James R. White - 8 Minutes in John 6

This video is too good to pass up (excerpted from his online debate with Dr. Michael L. Brown).

8 Minutes in John 6 from Nathan W. Bingham on Vimeo.

Here are links to the whole debate:

• James R. White vs. Michael L. Brown - Calvinism Debate (Part 1)
• James R. White vs. Michael L. Brown - Calvinism Debate (Part 2)
• James R. White vs. Michael L. Brown - Calvinism Debate (Part 3)
• James R. White vs. Michael L. Brown - Calvinism Debate (Part 4)

Toronto Baptist Seminary Essays

For those who've been wondering why I've barely posted at all in the past eight months, it's because I've been busy finishing my one year bible diploma program at Toronto Baptist Seminary. I have done a lot of theological and apologetical writing for that program, so to compensate for my relative inactivity in the blogosphere, I decided that I would post four of my best articles here on Epagonizesthai. These have some pretty good apologetic value and I do believe these constitute some of my best work so far, so they're worth looking at.

For Christian Foundations:

• The Christian Doctrine of God Explained and Defended for Muslims

For Comparative World Religions:

• Contrasting Christian and Muslim Views on the Female Gender

For the Gospel of John:

• The Divine Logos: The Christology of the Gospel of John

For Systematic Theology:

• He Will Save His People: A Case for Particular Redemption

More Bad Anti-Calvinist Arguments

I don't know about you guys, but I think videos like this just refute themselves.

Predestination Versus Fatalism

By Lorraine Boettner

Much misunderstanding arises through confusing the Christian Doctrine of Predestination with the heathen doctrine of Fatalism. There is, in reality, only one point of agreement between the two, which is, that both assume the absolute certainty of all future events. The essential difference between them is that Fatalism has no place for a personal God. Predestination holds that events come to pass because an infinitely wise, powerful, and holy God has so appointed them. Fatalism holds that all events come to pass through the working of a blind, unintelligent, impersonal, non-moral force which cannot be distinguished from physical necessity, and which carries us helplessly within its grasp as mighty river carries a piece of wood.

Predestination teaches that from eternity God has had one unified plan or purpose which He is bringing to perfection through this world order of events. It holds that all of His decrees are rational determinations founded on sufficient reason, and that He has fixed one great goal "toward which the whole creation moves." Predestination holds that the ends designed in this plan are first, the glory of God; and second, the good of His people. On the other hand Fatalism excludes the idea of final causes. It snatches the reins of universal empire from the hands of infinite wisdom and love, and gives them into the hands of a blind necessity. It attributes the course of nature and the experiences of mankind to an unknown, irresistible force, against which it is vain to struggle and childish to repine.

According to the doctrine of Predestination the freedom and responsibility of man are fully preserved. In the midst of certainty God has ordained human liberty. But Fatalism allows no power of choice, no self-determination. It makes the acts of man to be as utterly beyond his control as are the laws of nature. Fatalism, with its idea of irresistable, impersonal, abstract power, has no room for moral ideas, while Predestination makes these the rule of action for God and man. Fatalism has no place for and offers no incentives to religion, love, mercy, holiness, justice, or wisdom, while Predestination gives these the strongest conceivable basis. And lastly, Fatalism leads to skepticism and despair, while Predestination sets forth the glories of God and of His kingdom in all their splendor and gives an assurance which nothing can shake.

Predestination therefore differs from Fatalism as much as the acts of a man differ from those of a machine, or as much as the unfailing love of the heavenly Father differs from the force of gravitation. "It reveals to us," says Smith, "the glorious truth that our lives and our sensitive hearts are held, not in the iron cog-wheels of a vast and pitiless Fate, nor in the whirling loom of a crazy Chance, but in the almighty hands of an infinitely good and wise God."

Calvin emphatically repudiated the charge that his doctrine was Fatalism. "Fate," says he, "is a term given by the Stoics to their doctrine of necessity, which they had formed out of a labyrinth of contradictory reasonings; a doctrine calculated to call God Himself to order, and to set Him laws whereby to work. Predestination I define to be, according to the Holy Scriptures, that free and unfettered counsel of God by which He rules all mankind, and all men and things, and also all parts and particles of the world by His infinite wisdom and incomprehensible justice." And again, ". . . had you but been willing to look into my books, you would have been convinced at once how offensive to me is the profane term fate: nay, you would have learned that this same abhorrent term was cast in the teeth of Augustine by his opponents."

Luther says that the doctrine of Fatalism among the heathen is a proof that "the knowledge of Predestination and of the prescience of God, was no less left in the world than the notion of divinity itself." In the history of philosophy Materialism has proven itself essentially fatalistic. Pantheism also has been strongly tinged with it.

No man can be a consistent fatalist. For to be consistent he would have to reason something like this: "If I am to die today, it will do me no good to eat, for I shall die anyway. Nor do I need to eat if I am to live many years yet, for I shall live anyway. Therefore I will not eat." Needless to say, if God has foreordained that a man shall live, He has also foreordained that he shall be kept from the suicidal folly of refusing to eat.

"This doctrine," says Hamilton, "is only superficially like the pagan 'fate.' The Christian is in the hands not of a cold, immutable determinism, but of a warm, loving heavenly Father, who loved us and gave His Son to die for us on Calvary! The Christian knows that 'all things work together for good to them that love God, even to them that are called according to His purpose.' The Christian can trust God because he knows He is all-wise, loving, just and holy. He sees the end from the beginning, so that there is no reason to become panicky when things seem to be going against us."

Hence, only a person who has not examined this doctrine of Predestination, or one who is maliciously inclined, will rashly charge that it is Fatalism. There is no excuse for anyone making this mistake who knows what Predestination is and what Fatalism is.

Since the universe is one systematized unit we must choose between Fatalism, which ultimately does away with mind and purpose, and this biblical doctrine of Predestination, which holds that God created all things, that His providence extends to all His works, and that while free Himself He has also provided that we shall be free within the limits of our natures. Instead of our doctrine of Predestination being the same with the heathen doctrine of Fatalism, it is its absolute opposite and only alternative.

Source

• Boettner, Lorraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2004. pp. 130-131.

The Potter and the Clay

By George Whitefield

If it be inquired, who is to be the potter? And by whose agency this marred clay is to be formed into another vessel? Or in other words, if it be asked, how this great and mighty change is to be effected? I answer, not by the mere dint and force of moral suasion [persuasion]. This is good in its place. And I am so far from thinking, that Christian preachers should not make use of rational arguments and motives in their sermons, that I cannot think they are fit to preach at all, who either cannot, or will not use them. We have the example of the great God himself for such a practice; “Come (says he) and let us reason together.” And St. Paul, that prince of preachers, “reasoned of temperance, and righteousness, and a judgment to come.” And it is remarkable, “that whilst he was reasoning of these things, Felix trembled.” Nor are the most persuasive strains of holy rhetoric less needful for a scribe ready instructed to the kingdom of God. The scriptures both of the Old and New Testament, every where abound with them. And when can they be more properly employed, and brought forth, than when we are acting as ambassadors or heaven, and beseeching poor sinners, as in Christ's stead, to be reconciled unto God. All this we readily grant. But at the same time, I would as soon go to yonder church-yard, and attempt to raise the dead carcasses, with a “come forth,” as to preach to dead souls, did I not hope for some superior power to make the word effectual to the designed end. I should only be like a sounding brass for any saving purpose, or as a tinkling cymbal. Neither is this change to be wrought by the power of our own free-will. This is an idol every where set up, but we dare not fall down and worship it. “No man (says Christ) can come to me, unless the Father draw him.” Our own free-will, if improved, may restrain us from the commission of many evils, and put us in the way of conversion; but, after exerting our utmost efforts (and we are bound in duty to exert them) we shall find the words of our own church article to be true, that “man since the fall hath no power to turn to God.” No, we might as soon attempt to stop the ebbing and flowing of the tide, and calm the most tempestuous sea, as to imagine that we can subdue, or bring under proper regulations, our own unruly wills and affections by any strength inherent in ourselves.

