biblicalthought.com

1. Did Jesus question the salvation of the religious leaders and teachers of his day? – YES. This can be found primarily in Matthew 23. Other passages such as Matt. 15:7-9, 16:12, Luke 18:9-14, and many more.

2. Did he call them names and heap ridicule on them? – YES.

3. Was He right or wrong to do so? – RIGHT.

4. Was He mean and unloving? – According to them – YES.

5. Should we follow his example and walk as he walked? – YES. It is commanded that we do so. Not to do so is a blatant disregard for God’s commands.

6. Did Jesus tell us to judge some people to be false prophets, dogs, and pigs? – YES. Judge false prophets: Matthew 7:15, 24:11, 24:24; Dogs and pigs: Matthew 7:6.

7. Did Paul follow the example of Jesus and cast doubt on the salvation of people in the church who claimed to be “brothers?” – YES. 1 Cor. 5:11:13.

8. Did he call them names and heap ridicule on them? – YES. And may I say that I laugh out loud when I read some of those passages!

9. Did Paul call some professing Christians “false brethren?” – YES.

10. Did he tell us to follow him as he followed Christ? – YES.

11. Did John, the Apostle of Love, tell us to question the profession of salvation made people? “He that says, “I know him” but ….” – YES.

12. Did Peter cast doubt on the conversion of professing Christians in his day? – YES.

13. What did he say to Simon in Acts 8? – Acts 8:13 “Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.” Here we see a professing, baptized believer in Simon the magician. In just a few short verses later, we read, 20-24 “But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.” Not only did Peter cast doubt, but he properly followed the gospel protocol, and after he rebuked Simon, he commanded him to repent and cast himself on the mercy of God for forgiveness. Notice that Peter did not offer Simon a false sense of assurance. He said, repent and pray to the Lord that if possible, He may forgive you for the wicked intent of your heart!

Dr. Morey:

Thanks for a timely and fantastic article. I must confess that I have been struggling with this issue lately. Recently, I was discussing the issue of evolution with somebody and I told that person that I wish more heathen were honest about their intentions regarding this issue. The guy was shocked and immediately informed me that he was a Christian and a minister. I laughed and said people can call themselves anything they like but it doesn’t make it true. I went on to say that his views on abortion, evolution, homosexuality, etc. all indicated a lack of regeneration (the meaning of which he didn’t understand). I received no end of ridicule and criticism because I would dare call somebody a heathen. They attacked me saying that I thought my “church thinks it has all the answers.”

This led me to meditate on the difference between casting doubt and “judging men’s hearts.” I’m at a loss as to where to draw the line. Sometimes I feel I have gone over the line, other times I feel that I must stand firm in opposing heresy. What I do know, is that what I believe and what they believe cannot both be true.

Travis: May the Lord be with you, bless you, and bring you home safely.

The most misquoted words in the Bible are:
“Judge not lest ye be judged.”
I have had many non-Christians as well as Christians use those words as if they were a stick to hit me over the head. They think those words mean that we are never to condemn the lifestyle, words or works of anyone. If we “judge” someone as evil or heretical, we are supposedly violating what Jesus said. We must not be judgmental or critical of others. We must accept and affirm others at all times.
Such ignorance and stupidity needs to be dealt with great zeal!
1.The people who are whipping you with these words are actually doing what they are condemning you for doing! They are judging you and being critical of your words. Thus they are hypocrites.
2.In Matt. 7:1 we find the exact words they are attempting to quote: “Do not judge lest you be judged.” They can’t even quote it right much less understand it correctly.
3.To whom is Jesus speaking? In verse 7 Jesus tells us who He has in mind: “”You hypocrite.”
4.Thus he is speaking about the very people who are attacking you! Hypocrites!
5.What is a “hypocrite” according to Scripture? Someone who publicly condemns others for what they are secretly doing in private. For example, if you are cheating on your wife and you condemning others for cheating on their wives, you are guilty of hypocritical judgment.
6.But what about judgments that are not hypocritical?
Jesus goes on in the passage to tell us to judge people as false prophets, dogs, and pigs.
7.In John 7:24 Jesus commands faithful disciples, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”
8.This verse reveals that we are to render righteous judgments according to God’s Word.
9.A righteous judgment is not according to external appearances. For example, if we accept someone as a Christian just because he says so that is judging someone according to appearance. Instead, we are to render a true judgment based upon biblical standards of truth and morality.
10.On radio and TV talk shows, when the liberal host throws the words, “Judge not lest ye be judged” at me, I take a deep breath and reply,
“If you are not supposed to be critical or judgmental, then how dare you get critical and judgmental on me. You, sir, are a hypocrite! And the Bible says that all hypocrites will go to hell. So, if you really believe it is wrong to judge others, then shut up and sit down for you are judging me.”
This shuts his mouth. You have now dealt with a fool according to his folly.

