts it.

If your basis for the distinction is verses in the NT where believers are described as called...shouldn't that be paramount in making the distinction? I think somehow, there needs to be something that shows that call is "internal" and not just merely "effective".

PS As a side note, I think we should be careful in equating where someone is called in life, to an internal call of salvation.

[siliconwafer]

I can appreciate terms not found in scripture that describe a concept found in scripture. However, for the internal and external call, I still find no warrant in scripture to make this comparison.

Essentially, without going into too much detail....from your quotes I see the following:

1. the "external call" is essentially attributed to the public proclamation of the gospel

2. The "internal call" distinction is made from a believer described as "called".

The problem still remains, however, that scripture makes no clear distinction between an "external call" and an "internal call". Sure, believers are those who are called effectively...(as in, they come to faith)...but this in and of itself does not give good reason to make a distinction between an "internal call" (which is ALWAYS effective) and an "external call". Rather, it presumes that those who were not called effectively, were never called "internally".

It is clear from Scripture that God commands everyone to repent from their sins and to place their trust in Christ alone to save them from their sins. Should this command be called an "external call"?

Romans 8:30 teaches that those whom God calls are justified. Should this be called "internal call"?

[Phat8594]

It is clear from Scripture that God commands everyone to repent from their sins and to place their trust in Christ alone to save them from their sins. Should this command be called an "external call"?

I see no need to put this label on it. Where does the command to everyone to repent exclude the work of the Holy Spirit?

Romans 8:30 teaches that those whom God calls are justified. Should this be called "internal call"?

Not at all. You are taking a difference in response to the call (to repentance/faith/etc) and concluding that there is a difference in the call itself. In other words you are essentially saying that because there are different responses, there are therefore different "calls" to repentance. This, of course, is a nonsequiter. There can be different responses to the same call or command.

[siliconwafer]

I see no need to put this label on it. Where does the command to everyone to repent exclude the work of the Holy Spirit?




Not at all. You are taking a difference in response to the call (to repentance/faith/etc) and concluding that there is a difference in the call itself. In other words you are essentially saying that because there are different responses, there are therefore different "calls" to repentance. This, of course, is a nonsequiter. There can be different responses to the same call or command.

Everyone is commanded to come to Christ, but the Holy Spirit does not guarantee that everyone will place their faith in Christ. The Holy Spirit guarantees that the elect will come to Christ, but He does not guarantee that the non-elect will come to Christ. The Holy Spirit's work is different for the elect and the non-elect.

I was not saying that just because there are different responses to God's command to repent and believe the gospel, that there are different kinds of calling.

[siliconwafer]

If God made a plan that people would do evil and God holds them responsible for doing evil, could anyone explain why God would hold them accountable for doing evil? Is it because they evil voluntarily?

My original post contains some examples of God ordaining that people would do evil.

[Phat8594]

Everyone is commanded to come to Christ, but the Holy Spirit does not guarantee that everyone will place their faith in Christ.

Agreed.

The Holy Spirit guarantees that the elect will come to Christ, but He does not guarantee that the non-elect will come to Christ. The Holy Spirit's work is different for the elect and the non-elect.

Disagreed. Again, where in scripture do we see a distinction between an internal call and external call? In other words, where in the Bible do we see a distinction made between those who are guaranteed to come to Christ, and those who are guaranteed not to come to Christ?

I was not saying that just because there are different responses to God's command to repent and believe the gospel, that there are different kinds of calling.

Well that was your evidence....

You essentially said that because believers are described as "called" in scripture, there are diferent kinds of calling (internal and external....guaranteed and not guaranteed). Of course, I think this is faulty logic to say the least.

[Phat8594]

If God made a plan that people would do evil and God holds them responsible for doing evil, could anyone explain why God would hold them accountable for doing evil? Is it because they evil voluntarily?

My original post contains some examples of God ordaining that people would do evil

It all depends on what you mean by "ordain". Do you mean He actively brings it about? Or do you mean that He allows it. Unfortunately, I have found that often times people switch definitions when it is convenient (and probably without realizing it).


Still, it should be no surprise that God is big enough to use man's free will (including bad or evil decisions) to accomplish His will.

[siliconwafer]

It all depends on what you mean by "ordain". Do you mean He actively brings it about? Or do you mean that He allows it. Unfortunately, I have found that often times people switch definitions when it is convenient (and probably without realizing it).


Still, it should be no surprise that God is big enough to use man's free will (including bad or evil decisions) to accomplish His will.

There are different ways that God can ordain things. With respect to evil, God ordains evil by allowing it.

[Phat8594]

There are different ways that God can ordain things. With respect to evil, God ordains evil by allowing it

That doesn't answer the question.

The question was: What does ordain mean?

Not..how does God ordain things...

[siliconwafer]

That doesn't answer the question.

The question was: What does ordain mean?

Not..how does God ordain things...

To make a plan that something will come to pass.

[Phat8594]

To make a plan that something will come to pass.

That's fair.



Anyways, since you have had more time...have you found any place in scripture that makes the distinction between an internal vs. external call to salvation?

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I don't buy into the foreordination idea...

It is a good word, but easy to misunderstand...
The "fore" part is easy, meaning before...
The "or" part is from the Greek meaning "to see", and has deeper roots going back to eagle, and the Egyptian God Horus, and the English "horizon"...
The "din" part comes from dyne in Greek, and means power, as in "dynamo" or "dynamic"...
The rest means simply implementation...

So when one is foreordained, one is given power based on what was foreseen... In this case by God... It does not mean predestination, but enablement... God knows the end of your life from before the beginning, and makes provision for you accordingly, and that provision enables you by its power to do what God forsees you to do, and this is Divine Providence...

Arsenios