Steve Hays' Tin Ear on Calvinism

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

You've touched on one of my many reservations about what is meant by "predestination" with this question. The word is used to mean something God dictated unavoidably, as if there were no other choice for any persons involved. I don't see that here.

Some though use the word to mean God knew what would happen; in that sense, I could see "presdestination" here.

Please cite scholarly works that uphold both positions

I would say that God expected Adam to sin and so provided the One slain 'before the world was'...of course Adam had a choice, but what if the choice to sin (not necessarily by Adam) would happen somewhere down the line ..? Is this unavoidable?

Is predestination dependant upon Adam sinning first? I still don't quite see how this is 'before the world was' i.e. pre-Adam - works from your view.

[Turgonian]

God knew Adam would sin, freely, by his own choice. There is no distinction here between JP's view and the Calvinist view, as I understand it.

[jpholding]

Did God not desire the Crucifixion, then?

I think He would have preferred that Israel accept Jesus as Messiah when he came into town on a donkey.

But Christ's prayer in Gethsemane was, 'Thy will be done.' And then they crucified Him.

At that point, the rejection was likely clear enough so that there was no other option as at the start of Passion week.

Please cite scholarly works that uphold both positions

Do you mean, the position on predestination and what it means?

I know Thomas Schreiner has a work that espouses the Calvinist position though I have not read it. It may be (or may also be in) his Romans commentary. On the other side, I have no specific recollection at the moment but seem to recall seeing it in some of the other Romans commentaries I used to respond to J White.

I would say that God expected Adam to sin and so provided the One slain 'before the world was'...of course Adam had a choice, but what if the choice to sin (not necessarily by Adam) would happen somewhere down the line ..? Is this unavoidable?

In a free world, I expect it is unavoidable at some point; but there's no saying at which one from our perspective.

Is predestination dependant upon Adam sinning first? I still don't quite see how this is 'before the world was' i.e. pre-Adam - works from your view.

Once again, this would depend on how one defines predestination -- whether one goes fatalist or not. My own view (as in the unconditional election article) sees such issues in terms of God being sovereign and choosing what universe to make; not in pulling each individual string.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

thanks JP, so now I just have to ask, did God in this universe pull specific strings e.g. in relation to the life and ministry of Christ and/or the apostles? (per your unconditional election essay)

[Turgonian]

But God's plan of the Crucifixion was made in eternity, right? Jesus knew He had to suffer for the whole world before Adam was made. So it would be very hard to insist that God did not desire (or will) the Crucifixion.

[jpholding]

thanks JP, so now I just have to ask, did God in this universe pull specific strings e.g. in relation to the life and ministry of Christ and/or the apostles? (per your unconditional election essay)

Perhaps, but there's really no way to know (beyond when Jesus asked for it to happen).

But God's plan of the Crucifixion was made in eternity, right? Jesus knew He had to suffer for the whole world before Adam was made. So it would be very hard to insist that God did not desire (or will) the Crucifixion.

The critical issue is whether God willed it and planned it in such a way that there was no other option in history. I can't see that as so given what I found in my research for the U article, as well as that Jesus offered himself as King when he rode into Jerusalem.

[JB]

Maybe....or I may just link to this thread.

The laziness never ceases to astonish me.

Unlike me, though, you have nothing else to do to keep you occupied while waiting.

That's what you think. I've been working my way through ANET (Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, with Supplement, as I'm sure you're familiar) for the past couple of weeks. I've got plenty to do: read.

Oh boy. So it's YOUR fault that under the part where it says, "People who ordered The Impossible Faith also ordered..." we also see titles like 1001 Delicious Spam Recipes?

Dangit, JPH, I bought that as a Christmas gift for you. Now the surprise is all ruined...

But trust me, even if the case, that'd be far from being the most absurd recommendation I've seen Amazon.com make. It suggested that I buy the Satanic Bible (or was it Dianetics?) because I own the Book of Mormon, and that I get something called Simply in Season Children's Cookbook because I mentioned that I own a commentary on Psalms.

(My copies of Mauck's Paul on Trial and Winter's Seek the Welfare of the City arrived the other day. )

Thanks. We'll make him one.

I'd love to see it. As Crump says, "Eschatology is the grammar of prayer. Prayer is the language of eschatology."

JB -- Thanks a lot for your response! So I was simply wrong and [greek]cariV[/greek] is used of our response.

P.S. What does 'ILL' mean?

When written in lowercase, it's an adjective used to describe JPH's mind.

The critical issue is whether God willed it and planned it in such a way that there was no other option in history. I can't see that as so given what I found in my research for the U article, as well as that Jesus offered himself as King when he rode into Jerusalem.

If you don't mind me bouncing a question off of you, if Jesus had been accepted as King upon that entry into Jerusalem--and it sounds somewhat like you're saying that it was a genuine offer and perhaps a true possibility--how might atonement have then occurred?

[Turgonian]

When written in lowercase, it's an adjective used to describe JPH's mind.

Only by those intelligent Screwballs with a Ph.D. in psychology, though; not by us mindless Holding worshippers at TWeb!

[jpholding]

If you don't mind me bouncing a question off of you, if Jesus had been accepted as King upon that entry into Jerusalem--and it sounds somewhat like you're saying that it was a genuine offer and perhaps a true possibility--how might atonement have then occurred?

Certainly loyalty would still be the saving element. Perhaps some form of sacrifice would have continued; or perhaps what had been done before would have been enough. (I expect as time passed, and the Kingdom claimed the whole of the earth, sin would be erased at some point.)

[The Curtmudgeon]

If you don't mind me bouncing a question off of you, if Jesus had been accepted as King upon that entry into Jerusalem--and it sounds somewhat like you're saying that it was a genuine offer and perhaps a true possibility--how might atonement have then occurred?