“I went on to say that his views on abortion, evolution, homosexuality, etc. all indicated a lack of regeneration (the meaning of which he didn’t understand). I received no end of ridicule and criticism because I would dare call somebody a heathen. They attacked me saying that I thought my “church thinks it has all the answers.””

This would make a little more sense to me in regards to Moreland (though I would still disagree passionately in this case). Does this accurately describe your view Dr. Bob or my previous statement? If the one described in agogley’s post, I would like to hear what else you pair Moreland’s view of natural theology with so that you can seriously charge him with apostasy. Thanks.

-Sam

P.S. Sam, did you read the other articles on the main page? There are at least two dedicated to natural theology and/or JP Moreland.

Yep, exactly what I get while refuting and rebuking those who promote false doctrine. They never seem to deal with the actual content of the argument and simply label me as rude, mean, arrogant, Pharisee, and yes, the oft quoted, “judge not lest ye be judged.”

Keep it up.

Travis, may you be safe and protected by our Lord while you are in Iraq.

“future libertainly free decisions?”

huh?

Qian,

Though I am certainly not one of the intellects here, I can easily see the importance of such questions posed by Dr. Bob.

You seem to think as though CLAIMING “salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone” is sufficient cause for one to extend the hand of fellowship. This is exactly what Dr. Bob is talking about as he stated “The main problem is that many religious leaders today say one thing and teach another.” The answer to the questions posed by Dr. Bob help us to better grasp whether or not this individual truly believes in “salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone”

I don’t know about you, but I would certainly question a persons salvation if they felt it alright to allow Catholics to teach at a “Protestant” school. This alone would shed insight to their claim of “salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.” Why would a genuine Christian allow and condone a Catholic to promote and teach a false gospel in a Christian institution?

Likewise, the rest of the questions (more importantly the answers to them) reveal much about ones TRUE stance on “salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.”

Just my 2 cents, but I’m not as smart as the rest of those who post here.

So Peter was an Armininan before Pentecost and a Calvinist afterward??????

5pointbaptist,
By the way, there are no Catholics teaching at Biola/Talbot to my knowledge. Orthodox but not RCC.

Sure.

/sorry agogley, I didn’t mean that you were talking about moreland bu just thought hat if Dr. Morey was using he same method for moreland it would make more sense to me than what I’ve been thinking. I didn’t mean to twist your words.

And yes i’ve read the other posts and I’ve been discussing them on this blog in the comments section.

-Sam

Yup, no catholics teaching at BU/Talbot, but once in a while Kreeft comes over to lecture (at least he used to two years ago). And even when I’ve heard him lecture and have seen the announcements for his lectures, it’s always been something “how philosophy affects culture” or “the ethics of the media.”

And about Orthodox people teaching at BU/Talbot, Dr. Bob, your post is an exagerration. There is only one professor at Biola (not talbot), and by Biola I mean the Torrey Academy. He started the program and Biola did not know he was Orthodox at the time. So did they “hire” an orthodox professor? Technically, No.

Once they found out though, Biola staff and the administration reluctantly kept him. There was actually a pretty big fight about this within the university, so any generalities about this are plainly exagerrations. And btw, in light of all this, I wouldn’t be surprised if Moreland is actually anti-having an orthodox in the faculty. Many professors at BU/Talbot are.

-Sam

Would we have considered David a reprobate for his murderous heart and adulteress hands??

Would we have questioned Lot’s salvation for offering his daughters to be raped??

Would we have questioned Noah’s salvation for getting drunk?

