Jul 1, 2009
George Bryson and James White’s Closing Argument
Biblicalthought has been engaged in a discussion with George Bryson regarding the debate he had with James White. In the discussion we asked George to explain his answers to some of the questions posed to George Bryson by James White. You can see for yourself in the previous post the long drawn out answers by George Bryson that do not address what Scripture teaches. In this post examine closely the closing statement of James White. I have asked George Bryson to provide us with his closing statement, or any other portion of the debate, and assured him we would post it. Your thoughts are appreciated. Here it is:
49 Comments, Comment or Ping
Mario Herrera
This is a God glorifying declaration of the Gospel according Scripture! May it cause the hearers to see Christ in His majesty!
Jul 1st, 2009
Mark Caro
It DOES cause me to see Christ in His majesty. When the True Gospel is preached, there is power in it. Ro.1:16
Jul 1st, 2009
OverCommiTad2theWord
Thanks Mario for posting this clip! Election is reason to REJOICE in the Lord, not to put on your MAD face.I pray that God the Holy Spirit would open GB to the truth of His sovereignty.
Jul 1st, 2009
Frank
Mario, if election is unconditional as Brother White claims, why did Peter describe believers as “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Peter 1:2)? And why did Paul teach that though formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man, he obtained mercy because he had done those things ignorantly in unbelief (1 Timothy 1:13)?
Evidently God has conditionally elected some people based on what He foreknew about them and their motives.
If God so controls people as Brother White claims, why did He say of the Israelites, “Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever!” (Deuteronomy 5:29)? Isn’t such a statement inconsistent with the belief that God unconditionally changes and preserves some people’s hearts?
Jul 2nd, 2009
Mario Herrera
Frank,
Are you asking these questions because you disagree with James White?
Are you saying that you believe election is based on human motives?
Jul 3rd, 2009
Frank
Mario,
Thanks for replying. I answer yes to both your questions, but I should qualify my answers.
I disagree with Brother White’s Calvinism, but not with his many fine works on cults, the Trinity, the trustworthiness of Scripture, etc.
I believe that election is conditional, being based in part on human motives; but I also believe that election is undeserved, so that no one should boast of being chosen.
In Christ,
Frank
Jul 3rd, 2009
Mario Herrera
It brings to mind the golden chain in Romans 8:28,
“And we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined, he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
How is your road trip by the way? Headed to any exciting places? My wife and I love to hit Sequoia! Grace and Peace!
Jul 3rd, 2009
Auf dem Flur steht ein Gerippe!
I agree that there is a human part in election:
Who are the objects of the golden chain in Romans 8:28-30? The text has the phrase “those who love God”. Here is the human part. To love God. The elect that are the objects of the whole chain are those who love God.
Jul 3rd, 2009
Frank
Mario, I’m not sure your last post is meant for me. (Is there another Frank on this forum?) From my home in the Southeast, a visit to Sequoia would be quite a road trip. My kids and grandkids will be dropping by for a cookout tomorrow. I hope your fourth is blessed.
You quoted Romans 8:28-30 from what appears to be the ESV. Though the passage could be described as a golden chain, have you noticed that a key link is conditional? The clauses “who love God” and “who are called according to his purpose” have conditional force. We could paraphrase the passage this way: “If they love God and are called according to His purpose, all things work together for good to them.”
Adjective clauses often have conditional force. This is evident from 2 Corinthians 5:17: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (ESV). Without a changing the meaning, I could paraphrase it to say, “Anyone or everyone who is in Christ is a new creation.”
Have you given any thought to my questions about Deuteronomy 5:29 and 1 Peter 1:2?
In Christ,
Frank
Jul 3rd, 2009
Mario Herrera
Frank….I guess so…..I thought it was a friend of mine!
Jul 3rd, 2009
Mario Herrera
I will give feedback later this evening. There is absolutely no human part in election. We are doing moving clean up….as we are getting ready to move……lots of junk over the years!
Jul 3rd, 2009
Mark Caro
Proverbs 16:4 The Lord has made all things for himself,yes even the wicked for the day of doom.
Psalms 65:4 Blessed is the man whom Thou Chooses and CAUSES to to approach thee…..
Frank, can you show us (in scripture) where unregenerate people love God? Does not scripture proclaim that; NO ONE seeks God?
There is NO FEAR of God before their eyes? Ro.3.
To all believers who may be reading this:
I(personally) am baffled on how so called believers can have such objections to God being God and doing whatever the heck he wants.
There is GOD and there is His creation, THAT’S IT!!! And Scripture reveals that He can do whatever he wants,and no one can stop Him….
Jul 3rd, 2009
Mario Herrera
Mark! I have been wanting to say hello! Miss you and the family brother! Please say hello to them!
Frank,
You see predestination as a conditioned prevision of faith. You are making the point that God forsees and he does actually know all things. He is omniscient and since it is His plan that is in order for History, He has fixed human history according to His purpose.