And therefore, that I may keep you no longer in suspense, I inform you, that this heavenly potter, this blessed agent, is the Almighty Spirit of God, the Holy Ghost, the third person in the most adorable Trinity, coessential with the Father and the Son. This is that Spirit, which at the beginning of time moved on the face of the waters, when nature lay in one universal chaos. This was the Spirit that overshadowed the Holy Virgin, before that holy thing was born of her: and this same Spirit must come, and move upon the chaos of our souls, before we can properly be called the sons of God. This is what John the Baptist calls “being baptized with the Holy Ghost,” without which, his and all other baptisms, whether infant or adult, avail nothing. This is that fire, which our Lord came to send into our earthly hearts, and which I pray the Lord of all lords to kindle in every unrenewed one this day.

As for the extraordinary operations of the Holy Ghost, such as working of miracles, or speaking with divers kinds of tongues, they are long since ceased. But as for this miracle of miracles, turning the soul to God by the more ordinary operations of the Holy Ghost, this abides yet, and will abide till time itself shall be nor more. For it is he that sanctifieth us, and all the elect people of God. On this account, true believers are said to be “born from above, to be born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Their second, as well as their first creation, is truly and purely divine. It is, therefore, called “a creation;” but put ye on (says the apostle) the new man which is created” — And how? Even as the first man was, “after God in righteousness and true holiness.”

Source

• George Whitefield - The Potter and the Clay
  

Clarifying Reformed Theology (Part 6)

(Continued from Part Five)

Unlike previous parts of the Clarifying Reformed Theology series, I am going to be responding to a different individual this time around. This time, it is Eric Giunta, the same Roman Catholic I previously debated over the nature of authority. I will continue dialoguing with Jamie after I answer this fellow's points regarding the Reformed position.

Predestinationism is foreign to the thought of St Augustine, as he himself had to clarify on more than one occasion.

I suppose that is the reason why Augustine of Hippo wrote an entire treatise on the subject, eh? I could quote to you Augustine's entire Treatise On the Predestination of the Saints, but let me just give you a few brief excerpts that sum up how we view divine Election:

I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: 'God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on Him,—to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.' I had not yet very carefully sought, nor had I as yet found, what is the nature of the election of grace, of which the apostle says, 'A remnant are saved according to the election of grace.' [Rom. 11.5.] Which assuredly is not grace if any merits precede it; lest what is now given, not according to grace, but according to debt, be rather paid to merits than freely given.
(Augustine. On the Predestination of the Saints. Ch. 7.)

Because a man, puffed up against another, might say, "My faith makes me to differ,'' or "My righteousness," or anything else of the kind. In reply to such notions, the good teacher says, "But what hast thou that thou hast not received?" And from whom but from Him who maketh thee to differ from another, on whom He bestowed not what He bestowed on thee? "Now if," says he, "thou hast received it, why dost thou glory as if thou receivedst it not?" Is he concerned, I ask, about anything else save that he who glorieth should glory in the Lord? But nothing is so opposed to this feeling as for any one to glory concerning his own merits in such a way as if he himself had made them for himself, and not the grace of God,—a grace, however, which makes the good to differ from the wicked, and is not common to the good and the wicked. Let the grace, therefore, whereby we are living and reasonable creatures, and are distinguished from cattle, be attributed to nature; let that grace also by which, among men themselves, the handsome are made to differ from the ill-formed, or the intelligent from the stupid, or anything of that kind, be ascribed to nature.
(Augustine. On the Predestination of the Saints. Ch. 10.)

It would be too tedious to argue about the several points. But you see without doubt, you see with what evidence of apostolic declaration this grace is defended, in opposition to which human merits are set up, as if man should first give something for it to be recompensed to him again. Therefore God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, predestinating us to the adoption of children, not because we were going to be of ourselves holy and immaculate, but He chose and predestinated us that we might be so. Moreover, He did this according to the good pleasure of His will, so that nobody might glory concerning his own will, but about God's will towards himself. He did this according to the riches of His grace, according to His good-will, which He purposed in His beloved Son, in whom we have obtained a share, being predestinated according to the purpose, not ours, but His, who worketh all things to such an extent as that He worketh in us to will also. Moreover, He worketh according to the counsel of His will, that we may be to the praise of His glory. [Phil. 2.13.] For this reason it is that we cry that no one should glory in man, and, thus, not in himself; but whoever glorieth let him glory in the Lord, that he may be for the praise of His glory. Because He Himself worketh according to His purpose that we may be to the praise of His glory, and, of course, holy and immaculate, for which purpose He called us, predestinating us before the foundation of the world. Out of this, His purpose, is that special calling of the elect for whom He co-worketh with all things for good, because they are called according to His purpose, and "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." [Rom. 11.29.]
(Augustine. On the Predestination of the Saints. Ch. 37.)

Well aren't these exactly the kinds of things we who are Reformed Protestants would say? To say that we are innovating anything is pretty absurd at this point, given that Augustine and other church fathers made the exact same points long before us.

This was an issue he grappled with, but even he didn't think to set his private interpretations and exegesis against the teaching of God's Church, as Calvin did.

In reply to this, I again quote the great saint:

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.

(Augustine. De Unitate Ecclesiae. Ch. 10.)

Also, what we contend is that these teachings that we proclaim are nothing new. What we espouse as the doctrines of grace were known even during the days of the early church. If you don't believe me, here is the proof.

And finally, we could get into an extended debate about what Augustine actually believed as Church teaching (Hint: He disagreed with quite a few things that Rome today regards as dogma), but that is to be the topic of another discussion. For now, our focus is on Divine Predestination.

The distinctions between God's active and His permissive wills also seems to elude you. God allowed the Romans to do as they did, He did not force them to.

Actually I spend a good deal of my discussions distinguishing between preceptive and decretive (those are the terms we prefer to use) wills, not to mention the role of secondary causes in bringing about what God has ordained to come to pass. It's too bad you didn't read my previous blog posts like I asked you to, because I dealt with these points at length when I was replying to my Wesleyan-Arminian friend, Jamie.

Now, I generally dislike repeating myself, but for the sake of understanding, let me repost some of the relevant passages that I wrote in previous parts of this series:

It must be said at the outset difference between ordaining something and causing something to take place. To illustrate this, just think of gravity. In order for a rock to move upward, I have to lift it up with my hand. In order for it to fall, however, I don't have to hurl the rock down towards the ground. I need only to let go of the rock and let gravity do its thing. The same can be said about sin. He does not cause anybody to sin or disbelieve in Him. Rather, He ordains these things in the sense that He makes use of our natural inclination to sin in order to bring about His own ends and purposes. In fact, it can be said that God by His grace actually restrains us from doing as much evil as we would otherwise do (the upshot of this is that whenever God hardens somebody's heart, He is actually loosening His grip of common grace upon that person so that their sin nature takes greater control). Look back at Joseph and his brothers. They were actually planning to kill their younger brother, yet God by His gracious providence worked in the heart of Reuben and made it so that they would just sell him into slavery instead (cf. Genesis 37:12ff).