Would we have questioned Moses’s salvation for murder?

If I where to judge these men the way Morey is suggesting, then my judgement would be out of joint with God’s will.

What about Peter who confessed that he did not even know Christ, yet we all would say he was saved long before that statement.

Also to judge a “Christian” who may hold a dim view on secondary doctines, is a dangerous thing.
Unless you have a God given ability to discern hearts, then how are you to know.

Here is the problem, at what point do you divide?
Do you have authority to say this one is saved, and that one is not?

By “Including Repentance” I mean giving the opertunity to repent.
I don’t know of the men Morey is speaking of, so I can’t judge their doctrine.
What is clear though from the bible, is that bad morals don’t neccessarly mean reprobate.
Also in Peter’s case when he denied Christ, this proves even spoken unbelief does not mean he was a reprobate.
Expose bad theolgy and correct immoral behaviour, but don’t start with the whole i’m saved and your not, it only creates paranoid assumptions.

Stephen, you said:
“it is a denial of one of the omni-attributes of God that is revealed in Scripture as essential to God’s nature. It is a damnable heresy. Representing that view accurately involves denouncing it as such.”

I think you misunderstood what I was arguing for, Stephen. Reread the post. I do think open theism is a denial of classical omniscience. I am somewhat less certain than you that it is a damnable heresy, though it may well be. As to whether representing the view accurately involves denouncing it as damnable…that may be true, too, but my point was simply that he significantly mischaracterized the claims of the view itself. My point was that we must take care to represent even objectionable and false views accurately lest our responses be little more than fallacious strawman attacks.

Check out Jacob Prasch at moriel and search for the article on annihilation.
Apparently Dr Bob has been doing a lot of fasle accusing.
I have personally listened to the tape of Jacob speaking against the doctrine. yet ironically Dr Bob wants Jacob to debate him from the pro Annihilation stance.
How can you debate something you are against?
This is where all this i’m saved and your not leads to.
Let the wheat and tares grow together, and stop doing more damage than good.
Reprove and speak truth, stop trying to do God’s job for him.
Preach the word, and the Spirit will do the deciding on who is saved or not.
False teachers and immoral “Christians”, are always going to be in the Church.
They always have been and always will be.
The job of the true Church is to preach the word through it all.
God is well capable of dealing with backsliders and fasle teachers.
Feed the sheep that want to learn truth, that is our Job.

Jay,

I checked out Moriel and found your post to be nearly verbatim from that write-up.

Oddly, the write-up itself is an indictment against Mr. Prasch. I found it to be especially vicious and filled with such vitreal that I was shocked that this was supposed to be written on behalf of a Christian.

Qian, you stated, “I think they’re [Calvinists] wrong on this and that libertarian freedom is correct…”

As a Calvinist, I teach and disciple my brothers and sisters in the Lord that man is never free - at any time. I teach that based on the Bible, man is always a slave; either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness; either a slave to the devil to do his will, or a slave to Christ to do His.

How then, would what I teach be wrong? It seems that in order to accept your form of libertarianism, a necessary precondition for the Christian under sola scriptura would be to disregard what the Bible has to say about this very specific subject, and elevate something above the Scriptures as the final authority; namely, Philosophic Foundations for a Christian Worldview by Craig/Moreland pgs. 267-284 (Ch.13).

Can you defend your position from Scripture?

Stephen,

Let’s come to terms with each other. What kind of thing is “free will” such that we human beings don’t have it? I.e. How are you understanding “free”? I wholeheartedly agree that we’re slaves to sin until we’re saved and then we’re slaves to Christ. You bet. How does this adjudicate between libertarian vs. compatibilist (or even determinist) views of human freedom?

Stephen,

You didn’t answer my original question, which was How are you understanding “free”? I’d like to know precisely the kind of thing you take yourself (and Scripture) to be denying.

If you’re arguing for determinism or compatibilism as the Biblical view, the Acts 4 passage is not great evidence. How do I know this? Because there are plausible libertarian reads available of it. And by the way, it matters little whether Moreland and Craig got this from Aristotle or Scripture (and you may want to stop using this sort of reply if you don’t want to be guilty of committing the genetic fallacy). What I’m far more concerned with is whether what we’re talking about (or Moreland and Craig’s defense of their view) is true.