The Doctrine of Sovereign Election is not at all hindered.
Faith to believe is a faith that God gives. See John 3:3-8, John 6:44; 45; 65; Ephesians 2:8, Phil 1:29, 2 Pet. 1:2
The foresight of faith by God is preconditioned by his eternal decree, not human motive. The foundation for the salvation of man is found in the Triune God alone. He is the one who generates faith in those he has foreseen from eternity.
In the text I quoted from Ronams 8, it declares, “whom he foreknew,” If we look at this passage exegetically, WHOM is the object and nothing else. The text does not read, “what He foreknew.”
If the writer, Paul in this passage, would have needed to insert some sort of qualifications based on human motive, he could have done it, but did not. This passage along with Roman 8, 9, and 10 declare the sovereignty of our great God.
Jul 4th, 2009
a helmet
Romans 8:28-30 has been severely misused.
The first question to be answered is in what context is the text embedded. The immediate context is encompassed by the verses 18-39 which describe a confined part within the epistle. The topic of this part is the creatures’ sufferings and anxieties in this present world. Paul encourages the readers to endure the afflictions of this age because there is a greater hope for the future. While all of creation is subjected to frustration, even the christians who have the firstfruits of the Spirit already are not excluded from the afflictions and anxieties of this world but rather walk their journey in hope of their future glory and find comfort in the promises of prayer. From this encouragement to have hope and trust, which is the topic of verses 18-27, the “Golden Chain” verses follow in smooth transition.
The text immediately following the “Golden Chain”, that is verses 31-39, draw an inference of the verses 28-30. God is greater than all other powers and will certainly protect and save to the uttermost those who love Him. God’s provision of his own son is evidence, that he will also give the elect all the heavenly glory. While there are sufferings, tribulations and even persecutions in this world, these do not break God’s sovereign purpose and cannot thwart God’s faithfulness to the christians. The entire passage 18-39 is summed up in the last two verses, 38-39, where Paul establishes God’s ultimate sovereign power to protect his beloved ones.
So what is the context of Rom 8:28-30? Verses 18-39 describe a confined part in the epistle which treats of suffering, tribulation and persecution and God’s sovereign salvation out of this misery. These are the key words that describe the context of Rom. 8:28-30.
On the other hand it must be observed that the words “sin”, “sinner”, “unregenerate”, “effectual call” and other similar terms used to refer to the doctrines of grace, do not appear in the entire section! Again, the objects of this scriptural section–and especially of vs.28-30–are not sinners and the text is not at all about how sinners are saved, but how the righteous are saved! — from the fallen world. Using Romans 8:28-30 as a proof-text for Calvinism is eisegetical which becomes particularly apparent, when considering the concept of an effectual call which is silently assumed here but cannot in any way be supported by the text. Calvinists completely miss the context of Rom. 8:28-30. Again, there are no sinners under consideration here, nor the is the word “sin” included.
-a helmet
Jul 4th, 2009
Mark Caro
Mario!!
Happy 4th to y’all !!!
Good to hear from you. We are doing fine thanks.
Hope to see ya soon.
Jul 4th, 2009
Frank
Brother Mark,
I’m not a fast typist or a prolific poster, but I’ll touch on the verses you’ve mentioned.
Before interpreting Proverbs 16: 4, we must agree on how to translate it. I’m not sure what translation you’ve used, but I’ve seen the verse rendered differently in the KJV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, ESV, LITV, NAB, etc. The Amplified Bible, which combines words from several translations and throws in a few thoughts besides, reads this way:
“The Lord has made everything [ to accommodate itself and contribute ] to its own end and His own purpose–even the wicked [ are fitted for their role ] for the day of calamity and evil.”
I think the verb “made” introduces an objective predicate just as the verb “make” does in Proverbs 16: 7: “When a man’s ways please the Lord, He *makes* even his enemies to be at peace with him” (Amplified). I don’t think the verb “made” tells us in Proverbs 16: 4 that God creates people as wicked robots but that He has made use of and gotten glory from people who chose to be wicked. Still, I mustn’t be dogmatic, because there’s no consensus on how to translate the verse.
Psalm 65: 4 pertains to the Jewish temple and apparently the high priest. Not everyone could function as high priest, and God punished and even destroyed people who tried to usurp that position. With the Lord Jesus as our great high priest, we can “draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:16 NASB). The Lord Jesus is why we may enjoy the blessing of being satisfied with the goodness of God’s house and the holiness of His temple ( last half of Psalm 65: 4 ). But where does this verse tell us that God’s election is unconditional or that people can’t desire to approach God?
When we read in Romans 3 that “there is none who seeks for God” and that “there is no fear of God before their eyes,” we must be careful not to overgeneralize this kind of people. Paul was quoting from Psalm 13 in the Septuagint, and that passage does not concern all people but fools:
“The *fool* says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’
They are corrupt, they are abominable in their habits;
There is none, not even one, who does good.