Finally, regardless of God's sovereignty over all events, He still holds men accountable for what they will to do. This is why Judas can still be condemned as a “son of perdition” even though he did what he had to do in order for scripture to be fulfilled (cf. John 17:12). This is also why Jesus could say that the soldiers who crucified Him had sinned and needed to be forgiven even though their actions were a part of God’s foreordained plan (cf. Luke 23:34).
(From Clarifying Reformed Theology, Part 1)

Also, we never said God forces anybody to do anything. As I made abundantly clear, God makes use of men's own depravity (or as you Roman Catholics like to call it, concupiscence), to get them to willingly do what He has ordained for them to do. It's not like God is zapping the soldiers with the desire to sin or anything. Their natural sin nature (cf. Genesis 6:5, 8:21, Psalm 14:2-3, 51:5, 58:3, Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:10-12, 8:5-8, etc.) takes care of that.

And He prevents nobody from coming to Him, but merely allows human nature to run its course when sinful men reject Him Calvin himself stated this when he said,

Therefore, forasmuch as no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief.
(Calvin, John. Commentary on Acts 2:14-21.)

He sets the door wide open for everybody who is willing to come to Christ. The only thing that prevents people from believing is their own sinful nature. Left to our own devices, we will choose to reject God. Every time. More than that, the very strawman that you accuse Calvinists of believing in was condemned by Calvin as a construct invented by unbelieving heathens:

...this fault they [the heathens] add... that when they do think of God it is against their will; never approaching him without being dragged into his presence, and when there, instead of the voluntary fear flowing from reverence of the divine majesty, feeling only that forced and servile fear which divine Judgment extorts Judgment which, from the impossibility of escape, they are compelled to dread, but which, while they dread, they at the same time also hate.
(Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. I:4:4.)

Another obvious case study that I didn't bring up during my blog post series was Pharaoh. Scripture tells us first that God hardens his heart, and that Pharaoh hardens his own heart afterwards. How is this so? Well, God withdraws His common grace which is what enables Pharaoh to act good, and then Pharaoh's own sin nature takes over from there. Basically, God "lets Pharaoh be Pharaoh," as one good friend of mine put it. Why does God ordain this?

As for Me, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen. Then the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD, when I am honored through Pharaoh, through his chariots and his horsemen.
(Exodus 14:17-18, cf. Romans 9:17)

That is your answer. :-)

Also, the question I asked is one of logic. Scriptural exegesis is irrelevant. If the Scriptures ever did teach something illogical of God, they'd be exposed for literary straw.

Only a Roman Catholic would ever dare to say "scriptural exegesis is irrelevant." :-)

It's funny given that these same scriptures tell us:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom ofthe wise;

the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

(1 Corinthians 1:18-20, NIV, cf. Isaiah 29:14)

I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments... See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

(Colossians 2:4-8, NIV)

If you won't listen to the Word of God, however, then listen to what the early church fathers had to say:

Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to scripture alone.
(Theodoret of Cyrus. Eranistes. Ch. 1.)

But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves...
(Clement of Alexandria. The Stromata. XII:16.)

In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures.
(Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures. 4:17.)

There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.
(Hippolytus. Against Noetus. Ch. 9.)

So, if you want to debate this topic any further, let's debate it using scriptural exegesis. If you have any argument against the Reformed position which I have presented in these blog posts, present your arguments from the Word of God. :-)

Grace and Peace.

Fisher.

Clarifying Reformed Theology (Part 5)

(Continued from Part 4)

Because I was uber-busy lately, I didn’t finish answering part three of the blog post series critiquing Calvinism. Now that I have a bit of spare time, I will continue my response, but I will have to make it only as long as necessary.

Ok, to end this thing, I want to pose two questions to Calvinists that specifically concern the doctrine of election, and see if they can answer them. No one has answered them so far but please feel free to give it a shot.

Well, I don’t think I’ve ever heard these questions posed before. I’ll try to give the best response I can give, but lack of time will prevent me from going too in-depth, so I hope you take this humble attempt...

1) What is the criteria by which God chooses to save (elect) one human and not save another? Don’t give me the “mysterious ways” or “because of who He is” stuff either. I can’t find how God chooses His people in the Bible yet I’m told this doctrine is “Biblical.” If He’s going to purposefully send millions of those He created to Hell, couldn’t He at least hint as to the mechanism by which He selects those whom He spares?

There can be no denying that election is based on God’s mercy and purposes, since it is clear that He “has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity” (1 Timothy 1:9) and that it is “according to His mercy” (Titus 3:5).

Now, that doesn’t quite tell us what the exact purposes are, now does it? Of course, there are some very specific instances where God does tell us what His purposes are for electing or reprobating a specific person. For example, in the case of the Pharaoh, He states.

As for Me, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen. Then the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD, when I am honored through Pharaoh, through his chariots and his horsemen. (Exodus 3:17-18)

From these and other passages, it can be adduced that the ultimate end of it all is for God to make His glory and honour known. I try to stick to what the bible says, since that is the only safe option to take (doing otherwise would result in just sheer speculation). I am sorry if the bible doesn’t give any answer other than this, but we just have to accept the fact that God does not have to tell us everything. He only tells us as much as we need to know, and He obviously does not think we need to know why He does every single thing that He does. I mean, if you've ever read the book of Job, you can see that clearly in Job's questions and God's response to him. IJob could only say about God’s purposes that “these these things You have concealed in Your heart” (Job 10:13). After all, God is not accountable to man for every single action that He decrees. Otherwise, we would have traded places with God!

2) Why is it that God seems to “elect” Christians based on geography? Take a look at this map (click to enlarge):

I’m not posting the map on this blog (readers can see it in yours), but I would like to caution you against relying on maps such as these. The main reason for this is that there are millions of Christians around the world who are not officially registered or listed in censuses. China is an excellent example: I once heard it said that there may be up to 20,000 Chinese people converting to Christianity every day. Now, this statistic is probably a bit inflated, but it shows that there are millions more Christians in those places that are lightly-shaded than is commonly thought.

There are so few Asians, North Africans, and Middle Eastern Christians. If God is the one who decides who believes, not man’s faith in response to God’s corporate election, why isn’t there a more equitable distribution of the elect worldwide? See the glaring problem? Either God is not distributing His elections randomly (randomness would yield a more even distribution of Christians worldwide) or He is using some sort of election criteria which I asked about in question #1. Has God forgotten about that part of the world? By this map, God sure does like white people and Hispanics. Doesn’t seem very fair to me – possibly even racist.

Two problems with your question:

1) You are applying statistics from one particular point in time and forget that different parts of the world have been predominantly Christian at different time periods. Europe used to be the centre of what we refer to as “Christendom,” but we would know today that thanks to the rapid secularization and islamization (sp?) of Europe, this is no longer the case. Conversely, parts of the world such as Africa, South Asia, China, South Korea and South America that used to be darkened have seen an explosion of evangelism in recent decades. I suspect that in a few decades’ time, these regions shall replace Europe and North America as the centres of Christianity.

This being said, I suspect that by the time we get to heaven, we will end up seeing a pretty fair distribution of people of different ethnic backgrounds. They may not all have lived in the same time period, but He will certainly not fail to ensure that He will be able to ransom “people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9, ESV).

2) I would argue that this question is a double-edged sword, as it can easily be used as an argument against Arminianism as well. After all, if God is in the business of trying to bring every single individual into salvation, and that He needs us to make free-will decisions for Him before we are able to do so, then why hasn’t He made it so that everybody everywhere around the world has an equal opportunity to “make a decision for Jesus” and be saved? Is God not powerful enough to create opportunities for them?