So, again, the question: what do you mean by “freedom” such that we don’t have it? This should be a fairly quickly answerable question since you’re teaching it to people.

In addition, since I am not failing to assess the claim on its merit, the genetic fallacy cannot be something that I am committing, at least not in this case. I am asserting that the premise of the argument is false based on the biblical evidence, not solely on the fact that the idea came from Aristotle.

“Do you take it that we have freedom in the compatibilist sense?”

Sort of. I agree that every human action is causally neccessitated by events that existed before the person was born. But this does not mean that human actions are *mere happenings* as Moreland/Craig suggest. This is because it rigs the question, excluding the possibility of what I consider, based on historical-grammatical-exegesis, the biblical position. When Rationalism is taken to its logical conclusion, it leaves no room for a very prevalent biblical truth: mystery. Some of what is written about compatibilism describes my understanding of freedom, but in no way can it fully encompass my understanding because the essential component of mystery seems to be overlooked, or rather, smothered by Rationalism.

Praise God for you Dr. Bob. Many blessings in the New Year health, happiness and much rest.

>> Addendum: I reject some forms of determinism wherever it is defined as fatalism, and wherever it excludes accountability.

*Why* do you reject fatalism?

You’re almost there.

[Aside: Determinism/fatalism are the same, in my understanding.]

“*Why* do you reject fatalism?”

It is rejected on the basis of Scripture alone, the same basis for which I reject Libertarian free-will-ism. The point that I was making to Qian is that none of the three positions that PFCW list in ch.13 are accurate descriptions of what Scripture reveals. The closest is compatibilism, but not close enough to bring aboard as doctrine.

Happy New Year!
I have finished the first five chapters in my refutation of Natural Theology and Natural Law. May God give me the grace to finish the book this year.
—————
To Qian:
Thank you for trying to deal with the issues I raised. We live in an age in which people avoid difficult issues. Most of your responses reveal you have only a very shallow understanding of the nature and history of heresy. Your definitions are very limited and seem to be what you were spoon fed by some evangelifish professor.
While I see that you have a poorly uneducated mind, it is a good mind. This is why you can’t grasp the central issues or stay on topic. I hope you come out on Wed. to my apologetics class so we can talk in person.

First, the history of apostasy is a long one, beginning in the Bible, Old and New Testaments. “They left us…” is still a sad experience today. History repeats itself when we do not pay attention to its lessons. If you have not read my chapter on “Heresy” in the Trinity book, you need to read it. It has been reviewed as worth the price of the book itself.
Second, I have studied in detail the history of apostasy and found various patterns repeated over and over again. I did the research because, God willing, I want to do a book on this subject. Your responses motivate me to get that book out.
Third, one sign of an “age of apostasy” is when what is considered “essential” doctrine for salvation is reduced smaller and smaller until very little damnable heresy is left. What was considered damnable heresy by the previous generation of evangelical is tolerated by the next as minor differences. The circle of core doctrines is shrunk down to almost nothing.
Four, Spurgeon’s experience in the “Downgrade Controversy” is a good illustration of this situation. I follow his example. If you don’t know what I am referring to, this underscores that you do not understand the history of the issues at hand.
Fifth, I wrote a detailed history of the heresy that God does not know the future either because he chooses not to or cannot in my book, Battle of the Gods. I wrote a detailed exegetical refutation of it in my book, The Nature and Extent of God’s Knowledge. If you have not read those two books, I understand why you do not know that finite godism has been viewed as damnable heresy throughout church history.
Six, to test your knowledge of the history of the issue, answer the following question: Was this issue part of the “Liberal versus Fundamentalist” debates of the 1920’s? Which side taught that God did not know the future free acts of men?
Seven, have you read the book, Battle for the Bible?
Eight, you wrote,
“It’s important to represent that view accurately. It’s not the view that God doesn’t and can’t know the future, it’s rather that God doesn’t and can’t know future libertarianly free decisions. I’m not sniping, but this is an important distinction.”
1. Your statement is so inept that it reveals you have not researched the issue.
2. There is not just one view that denies that God does not or cannot know all or some of the future. There are numerous varieties of this damnable heresy.
3. One view says that God knows some future things, but not all future things. They then disagree among themselves as to whether God chooses not to know some future things or whether some future things are intrinsically unknowable and God could not know them if he wanted to.
4. Some like the JWs argue that God chooses not to know the free acts of men because he chooses not to know them. The future is composed of all future acts from A to Z. God chooses not to know C, H, K, M, and S. Of course, the only way God could choose not to know C, H, K, M, and S is that he must first know them in order to choose not to know them. If he does not know what he does not want to know, then his knowledge becomes arbitrary and chance-based and he will end up not knowing some things he should know and knowing somethings he did not want to know. Any view that reduces the knowledge of God to the casting of dice is heretical.
5. Did God know of my free acts of sin from all eternity? If he did, then He would have devised a plan of salvation in eternity before I sinned. But if God does not or cannot know my future free acts of sin, then he would not know from eternity to make a plan of salvation. Does the Bible teach that God made a plan of salvation in eternity before Adam or me or you sinned? Would he make a plan for something he knew nothing about?
6. Did Jesus specifically know of my future sins and die for them on the cross? If an “Open View” theologian told you that Christ did not die for your sins because he did not know about them, is he a Christian according to 1 Cor. 15:3-4?
7. If I exegetically demonstrated that God knew a specific sin from all eternity and even predicted it, would this be sufficient to refute your position?
One of the men that Biola/Talbot likes is Stephen Davies. I document in Battle of the Gods, where he wrote, “God can lie.” The Bible says, “God cannot lie” while Davies says, “God can lie.”
This is as flat a contradiction of the Bible as is possible. Yet, when I questioned his salvation, not only did he get upset but his friends went postal on me. Their circle of core doctrines has shrunk down to the point that someone can openly contradict Scripture without censure as a heretic.