I'm not answering for JPH or anyone other than myself, but here's my take on it: Jesus would still have been crucified. The Romans could not have accepted any sort of Jewish King who did not bow the knee to Caesar, so they would have taken Him and crucified Him anyway. But in this scenario, there would have been no corporate guilt on the Jewish people, no need for a traitor on the inside, and no destruction of Judaea/Jerusalem 40 years later. Immediately upon the Resurrection, Jesus (having already been accepted as King, remember) would have been accepted as Messiah and the Millennial Kingdom would have been ushered in. Gentiles would have been accepted individually (as, in fact, we are today ) into the Kingdom during the ensuing period.

We would still have atonement through the sacrificial blood of Jesus on the cross. As the Scripture says, that was ordained from before the world began. Only the details would be different.

The (just my tuppence-ha'penny, as usual) Curtmudgeon

[Turgonian]

A very interesting take...

[JonLanceBarker]

I'm not answering for JPH or anyone other than myself, but here's my take on it: Jesus would still have been crucified. The Romans could not have accepted any sort of Jewish King who did not bow the knee to Caesar, so they would have taken Him and crucified Him anyway. But in this scenario, there would have been no corporate guilt on the Jewish people, no need for a traitor on the inside, and no destruction of Judaea/Jerusalem 40 years later. Immediately upon the Resurrection, Jesus (having already been accepted as King, remember) would have been accepted as Messiah and the Millennial Kingdom would have been ushered in. Gentiles would have been accepted individually (as, in fact, we are today ) into the Kingdom during the ensuing period.

We would still have atonement through the sacrificial blood of Jesus on the cross. As the Scripture says, that was ordained from before the world began. Only the details would be different.

The (just my tuppence-ha'penny, as usual) Curtmudgeon

well maybe...if the Sanhedrin hadn't been scared silly by Jesus's claims to Divinity.
or are we thinking in this scenario that the majority of the Jewish people would have had the gumption to bypass their recognized religious authorities?

[The Curtmudgeon]

well maybe...if the Sanhedrin hadn't been scared silly by Jesus's claims to Divinity.
or are we thinking in this scenario that the majority of the Jewish people would have had the gumption to bypass their recognized religious authorities?

Well, JB's post said "accepted as King", and I took that to mean ... well, acceptance. Id est, that it was no longer disputed by the Jews (as a whole, and not meaning there might not be the oddball objecter out in left field somewhere), and as such, either the Sanhedrin changed their collective mind or else were made redundant to the discussion.

[cynic]The members of the Sanhedrin, like any good politicians, would have followed the expressed will of the people, especially if lynching stoning was the alternative.[/cynic]

So that could have been gumption on the part of the Jewish people as you say, or that the Sanhedrin as Jews also decided that they could accept Him after all.

The (don't laugh, it could have happened ) Curtmudgeon

[JB]

Certainly loyalty would still be the saving element. Perhaps some form of sacrifice would have continued; or perhaps what had been done before would have been enough. (I expect as time passed, and the Kingdom claimed the whole of the earth, sin would be erased at some point.)

I'm still a bit curious as to the proposed mechanism here. Correct me if my thinking is dancing in fields of burning eggplants at the moment, but if pistis apart from a redemptive act on God's part were sufficient to secure atonement, then I have difficulty seeing whence the necessity of Christ's sacrifice, given the historical situation of rejection, emerges. Then there's the proposition of pistis and continuing animal sacrifice (or at least sacrifice until the extermination of sin) sufficing, which corresponds to your more speculative suggestions, if I'm not mistaken. How might you reconcile that proposal with, e.g., Hebrews 10:1-4?

I'm not answering for JPH or anyone other than myself, but here's my take on it: Jesus would still have been crucified. The Romans could not have accepted any sort of Jewish King who did not bow the knee to Caesar, so they would have taken Him and crucified Him anyway. But in this scenario, there would have been no corporate guilt on the Jewish people, no need for a traitor on the inside, and no destruction of Judaea/Jerusalem 40 years later. Immediately upon the Resurrection, Jesus (having already been accepted as King, remember) would have been accepted as Messiah and the Millennial Kingdom would have been ushered in. Gentiles would have been accepted individually (as, in fact, we are today ) into the Kingdom during the ensuing period.

We would still have atonement through the sacrificial blood of Jesus on the cross. As the Scripture says, that was ordained from before the world began. Only the details would be different.

The (just my tuppence-ha'penny, as usual) Curtmudgeon

As to the Curtmudgeon's conjecture, I can spot no flaws.

[JonLanceBarker]

i could certainly agree with JP and the Curt here, if it weren't for the fact that Jesus very consistently denounced the actions, opinions, and man-made traditions of the Pharisees and Sadducees, thereby impugning their honor and alienating them for good.
were they just supposed to admit they were wrong and move on, especially (in an agonistic society!) when Jesus so stridently condemned them as "white-washed tombs?"
would their love of their own honor have permitted such?
IMO, most likely not.

in order for the proposed scenario to have worked, i see that one would have to assume some different sort of event that would change the hearts and minds of the (corporate) Jewish religious elite.
but in order for that to have happened, some events prior to the Jerusalem entry would have had to be different as well.
after all, if Jesus could have been accepted just after the triumphal entry, surely many in the Sanhedrin would have had to be favorably leaning before then?

one of the binding themes i've noticed in both the OT and the NT (no doubt others have noticed them too) is that throughout history, humanity has had a rather annoyingly repetitious tendency towards rejection of the revelations of God.
it begins at the fall and continues through Moses, David and the Prophets.
apparently, God had no reason to put a stop to it in Jesus's earthly life, pre-Resurrection.