I hope you can appreciate the problem that this question poses for your own view, since it basically implies that God is trying to save people but is not powerful enough to work around these geographical barriers that you are pointing towards. Of course, in the Reformed view, God is totally free, and is therefore not obligated to act as an equal-opportunity employer (otherwise, what would be the complaint of Pharaoh, Judas and the Assyrian King, among other people?).

Wouldn’t it make more sense that He doesn’t elect salvation but that cultural, religious, and political barriers to the Gospel in these geographies are making people unable to respond to His corporate election?

The problem with this view is that it means God is impotent and cannot work past such worldly restraints. Besides, it is never a good idea to interpret scripture according to how things look in the external world (which would lead once again down that slippery slope to liberalism). Rather, we need to resolve this question using scripture as our final authority, and then applying our understanding of scripture to how we interpret the world around us. Once again—and I have stressed this several times already—the biblical question is, “who makes you differ from another” (1 Corinthians 4:7, NKJV)? If it is because of human will or temporal restraints, then we have basically said that God has His hands tied behind His back and that He is not totally free (contra what John 6:37, Romans 9:15-18 and other similar passages state).

Ultimately, that is the question that we both have to answer: Who makes the difference? Is salvation dependent upon man’s ability to respond to God and cooperate with His grace, or is He powerful enough to overcome all worldly obstacles (including, and especially, man’s natural tendency to rebel against his Maker) and free enough to accomplish His work of salvation according to His own purposes and for His own glory. Think about it.

Grace and peace.

Fisher.

I will put one or two more posts in this series, but because of all the things that I have to get done on top of this, it will take a while. Thanks for bearing with me, though.

Oh, and check out this recent sermon by John MacArthur to see if you get anything out of it.

(Continue to Part 6)

Clarifying Reformed Theology (Part 4)

(Continued from Part 3)

We are now getting into the topic of Evangelism. This is going to be one place where some of the really major misconceptions tend to arise, and I shall Lord willing try to correct any misconceptions you may have. Please gently bear with me as I try to clarify some things in response to your criticisms:

I think its funny that Calvinists are part of the “evangelical” sect of the Christian faith. If God chooses who gets saved without any input from humans, why fight against His will by evangelizing?

I think you should not forget that it was Calvinists (along with Lutherans) who were the original “Evangelicals” back in the days of the Reformation. :-)

When God draws people into saving faith, He uses means. I think it’s fairly obvious that God doesn’t just “zap” faith into someone’s heart so they suddenly start believing. God certainly has the power to do that, but He has chosen not to work that way. Rather, He has chosen to make use of the preaching of the word as His instrument in bringing people into saving faith. To say that we who preach “convert” anybody is a major misnomer: God is the one in the business of converting hearts, and He uses human preachers as His instruments. I mean sure, there are those rare instances where God bypasses that and reaches out to somebody via dreams or theophanies (which is what has happened to a lot of ex-Muslims who’ve converted to Christianity after seeing Jesus in their dreams), but those are extraordinary means, and God usually utilizes preaching as His method of drawing His children in.

A good example of this is Acts 10:44, where the Word is preached first and the Holy Spirit falls upon those who would believe. Another example is Acts 13:48, where Paul preaches to the Gentiles in Pisidia, and, as it says there, “as many as had been appointed [τεταγμενοι] to eternal life believed.” The order is important, as they believe because they were ordained, not vice versa, and any reputable scholar of biblical Greek can attest to this.

Now, I know some of the more extreme hyper-calvinists have this view that you’re not supposed to evangelize (somehow, the elect are supposed to just show up at your church door one morning), but the mainstream Reformed belief is not that. This is the reason why historically, Calvinists have been the most avid evangelists and foreign missionaries way back in earlier centuries. Don’t believe me? Well, who were the most studious among the reformers to spread the Word of God throughout Europe? Were they not the ones who came out of Geneva? Who founded the first Baptist Missionary Society? Were they not Reformed Baptists such as William Carey? Who were the most instrumental preachers of the Great Awakening? Were they not Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, who were both staunch Calvinists? Who was the prince of preachers? Was it not Charles Spurgeon, who was also staunchly Calvinistic? And how about all the Presbyterian missions that have made inroads in South Korea and other parts of East Asia in the name of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? I am pointing all of these things out to show that it is historically naive to suppose that Calvinism has had any detrimental effect on evangelism.

Do they lead unbelievers in a prayer and hope that God makes it “take” if He has already pre-determined that they should be saved?

First of all, I take strong exception to the idea that you evangelize somebody by getting them to “pray a prayer.” This "sinner's prayer" methodology has produced more false converts than any other method of evangelism.

Second, I already told you that God uses means to bring people into saving faith. Now how do you know if they are Elect or not? Easy: They come into genuine saving faith, and they will endure to the end. After all, “the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Matthew 10:22, ESV).

Also, do you ever pray for the salvation of your lost loved ones? If so, I submit to you that doing so does not make sense from an Arminian perspective. The main reason for this is that to pray for God to save someone is to assume that God has the power to do something about that unbelief—something that contradicts the Arminian freewill position. Charles Spurgeon put it best in one of his sermons:

But I tell you what will be the best proof of that; it is the great fact that you never did meet a Christian in your life who ever said he came to Christ without Christ coming to him. You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer - for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying,

"Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not-that is the difference between me and them."

That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah! when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it. If a man talks very slowly, he may speak in a fine manner; but when he comes to talk fast, the old brogue of his country, where he was born, slips out. I ask you again, did you ever meet a Christian man who said, "I came to Christ without the power of the Spirit?" If you ever did meet such a man, you need have no hesitation in saying, "My dear sir, I quite believe it-and I believe you went away again without the power of the Spirit, and that you know nothing about the matter, and are in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." Do I hear one Christian man saying, "I sought Jesus before he sought me; I went to the Spirit, and the Spirit did not come to me"?

(Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. Free Will—A Slave.)

Read the rest of the sermon as well. You might learn a bit from it. :-)

Of course, those of us who believe in free will see that the saving work of God must be performed by Jesus, preached by Christians, and accepted by sinners. Everyone has their role.

"And what hast thou that thou didst not receive" (1 Corinthians 4:7, KJV)?

In the Calvinist system, in order to give God glory, no one but God can do anything in the salvation process. So Jesus provided the redemptive work, He calls those whom He wants, and He forces sinners to repent.

He doesn’t "force" them. He changes their hearts and makes them willing (cf. Ezekiel 36:26-27).

Think of a woman who was so fantastically fat and ugly that you get repulsed every time you see her. Imagine then, that she had plastic surgery, lost all her extra weight and put on the finest perfume and make-up. Now she's the prettiest woman in the world. When you see her, you can't help but be attracted to her. This isn't the best analogy, but it helps illustrate what it's like for God to change a person's natural disposition.

So why is there so much in the Bible about sharing the Good News with the lost?

Because that is His ordained means of drawing sinners to the Saviour.

Also, God has not revealed to us who is elect and who is not. We don’t have special glasses that indicate to us who is elect and who is not, and we just preach to those who are elect. I don’t know why, but for some reason, a lot of Arminians I’ve met have this idea that Calvinism teaches that we must only preach to those who are elect, as if we had knowledge of God’s secret plans. Look at the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:1-8, Mark 4:1-8, Luke 8:5-8). I am sure you would not disagree with me that there are different types of soil in the world. Now, if you pay close attention to the parable, you will notice that the sower does not just look for the good soil and scatter the seed there. Rather, he scatters the seed indiscriminately to see where they bear fruit.