All of this means that there are degrees of apostasy. One sign that you are on the road to apostasy is that if you are now narrowing what is damnable heresy until you now accept as fellow Christians those who would have been judged as heretics for most of Church history.
Until you have read my discussion of these issues in my three books, I will not discuss it with you any further.
———————————
To Jay:
As to Prasch, I have documented that he is teaching the heresy of soul sleep. If you don’t know this, then order the booklet where I document this to be true.
I will now answer your list of questions:

Would we have considered David a reprobate for his murderous heart and adulteress hands?
Yes. While he was living in sin, I would not accept him as a fellow believer.

Would we have questioned Lot’s salvation for offering his daughters to be raped?
Yes. There are many other evil things he did that would warrant church discipline today. Would you accept as a fellow believer a man who has sex with his daughters? Is child abuse not an issue of sufficient merit for a church to deal with those who engage in it?

Would we have questioned Noah’s salvation for getting drunk? Yes.

Would we have questioned Moses’ salvation for murder?
Answer: He had not yet met God and was not “converted” per se. Was he unregenerate at the time he murdered that man? Yes.

If I were to judge these men the way Morey is suggesting, then my judgement would be out of joint with God’s will.
Answer: You made a statement, not a question. But the answer is that the Bible judges as apostate those who fall away doctrinally or morally. You did not give one verse to back up your view. Since you do not know the Bible, you are not in a position to dictate what God’s will is or is not.

What about Peter who confessed that he did not even know Christ, yet we all would say he was saved long before that statement.
Yes. Until he repented, I would question whether he was saved.

Also to judge a “Christian” who may hold a dim view on secondary doctrines, is a dangerous thing.
Answer: But that is the issue! What is so essential doctrine that if you deny them you are not judged to be a fellow Christian? The essential doctrines are lines drawn in the sand that when someone steps over that line, you cannot accept them as a Christian. For example, when Beckwith renounced his evangelical beliefs and converted to popery, did he step over the line? Again, is the deity of Christ a secondary issue? Some evangelicals are now saying that it is!

Unless you have a God given ability to discern hearts, then how are you to know.
Answer: No pastor, church council, or anyone else claims to judge the heart. We judge what someone teaches and how he lives. If he teaches heresy and lives a wicked life, then we can judge him as apostate.