The application for us is that we do not know who is the good soil and who is not. So we spread the Word everywhere and see where God makes the seed bear fruit. After all, though we may plant and water the seeds, it is up to God to make the seeds grow (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:6-7).

Romans 10:14-17 (which oddly enough comes right after Romans 9) very clearly says that the Gospel must be heard and mixed with the faith of the individual to take effect.

The fact that Romans 10:14-17 comes right after Romans 9 makes perfect sense when you take into account what I just said: God chooses, and He uses the preaching of the Word as the means to bring about what He has ordained.

Of course the Calvinist says that our faith comes from God. Yes it does. He is the giver of our faith but He doesn’t exercise it for us. Think about it – if God exercises our faith for us, why did Jesus reprimand the disciples and say, “Oh, you of little faith” 4 times in the book of Matthew? He should’ve been scolding Himself! We must exercise our God-given faith ourselves.

I don’t disagree with a single portion of this, and I challenge you to show me any Calvinist who thinks God exercises faith for us. You won’t find one, and even if you somehow found one who did, I would be the first one to say that he is wrong.

So here is my question – if the Calvinist construct is true and God carries out every detail of the salvation process...

Look at the golden chain of redemption in Romans 8:28-30. God foreknows, God predestines, God calls, God justifies, God glorifies. At which point does man add anything of himself? Everything in there is something that God does. Simply put, you cannot break that golden chain.

...why are we commanded to spread the good news of redemption through Jesus? I actually saw where someone answered that question by saying that we should share the gospel out of sheer obedience because God tells us to, not because it does anything. How ridiculous!

I would agree that it would be ridiculous if that was the only reason why one should evangelize. Now, obedience is one good reason why we should do it, but it is just one of many different reasons. I gave you the rest of them earlier.

Calvinism...

...or rather, the strawman version of Calvinism that you derived from a single person who happened to have an inadequate answer and does not represent what the vast majority of Reformed Christians believe...

...turns evangelism from a love-based action of mercy where we get the pleasure of partnering in God’s will, into a meaningless “test” by an unreasonable god. Revelation 3:20 is so simple. He is knocking. You must hear His voice and open.

Now, talk about taking scripture out of context. Revelation 3:20 is talking about the church in Laodicea, and how believers there were becoming lukewarm in their faith. Contrary to what many Arminians think, Revelation 3:20 is addressed to those who already believe, not those who are still outside of the fold.

Besides, lack of a doorknob didn’t stop Jesus from calling Lazarus out of his tomb (cf. John 11:38-44).

Anyway, there is a lot more that I need to say, but due to lack of time, I will leave you with this. I will continue writing the rest of my response at a later time. I’ll try to continue tomorrow. If I’m not able to, though, I’ll try for Sunday.

Grace and Peace.

Fisher

PS: Since we're talking about evangelism here, I'm still doing some Gospel work involving Muslims. Perhaps you can include my work in witnessing to them in your prayers. Calvinist or Arminian, I think we can agree that this is something of utmost importance and supercedes our secondary differences.

(Continue to Part 5)

Clarifying Reformed Theology (Part 3)

(Continued from Part 2)

All right Jamie, I’ve answered your objections to part one of my series on part two, now I will be using part three to answer part two of your blog post. Feel free to place any objections you have against my counter-arguments on the comments page.

(By the way, make sure you've read part two first, as some of the points I make here presuppose that you've already read it.)

Lets not pretend the doctrine of election is an easy, obvious and intuitive thing.

No divine truth is. That's why we need special revelation and the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

I’d like to hypothesize that no new Christian in the history of Christianity has ever read their Bible and come away with the notion that God picks and chooses the individuals who get saved.

You can hypothesize, but that's different from actually proving something to be true. Now, there are several points I need to make on this one point alone:

1) Many scriptural truths are not intuitive. Having one God exist as three coequal and coeternal persons isn’t something that a single person just pulled out of the bible (it was the result of generations of Christians studying God’s Word to determine its true meaning), and yet you don’t reject the Trinity on those grounds, do you?

2) There actually are people who come away with a monergistic view of salvation, even if they don’t identify themselves as Calvinists. Augustine certainly went away with that impression. Ignatius of Antioch also implied it in his language. Luther came before Calvin yet came to the same conclusion regarding the bondage of the will. I also know other people who never heard of “Calvinism” before yet did not see anything wrong or unbiblical with my statements when I presented it to them. One of my relatives who is also Reformed believed in the doctrines of grace before he even knew what they were.

3) And even back when I was an Arminian, I didn’t quite know what to do with John 6 or Ephesians 1. Now that I’m Reformed, I have a better grasp of the thread that runs through all the texts of the bible. I don’t feel the need to explain them away, but I take them at face value.

That doctrine must be taught.

Same thing with Arminianism. Don't use double standards.

If there are any Calvinists reading this – think back to when you first got saved. Did you believe in Calvinism or was it taught to you after the fact? I’d be willing to bet that you either heard it or read it from someone else – you didn’t discover it on your own through scripture alone.

Yes and no. I was convinced of the Calvinistic position after the fact, but I do in fact base my position off of scripture alone. I didn’t become Reformed by reading Calvin, Edwards or Spurgeon. I certainly had some Reformed friends encourage me and point me in the right direction, but they didn’t “convert” me into their position. I became Reformed by reading through the bible and discovering many of the relevant texts on my own. In fact, I seldom quote Calvin. I will do so in this blog series, but only three or four times, and only when necessary to prove a point.

The TULIP acronym is not in the Bible – its a man-made system of interpreting the Bible.

1) So is the word “Trinity.” Are you going to deny Trinitarianism now?

2) The five points of Arminianism are not in the bible either – it is a man-made system of interpreting the bible. In fact, Arminianism devised its five points first; TULIP was formulated as a response.

3) In all seriousness though, I think the question is whether we can derive these doctrines from proper scriptural exegesis.

Listen folks, the gospel is not rocket science and it doesn’t require a system to explain it.

There are definitely aspects of the gospel that are simple to explain. I don’t need an M.Div to know that my Lord and Saviour died for my sins and that I will be saved if I repent of my sins and put my trust in Him alone for salvation. However, not everything is equally simple. There are difficult things that we need to study and work out. To paraphrase Dr. White, “If everything was meant to be simple, the New Testament would have been the size of a Chick Tract.”

Also, why does this argument apply to Calvinism alone? We can use this exact same argument against Arminianism, with its doctrines of conditional election, general atonement, prevenient grace, etc. It’s tit for tat if you want to play this card against us.

The most basic verses we teach our children in Sunday school about salvation fly in the face of Calvinism.

Oh boy, here we go again...

John 3:16,17 – “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” Now, if verse 16 read “For God so loved [the elect] that He gave…that [those Whom He decided] should believe in Him should not perish…” I would adhere to divine election. If verse 17 said “…but that [the elect] through Him [must] be saved” then I’d adopt it as my theological view. But it doesn’t. So I don’t. It’s much easier than we make it.

Listen, God loves the whole world. Nobody denies that. He demonstrates this everyday by the fact that undeserving sinners get to live on His green earth and partake of the benefits of His created order (cf. Matthew 5:43-47). Neither do we deny that whoever believes in Him will not perish. However, “whoever” (πας ο πιστευων) does not mean “all can will.” That is eisegesis. The phrase literally means “everyone believing.” Obviously not everybody believes, so why on earth are you using John 3:16 as a prooftext when it militates against the very point you’re trying to make?