Here is the problem, at what point do you divide?
Answer: I left ETS when they refused to enforce the membership requirement that you have to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture to be a member. I was Chairman of the Membership Committee, and when I presented a list of ten members who openly denied inerrancy, I was prevented from throwing them out. I “divided” from the ETS because it violated its original standards.

Do you have authority to say this one is saved, and that one is not?
ANSWER: Beautiful Question. Yes, Christ gave that authority in Matt. 7 to all his disciples and to his church to judge someone a false prophet.
If we don’t judge who is saved and who isn’t, then we cannot baptize anyone, allow anyone to become a member of our church, put anyone under church discipline, or throw anyone out of the church. If we do not judge someone as a Christian, then we cannot fellowship with anyone.

You and Qian have much in common. Mainly, neither one of you every puts forth any Scripture to support your claims. I have pointed to dozens of verses and yet you refer me to none. Don’t you get it yet? The BIBLE is the FINAL authority on what to believe and how to live. I DON”T care what you or I think or feel about things. GOD is the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty. What He says is the final word. Do you want HIS answers or man’s answers?

Stephen,
We’re dealing with interpretive issues here rather than exegetical ones. For proof of this, consider that for any compatibilist proof text you would give, I could provide a libertarian read of it. So while I applaud the fact that you’re an exegete, correct exegesis is necessary but not sufficient for judging between competing theories of free will. Thus, we can permissibly look into something more than Biblical data, and that’s what I’ve been discussing with agogley.

About mystery: I’m not sure what, if anything, Rationalism has to do with a discussion on libertarian freedom, but it seems your point was that libertarian freedom can’t be right because it removes too much mystery to be tolerable. But even if it does remove a lot of mystery, so what? Are you saying that to be true, something must have a certain amount of mystery to it? That’s just false; but maybe you didn’t mean it that way. Please explain.

Qian:

I asked “Am I to understand that if our will isn’t free, then we hold no moral responsibility? So then God is unfair in sending some to hell unless we have free will?”

You answered “Yes and yes.” [I apoogize for redundancy but it's hard to format answers in context on this blog without such repitition]

I have to reject your answers as completely unbiblical. Paul answered these same questions in Romans 9.

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ “[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”[i] 26and,
“It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
they will be called ’sons of the living God.’”

It is pretty evident that God is just in whatever he does whether he grants us free will or not.

Agogley,
I told Stephen this is an interpretive issue, rather than an exegetical one. The same applies here. This is why I haven’t been citing much in the way of Bible verses on this issue. As such, block-quoting part of Romans 9 is really not that helpful. For one, the context of the passage isn’t a discussion on free will. This isn’t to say we can conclude nothing about free will from it: we know God has providential control of who is saved and who isn’t, we know that it is impossible for him to be guilty of wrongdoing in sending some to hell. But this is at home on a libertarian reading. And further given our everyday intuitions about moral responsibility, the Calvinist (compatibilist) interpretation seems wrong, or at the very least, that the compatibilist shouldn’t accuse the libertarian of being, of all things, *unbiblical*.

Let me borrow a page from Francis Schaeffer: It’s hard for me to believe you really live as if my “yes…yes…” is unbiblical. I bet you, and all of us, live contradictorily to your preferred interpretation of Romans 9. Let’s suppose someone, plants electrodes in your brain without your knowledge and in deterministic fashion gives you the irresistible desire to go and rob the local bank. How accurate will it be during cross-examination for the D.A. to say “Well, agogley you still robbed the house — and you even desired to do so — and thus you’re still morally culpable regardless of the electrodes.” I bet you’d think there was a miscarriage of justice. And you’d be right. By parallel reasoning, the same implausibility can be leveled at the Calvinist (compatibilist) reading of Romans 9. I’m not impugning God. I think the Calvinist is, actually, and this counts as reason for him to abandon his own view of freedom of the will.

Qian,

“…consider that for any compatibilist proof text you would give, I could provide a libertarian read of it.”

But they can’t both be right and contradict each other. Please furnish an exegesis of such a said text. Proper hermeneutics and historical grammatical exegesis will leave but one interpretation - only.

P.S. regarding Moreland’s paper, you must understand Beegle’s argument that Moreland rebutted in order to notice the first major error. That is the context in which bibliolatry must be understood.