In fact, let us look at another text where "πας ο πιστευων" also appears:

Everyone who believes [πας ο πιστευων, translated as “whoever believes” in the NASB and NKJV] that Jesus is the Christ has been born [γεγεννηται] of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.

(1 John 5:1, ESV)

I’m going to parse the verbs here: “Believes” (πιστευων) is a present participle, meaning that it is an action that takes place in the present. “Has been born” (γεγεννηται) is a perfect tense verb. Now, the significance of this verb tense is that it indicates an completed action in the past whose effects are seen in the present. Thus, we see here that in order for us to believe, God has to first make us born again (See here and here for a more in-depth treatment of this passage).

It is interesting to see how John uses this kind of language. When he uses πας ο πιστευων, he has in mind believers. That is not some amorphous group whose shape depends on who joins it, but one that God produces through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit (remember the point I made in part two regarding Ezekiel 36-37).

I promise I’m not intentionally trying to stir anyone up here.

I think if you actually presented the other side fairly rather than set up the strawman and kick it down, we would make some progress in actually understanding each other.

But I firmly believe that if you follow the doctrine of election to is [sic] logical conclusion, you have a mean, hateful god who creates humans for the sole purpose of killing them.

To this I respond,

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory

(Romans 9:19-23)

When your argument is addressed and refuted by the apostle himself, that should be a sign that you probably need to rethink your position.

See, I don’t have a problem with the idea that God chooses us. It is a beautiful, scriptural picture of His mercy and grace towards us. I just think He corporately chose everyone through the cross, not just some.

Prove that from scripture.

The problem is, if God does in fact choose some individuals for salvation, then He - as a logical consequence of that action – is thereby also condemning everyone He doesn’t choose.

He passes over them. He gives them over to their natural, sinful will (cf. Romans 1:18ff), which was already their default state to begin with (cf. Psalm 51:5,58:3, Jeremiah 17:9).

You can’t select some of a whole without deselecting the rest of that whole. So if you believe God is choosing who gets saved then you must also believe God is choosing who does not get saved. And since God created us of His on volition (did any of you ask to be born?), then it follows that He purposefully created some (maybe even most) for the express purpose of taking pleasure in killing them. Sorry, but that’s repulsive. If a human does that we call them a psychopath and put them in prison – yet we esteem it as a characteristic of God? How dare we malign the character of God this way!

No, He doesn’t take “pleasure,” but scripture does teach creates everything for a purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil (cf. Proverbs 16:4). He also says that it is all to His glory (cf. Romans 9:23). Do you believe that even those who will never be saved have a part in God’s plan?

If you don’t like that, fine. But rip all those verses out of your passage if you want to keep your watered-down version of God.

To illustrate this point I want to use an analogy: A man owns an apartment building filled with tenants. The owner decides due to the failing structure of the building, he must demolish it. He knows that all of the people inside the building will die when it’s demolished so he sends his son to place a notice on each person’s door and tells them that in the very near future their apartment building will be destroyed. They must move out quickly because they won’t know when it will happen. Once destruction begins, they will die if they haven’t moved. About half of them heed the notice and move out immediately. The owner knew they wouldn’t all move out because some of them had already determined within their heart that the owner wasn’t real. Others didn’t believe that it was the owner’s son who was putting up the notices. Still others would intend to move out but put it off because they were distracted with their own lives and hoped to beat the clock. The time comes for demolition and the apartment building is blown up and the tenants who had not moved out are killed. The tenets who moved out and the owner are all very sad because it was a tragic and pointless loss – the tenets had been warned but didn’t listen. The tenets who heeded the voice of the owner are so grateful and thank him for letting them know about the demolition. He didn’t have to tell them – it’s his building and he could’ve done what he wanted with it. But he is a merciful and loving owner and warned them all because didn’t want any of them to perish.

That was the Arminian/free will view of salvation. Obviously the owner is God, the son is Jesus, the tenets are the human race and apartment building is the world.

Believe it or not, Jamie, that’s also the Calvinist view of salvation. God has warned everybody of the impending doom that is coming over them for their sins and commands everybody to repent and believe the gospel. Nobody wants to do that, however, but I’ll get to that later on...

Here is the Calvinist view of salvation by election using the same analogy:

Or not.

A man owns an apartment building full with tenants. The owner decides due to the failing structure of the building, he must demolish it. He knows that all of the people inside the building will die when it’s demolished and although he could warn them all and give them a chance to leave, he knows many of them wouldn’t heed his warning anyway. Instead, he sends his son to randomly choose some tenants and force them to move out against their will.

God doesn’t force anyone to be saved against their will. Rather, God changes a person’s disposition so that they become willing to believe, when they were previously unwilling to do so. That’s the point of regeneration: God takes out that stony heart which hated Him and wanted nothing to do with Him and puts in a heart that genuinely desires to love and serve God. I think I made that abundantly clear in my previous points.

There is no rhyme or reason to who he chooses to tell about the demolition. Don’t question this process. The owner can do whatever he wants.

That sounds a lot more like the God of Islam than the God of Reformed Protestants. But seriously...

I guess you ignored the fact that all this time, I’ve been emphasizing God’s purposes. God has a purpose for everything that He ordains. It’s a purpose-driven universe, buddy. Now, God does not necessarily reveal what His purposes are, but that does not mean He does not have them.

Next, the owner’s son not only ignores the unlucky tenants who weren’t randomly selected to be moved out, but he locks them in their apartment buildings and boards the doors so they can’t escape death even if they wanted to. This ensures their demise.

Many of the reprobate don’t even know they’re going to hell for their sin and unbelief! And of those who do, they end up trying to appease God through works and man-made religious systems rather than trusting in Christ alone. Besides, this is the biggest myth perpetrated by Arminians. I have to repeat what Calvin wrote here:

Therefore, forasmuch as no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief. I speak of all unto whom God doth make himself manifest by the gospel. But like as those which call upon the name of the Lord are sure of salvation, so we must think that, without the same, we are thrice miserable and undone. And when as our salvation is placed in calling upon God, there is nothing in the mean season taken from faith, forasmuch as this invocation is grounded on faith alone.

(Calvin, John. Commentary on Acts 2:14-21)

God prevents nobody from coming to Him. He sets the door wide open for everybody who is willing to come to Christ. The only thing that prevents people from believing is their own sinful nature. Left to our own devices, we will choose to reject God. Every time. More than that, the very strawman that you accuse Calvinists of believing in was condemned by Calvin as a construct invented by unbelieving heathens:

...this fault they [the heathens] add... that when they do think of God it is against their will; never approaching him without being dragged into his presence, and when there, instead of the voluntary fear flowing from reverence of the divine majesty, feeling only that forced and servile fear which divine Judgment extorts Judgment which, from the impossibility of escape, they are compelled to dread, but which, while they dread, they at the same time also hate.

(Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. I:4:4.)

Now, how on earth could anybody accuse Calvinism of teaching the very thing which Calvin said was the “fault” of unbelievers?

The time comes for demolition and the apartment building is blown up and the tenants that the owner had locked inside are all killed. No one is sad at the loss of life. On the contrary, it is to be commended as the owner has demonstrated his absolute power. The tenants who were chosen to live thank the owner for sparing them. He didn’t have to force them out – it’s his building and he could’ve done what he wanted. But he is a powerful owner and demonstrates this by choosing who lives and who dies.

Yeah its not a perfect analogy.

“Not perfect” is an understatement. You, sir, have just outright slandered the Reformed position. I think you should repent. That is what happens when you jump into the fray without first knowing what your opponent believes.

But I ask you, which building owner more closely mirrors the heart of God as revealed in the Bible? Which son in the analogy better describes the cross of Christ and Jesus’ provision and way of escape for you? To me, its obvious.

Yeah it’s the first one, which Arminians and Calvinists will both agree on. Congratulations on destroying your straw-man. Now, maybe you’ll starting tackling what Calvinists really believe.

Grace and Peace.

Fisher.

(Continue to Part 4)

Clarifying Reformed Theology (Part 2)

(Continued from Part 1)

(This is a continuation of my response to Jamie on the question of divine predestination. Rather than answering part 2 of his series, I will use this article to answer his response to my response to part 1 of his series. From here on out, I will be addressing this article directly to Jamie.)

Your first response to my problems with God’s supposed causation of the heinous acts throughout history is to reference Isaiah 46:10.

Let’s get this straight: I didn’t say causation. Ordination and causation are not the same thing. Remember secondary causes: If I let go of a stone, I did in effect “ordain” that stone’s falling to the ground, but it is gravity that causes the stone to fall to the ground. (Also see this article to know what the differences are. I am a category 2 on the chart provided.) Now, God does directly cause certain things to be, and scripture will inform us of when He intervenes directly and when He sees fit to make use of secondary causes.

You mean this verse to say “God has predetermined all events – past, present and future.” However this verse doesn’t say that – it’s an excerpt from a jealous rampage by a spurned Lover. Let’s look at the context of this passage: Starting in verse 1, God is distinguishing between Himself (the Living God) and the dead idols of Babylon. The rest of the chapter is spent defending His superiority to these idols that His people are cheating on Him with. He makes the points that these idols can’t protect them (v2), didn’t create their nation (v3), they’re not faithful like Him (v4) and they can’t even move or talk (v7). In verse 9, He tells them to remember all the good works He’s done for them in the past and in verse 10 He makes the point that these idols can’t make a promise about the future and faithfully bring that promise to pass like He does. This whole passage is a plea to leave the pagan idols and trust their God - the true, living God.

Yes, that is all true. However, in doing so, Yahweh distinguishes Himself from the idols by also pointing to His ability to plan out His ability to make things come to pass... something that carved idols are incapable of doing. Thus His saying, “I will accomplish all my purpose,” or as it says in more traditional translations, “I will do all my pleasure.” In other words, God’s sovereignty over the course of history is a part of the argument against the idols. This is actually repeated in one of the Psalms where the one true God is contrasted with the heathen idols:

Why should the nations say,

"Where, now, is their God?"

But our God is in the heavens;

He does whatever He pleases.

Their idols are silver and gold,

The work of man's hands.

(Psalm 115:2-4)

What I would contend then is that God's declaration of His sovereignty over all things is part and parcel of His condemnation of the idols. Now, moving on...

Sorry, but verse 10 does not say that God has ordained all that has happened or will happen in the history of humanity. It’s not the intent of the passage to say that. According to the context, it is simply reminding the Israelites that there is no other God like Him. He does say in verse 10 that He will bring out His past, present and future “purpose (counsel) and intention.” However, this verse doesn’t address the scope of God’s foreknowledge – to what extent He has ordered history. In context, it’s a reminder to His cheating people that He can affect the future and these idols can’t. Verse 9 says “everything I plan will come to pass” in the NLT. Certainly God can and does order the future at least to some extent.

The problem with your argument though is that it suggests a certain kind of false dichotomy. Think that either God is talking about how there is no other God, or that He is sovereign over history. The truth is that it is not either/or, but both/and. He alone is God, AND He demonstrates this by proclaiming that all things are His, to bring about the accomplishment of His purposes and the glory of His name.

Also, why just “to some extent,” Jamie? Why can’t we say that all (not just some) of history has been ordered by God for His own ends and glory? Remember that “all things have been created through Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16). To quote a favourite Arminian catchphrase here, “All means all.” That includes both the good and the bad things. They were created in order that Christ’s glory may be displayed (I will expand on this theme as I go further).

But you just can’t use these verses out of context to somehow prove He has pre-ordered all events. Besides, if God causes all things wouldn’t this passage mean that He’s causing His children to cheat on Him with pagan idols? Why would He cause them to spiritually cheat and then get mad at their adulterous hearts?

I’m well aware of the context, and my exegesis of the passages in question fits in perfectly well with them. How so, you ask? Well, if you look at the whole book of Isaiah... indeed... all of the Nevi’im and the whole of the Tanakh in general, you will find that one of the over-arching themes is how God works in all of history in order to create for Himself a covenant people whom He forms into His bride. This grand meta-narrative is also continued in the New Testament where Jesus died on the cross to purchase for Himself a Church who becomes His bride.

Next you ask, “Do you not trust God when He says that He will right all wrongs cause all things to work for the good of His children in the end.” Of course I do. But I don’t need God to be the author of the bad events to believe that He can redeem those bad events. He is stronger than that. God is our redeemer and savior, not the one we need redeeming and saving from. He doesn’t cause problems so He can fix them. Unethical car shops do that. We and our enemy are the ones that cause our captivity and the ensuing bad events – God is our rescue!

We don’t say that God is the author of evil, as much as those who want to misrepresent us want to claim. Rather, God has permitted evil to come into being through secondary causes and He manipulates (NOTE: Do not think of the negative connotations that our society places upon the word “manipulate”) these events to bring about the end that He has purposed. And He has promised that the end will be good and outweigh all the bad things that had to come along the way (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:17-18) I’m sure that we can all agree on that point, whether we are Arminian, Calvinist, Molinist or whatever else we claim ourselves to be. I can encapsulate it all in a quote from this early church writing:

Accept whatever happens to you as good, in the realization that nothing occurs apart from God.

(The Didache, 3:10)

Now, moving on...

The crucifixion of Christ is a poor example of God’s treatment of His people. I see the point you’re making - that God employed what we would consider to be bad in order to bring about good. But Jesus’ death, while clearly administered by the Father (Isaiah 53:10), was specific in purpose for the redemption of makind and does not set the precedent for how God treats those of us who aren’t currently dying for the sins of the world.

In case you didn’t notice, I didn’t use the Crucifixion alone. I used Joseph’s being sold into slavery by his brothers (obviously a sin). There are countless other examples as well, such as God using David’s marriage to Bathsheba (which originated in adultery, also a sin) to perpetuate the royal lineage. Also, since Christ was the perfect man, I don’t see how His crucifixion can be a poor example at all.

And regarding those who are born with Down syndrome or other disabilities – you said “I would again like to ask the reader if God simply allowed evil to come into existence without so much as a reason or a purpose for it all.” There is a purpose for these things but I don’t believe the reason is for the individual’s sake but to point to a general truth. For instance, saying “Marsha, God gave you a child with a cleft palate so you’d draw nearer to Him” seems to be pretty self-serving theology and honestly, pretty cruel.

According to the bible, though, that is exactly what God has done. That is what He did with Joseph and Genesis, and that is also what He did with the blind man in the gospel of John:

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes. "Go," he told him, "wash in the Pool of Siloam" (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

(John 9:1-7, NIV)

Who are we or anybody else to say what God can or cannot do? Clearly, the potter can shape the vessels “as it seemed good to the potter to do” (Jeremiah 18:4).

I mean, why Marsha instead of anyone else? I believe God allows evil because it’s a consequence of a) Adam’s free will choice to live independent from God, thus creating a fallen world b) it is the logical effect of free will decisions we make independent of God’s will and c) it’s the work of the enemy (1 John 5:19).