>> It is rejected on the basis of Scripture alone, the same basis for which I reject Libertarian free-will-ism.

So before you picked up a Bible, you hadn’t the capacity to reason that fatalism does not conform to reality?

Further, Bible study involves you bringing a set of first principles by which you judge not only what it says, but also if it conforms to reality when it concerns those things everybody can observe.

[Aside: Spiritual truths are given to us in the Bible, and can not be known any other way; But we faith [sic] in spiritual truths because of the aspiritual truths available for critique to everyone. An example of this in the Twelve’s day was when Jesus told people “if you don’t believe my words, then at least believe in the miracles so that you *can* believe” (paraphrased; emphasis mine). Everyone knew when Jesus was altering the very laws of physics because they understood what those were; And Jesus used that aspiritual understanding to help some believe.]

>> The point that I was making to Qian is that none of the three positions that PFCW list in ch.13 are accurate descriptions of what Scripture reveals. The closest is compatibilism, but not close enough to bring aboard as doctrine.

I agree with you, but this is qualified.

I think Qian was close with compatible-ism; and I agree with DrMorey’s assessment it, as expressed in his “CHKMS” argument.

However, I think they both are wrong - and not by much - because, in our constant experience of testing Biblical, as well as non-Biblical, hypotheses in a temporal context, it is easy to forget that god has told us that he operates outside of linear time (”tell them I Am sent you”, “before Abraham was born, I am”, “a thousand years are as a day; a day is as a thousand years”).

God lives in what I’ve heard called an “eternal now”. This is why god is able to know ahead of time (or, from “eternity past”) our libertarianly free will.

I should qualify that last statement in light of Qian’s comment regarding the changing of one’s nature. Even according to libertarian free will, one can not change his own nature, since the capacity to change would be part of that nature.

>> It is pretty evident that God is just in whatever he does whether he grants us free will or not.

Regarding Romans 9, it helps to understand that the point of the chapter is to show that Israel had never received favor with god as a birthright, but because of a promise, and that only god chooses who who shall receive said favor - *not* that man doesn’t have free will. Further, notice that the hardening that god does is to a specific group of people (Pharaoh, Israel, etc.) - meaning since free will ends when god hardens people’s hearts, and god does not harden everyone’s hearts, that when god has not hardened a heart, that person has free will.

Notice that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened at specific times.

Add to that the fact that “raising up” could carry different nuances depending on the context (see Daniel 2:21, where god is said to be the one who “setteth up kings”, which wouldn’t necessarily require controlling someone’s will), and the interpretation of Romans 9 to which you hold becomes plausible, at best.

I will grant you that I consider this passage a toughie.

>> Ouch! Poorly uneducated mind? … This isn’t exactly the most winsome way to gain a sparring partner in a debate.

Hang in there, dood.

Dear Qian:

May the Lord Bless you! I certainly understand the finite nature of our time and wish you the best.

My quoting Romans 9 wasn’t discussing “free will” but fairness if we did not have it. You said it wouldn’t be fair if we didn’t have free will and were sent to hell (i.e. when you said “yes and yes.”) Romans 9 contradicts this very notion! God does what He pleases and it isn’t unfair because we are His creations. Regardless of whether we have free will or not, God can do with us as he deems fit even if he decides that some of us are to be sent to hell.

As to free will, I live my life as I know man does not have a free will. Your example is imperfect. I’d rather use the Biblical example. The potter can do with the clay as he pleases. He can make the clay into a beautiful vase to display at a museum or into a spitoon. If after making the spitoon, he decides to break his creation because it is soiled, then that is his right. The same is true with God. He created us and He can do whatever He pleases.

The problem here is that you are imposing human ideas of fairness on the subject of election instead of using the concept of divine justice. To quote MacArthur:

“What is Divine justice? Simply stated, it is an essential attribute of God whereby He infinitely, perfectly, and independently does exactly what He wants to do when and how He wants to do it. Because He is the standard of justice, by very definition, then whatever He does is inherently just.”

Qian, I was much like you. I struggled…mightily struggled with the issue of fairness and the doctrine of election. I couldn’t understand how I could be born with a irrestible sinful nature and still be held responsible for my sins. Certainly, I must have the ability to choose God I thought! But despite my “feelings” I couldn’t resist Scripture. Scripture plainly says that nobody seeks God without his prompting. And finally, I gave in and realized that I am God’s creation and he is just to do whatever he pleases with His creation. And now I rejoice that God chose to save me! Praise the Lord!

I’m reminded of a verse…

“Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,But he who hates reproof is stupid.”

Jay wrote, “Dr Bob…the **fact** is, in your oringinal post you did not even quote *one word* of scripture. This is another case of you needing to take the log out of your own eye.”

Yeah dude, way to spot the log!

All he did is use words like:

• Salvation
• Jesus
• He/His (referring to Jesus)
• Paul
• He/His (referring to Paul)
• Peter
• John
• Apostle of Love
• Simon
• Acts 8
• Disciples
• Scripture
• Bible
• Word of God
• God
• Christ
• Gospel
• Heavens
• Heaven and hell

How many Jay? “you did not even quote *one word* of scripture.”

In all fairness to Qian, I don’t think he has a problem with accepting reproof.

I believe Qian saw the reproof he has been given as more of a “poisoning of the well”, than reproof.

For instance, when it was said …:

“While I see that you have a poorly uneducated mind, it is a good mind. This is why you can’t grasp the central issues or stay on topic.”

… I’m sure Qian was wondering when he was going to be walked through the moments he strayed off topic. And when that didn’t happen, it appeared that the purpose for the accusation was of dubious intent.

But as to whether he indeed strayed off topic, consider the order of events which led up to this accusation:

1. Moreland’s salvation was brought into question by Dr. Robert (the blog entry to which we are responding)

2. Samuel Garcia asked why Moreland’s salvation was in question. (December 28th, 2007 at 7:30 pm)

3. Dr. Morey brought up the issue of the “Open View” of god in point 4h in his list of questions to ask Moreland, as proof that he is unsaved. (December 29th, 2007 at 5:02 am)

4. Qian believed Dr. Morey’s assessment of the Open View lacked a precision which he believed may bear on the conclusion drawn by Dr. Morey. Qian attempted to clarify the Open View by making a distinction between the notions: a) god doesn’t and can’t know the future, and b) god doesn’t and can’t know future libertarianly free decisions. (December 29th, 2007 at 11:30 am)

5. Agogley asked what was meant by “future libertarianly free decisions”. (December 29th, 2007 at 2:16 pm)

6. In an effort to explain what was meant by “future libertarianly free decisions”, Qian presented a comparison with two other views of free will. (December 29th, 2007 at 4:25 pm)

And so began the topic of free will, to which the rest of the comments have been directed.

Since free will is integral to the topic of the Open View, neither Qian, nor anyone else, has strayed off topic.

Agilius said: “3. Dr. Morey brought up the issue of the “Open View” of god in point 4h in his list of questions to ask Moreland, as proof that he is unsaved. (December 29th, 2007 at 5:02 am)”

Really?

Sam, this is what he said, “These questions help us to frame the issue of whether we should, at this time, in the light of their recent teachings, question the salvation of J. P. Moreland, William Craig, and their disciples. Given what they are now teaching, we must put a huge question mark over their head.”

-and-

“Given Moreland’s teaching about Natural theology/Law, rationalism, meditation, miracles, and sola scriptura, I am forced to place a huge question mark over his head just as I had to do with Beckwith. If he, Craig and their clones all joined popery or Orthodoxy, it would not surprise me. I have seen things like that happen in over forty years of theological experience.”

This is after he gave good reasons why we *should* be alert to apostasy.

He’s been doing this for over forty years, longer than most of us have been alive - at least longer than me!

What he is doing for us is pointing out certain warning signs that, given our age (as in day in age), we might not be able to notice. After all, as a notable Christian leader, Moreland does not preach the crucified Savior on Calvary’s tree, the only acceptable sacrifice for sin, and so forth. Rather, he lectures on how high the probability is that Christianity may be true. And if you listen to the KT video, he describes himself as an atheistic chemistry student that *became convinced that Christianity was true,* hardly a Christian testimony. The forgive