I’m not denying that Adam had genuine free will to choose between good and evil: Sin had not corrupted human nature yet at that time! I don’t disagree with the rest of this either, except that I would contend that post-lapsarian man is no longer quite free, but is slave to sin, for “everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34).

So Marsha’s child with a cleft palate wasn’t a personal thing aimed at Marsha or the child by God, but part of an overall general allowance of sin, sickness, and death due to the reasons mentions above. In the end, God allows these things as proof to humanity that our fallen world needs a savior. I don’t believe He causes them for specific purposes, but He is a redeemer and can certainly “work them for good.”

If you go back to John 9, you can quite clearly see there that bad things do happen specifically so that God could make His goodness and glory shine forth through those things. And again, if we take into account secondary causes (which is why I agree with you that Adam’s sin, our own sins and the influence of Satan are the causes of these things), we can absolve God of the charge of authoring sin. :-)

Where you and I disagree is really on causation of events. I certainly believe God allows and even uses heartache and pain. I just don’t believe He authors it.

Neither do I. As we have established by now, that is a strawman argument.

When confronted with the illogical nature of a God that is both the cause of and solution to all of life’s problems...

We already dealt with this charged. Also, You still haven’t quite proven that God’s sovereignty over history is in any way illogical (unless you’re prepared to say that the passages I’ve quoted are illogical, but then again, there’s always 1 Corinthians 1:18).

...most Calvinists usually head to Isaiah 55 and quote “My ways are higher than your ways” with which they mean to say “I know this doesn’t make sense but you’ll have to make peace with it because God says it.”

This is a rather bad way of caricaturing your opponent’s position. Nevertheless, I will clarify this one a little further down the line...

The ironic thing is that this chapter taken in context is an excellent case for free will.

Let’s see about that, shall we?

V 1 -" is anyone thirsty? come and drink" (come to the Father of your own will)

You’re eisegeting at this point. God is saying that all who will to do so may come. Even Calvin himself affirmed this when he wrote,

Therefore, forasmuch as no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief. I speak of all unto whom God doth make himself manifest by the gospel. But like as those which call upon the name of the Lord are sure of salvation, so we must think that, without the same, we are thrice miserable and undone. And when as our salvation is placed in calling upon God, there is nothing in the mean season taken from faith, forasmuch as this invocation is grounded on faith alone.
(Calvin, John. Commentary on Acts 2:14-21)

However, not all will to do so because of sin nature. Hint: Read John 1:12-13.

V 3 - "listen and you will find life" (we have a role to play – listen)

God is giving a command, but that doesn’t automatically entail that all will or even can respond to His command (more on this one later).

V 6 - "seek the Lord" (an instruction denoting its our choice, not pre-ordained, whether to seek or not)

Once again, God is giving a command, but it is eisegesis to say that we are somehow inherently capable of following that command, or that God is not the one who makes us to seek Him in the first place via His effectual grace (cf. John 6).

V 7 - "let the wicked change their ways...let him turn to the Lord that he may have mercy..." (Looks like the wicked can change and God's mercy and forgiveness has to be turned towards.)

Who is the one who changes the hearts of wicked men and turns them back towards God? I’ll give you a hint: I strongly urge you to read Ezekiel 36:22-37:14. Pay especially close attention to the vision of the valley of dry bones, and how God applies that to the salvation of Israel. Then ask yourself: Does this sound like a passage which teaches that man determines his own salvation?

Verse 8 is not God's way of saying "don’t try to figure me out - I'll do whatever I want." It is actually marveling at the beauty of Gods mercy and compassion. Our ways are to punish the unrighteous...

Which is God’s way as well (cf. Romans 6:23). Fortunately, He has by His own free, sovereign grace chosen to declare those who put their trust in Him to be righteous.

Also, if you want to talk context, how about applying the general context of the entire Tanakh to this passage? God certainly talks about how He acts in mysterious ways throughout scripture. It’s all over the place. For example, in Deuteronomy, we read:

The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

(Deuteronomy 29:29)

So there are definitely those things which God has chosen to keep hidden from the minds of men (such as why He orders many events in history the way He does). What He does reveal, however, is His perceptive will in the written word. And He has done so in order that we may use scripture as the basis by which we live out our lives.

...But His ways are better - if we are willing to turn from our evil and follow Him, He will save us even though He has every right not to. What a beautiful scripture! Praise God for His mercy! And thank God we don't have to worry about whether our salvation has been predestined or if some magical election provided for our salvation. If we draw near to Him, He will draw near to us!...

This last bit doesn’t actually add to the argument, but at least it’s nice that you have a heart of praise and worship. :-)

You may well ask at this point, “But how can God ask people to do something they are incapable of doing by their own willpower?” Don’t ask me brother, but God did certainly do exactly that in both the Old and New Testaments. An excellent example is the passage from Ezekiel that I urged you to read earlier on.

Another good example is the resurrection of Lazarus:

Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. "Take away the stone," he said.

"But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days."

Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"

So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me."

When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.

Jesus said to them, "Take off the grave clothes and let him go."

(John 11:38-44, NIV)

As we see here, Jesus commands Lazarus to live. Obviously, dead men are incapable of bringing themselves to life (unless you want to argue that Lazarus came to life of his own free will!), so we must conclude that it is the Spirit of God that made Lazarus come back to life physically.

This, combined with the Ezekiel passage and Ephesians 2:1-10, all help to give an illustration of what God does when we get saved: He takes dead men who are naturally incapable of drawing close to God, and He breathes life into them so that they may come to Christ (cf. John 6 again).

Next, you say “God is a personal God and relates intimately to each one of His children. He doesn’t just see us as a group but as individuals.” I couldn’t agree more! Yet he did choose a group (Israel) as His special people to begin with. So now, in light of the cross of Christ and to add to those whom He is saving, He logically must “elect” the other group - the non-Jews - to be chosen as well. See, these passages are written to non-Jews. They were never meant to be applied as the mechanism by which God saves individuals.

I guess you missed the part where I pointed out how God uses individuals as examples of how His electing grace operates. Please re-read everything I wrote, and do listen to the audio I linked to. Thank you. :-)

God chose each one of us through the cross of Christ – in one fell swoop – when He sent Jesus to pay for our sin. Then you say “How on earth does God elect people corporately without also individually taking each person and saying, ‘You are Mine’ to them?“ I’ll resist the urge to quote Isaiah 55:10 here...

Not sure what that individual verse has to do with it. But if you mean the whole Isaiah 55 passage, I have a simple response: We base our view on election on what is revealed in God’s Word. I’m still not quite convinced by your case that election is purely corporate.

God chooses us as a whole but issues invitations to us individually (behold I stand at the door and knock; draw near to me and I’ll draw near to you). Romans 10:14-17 describes it this way: How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”

I don’t disagree with any of this. The question is not whether we should evangelize (only the most grossly misguided hyper-Calvinists deny that we should). Rather, the question is, this: If one person responds to the gospel and another doesn’t, is it because they were smarter? More spiritual? A better decision-maker? To put it in biblical terms,

For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

(1 Corinthians 4:7, NKJV)

Of course, Paul’s question already carries its own answer, so I don’t need to fill in any blanks. :-)

That’s as much as I can write in one go. I'm tired, so sorry if my writing is a bit sloppy this time around. It’s getting really late, and I have to get ready for some Christian-Muslim dialogue tomorrow afternoon. Thus, I leave you with this for now, and continue writing again once time permits.

Grace and Peace.

Fisher.

(Continue to Part 3)