The Lord stooped down from heaven to look upon the sons of men,
To see if there were any why understood or sought God.
All turned aside and were altogether corrupted;
There was not even one doing good, no, not one.
Their throat is a open tomb;
They deal deceptively with their tongues;
The poison of serpents is under their lips,
Whose mouth is full of curses and bitterness;
Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Affliction and suffering are in their ways,
And the way of peace they have not known;
There is no fear of God before their eyes
(verses 1-3, SAAS).
In Romans 3, Paul was showing that there were fools among the Jewish people just as there were among the Gentiles. But the description in the above Psalm (13 in the LXX, 14 in the Hebrew OT) doesn’t fit all the lost.
I’m not upset that God does whatever He wants. I note that “whatever” is an indefinite pronoun, so that the clause “whatever He pleases” doesn’t specify that God operates Calvinistically. The Bible says His judgments are true and righteous (Revelation 19: 2 ). I take comfort in that and in God’s delight in showing mercy.
In Christ,
Frank
Jul 4th, 2009
Frank
Brother Mario,
You told me: “You see predestination as a conditioned prevision of faith. You are making the point that God forsees and he does actually know all things. He is omniscient and since it is His plan that is in order for History, He has fixed human history according to His purpose.”
I’m confused by your use of the word “prevision,” which my dictionary defines as foresight, foreknowledge, or a prediction. I think God’s election and predestination of people is based on His foreknowledge, which is part of His omniscience. While I believe that He is working out all things according to His purpose, I don’t believe that He has fixed human history. Let me illustrate. We can know history without fixing it or denying its people freedom of choice. Even so, God knows the future without fixing it or denying its people freedom of choice.
As to God’s working things out, I like James Arminius’ illustration concerning the prophecy that none of Jesus’ bones would be broken ( John 19: 36 ). As you know, the soldiers who came to break Jesus’ legs were free to break His legs. They chose not to do that, however, because He was already dead ( John 19: 33 ). Without hindering their freedom of choice, God worked things about by having Jesus die so that the soldiers would do as prophesied, which is why they also pierced Jesus’ side, thus fulfilling the prophecy that “they shall look on Him whom they pierced” ( John 19: 37 ).
I agree with you that Romans 8: 29 speaks of whom God foreknew. That’s why, in pointing out the passage’s conditionality, I noted that Romans 8: 28 applies to people *who* love God and *who* are called according to His purpose; in other words, it applies to them if they love God and are called according to His purpose.
As to faith as a gift, I think we may have a metonomy where we read of God’s giving us faith. For we hear the good news and choose whether to believe it. For “faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” ( Romans 10: 17 NASB ).
Before tackling John 3:3-8, John 6:44; 45; 65; Ephesians 2:8, Phil 1:29, 2 Pet. 1:2; I’d like to hear your answers to my questions about Deuteronomy 5: 29 and 1 Peter 1: 2.
In Christ,
Frank
Jul 4th, 2009
a helmet
“God does whatever he pleases”. There’s no doubt about that and no serious christians would deny this. But it sounds a bit like we have no idea what it is that pleases God and what he therefore does. Calvinsts sort of assume we have no knowledge about God’s will. Unless God is a cosmic puppeteer, He cannot possibly do “whatever he pleases” — fortunately, the mystery of His will has been made known. That all believers in His son should be heirs of eternal life. A mystery made known is no secret anymore. And God doesn’t have to play a puppet theatre in order to maintain his freedom.
Jul 5th, 2009
Mario Herrera
Have not forgotten about the discussion Frank……
Question……explain you view of this passage as the reason why you direct attention to Deuteronomy…..thanks!
Jul 6th, 2009
Mark Caro
Frank,
In any case, if God CAUSES, does’nt that mean, He Causes?
Jul 6th, 2009
Frank
Brother Mario,
You asked me to explain my view of Deuteronomy 5:29 and my reason for directing your attention to it.
On July 2, I wrote: “If God so controls people as Brother White claims, why did He say of the Israelites, ‘Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever!’ (Deuteronomy 5:29)? Isn’t such a statement inconsistent with the belief that God unconditionally changes and preserves some people’s hearts?”
Aware of this verse’s challenge to Calvinism, the JFB Commentary says: “God can bestow such a heart, and has promised to give it, wherever it is asked (Jer 32:40). But the wish which is here expressed on the part of God for the piety and steadfast obedience of the Israelites did not relate to them as individuals, so much as a nation, whose religious character and progress would have a mighty influence on the world at large” (from http://www.studylight.org).
I’m not persuaded by this national-versus-individual explanation, especially since Jeremiah 32:40 also concerns the nation of Israel. Can you do better? My view is that Deuteronomy 5:29 contradicts the belief that God makes some men willing, and leave others unwilling, to receive new hearts.
As regards unconditional election, two more verses I asked about on July 2 are 1 Peter 1:2, which shows election to be based on foreknowledge, and 1 Timothy 1:13, which says Paul was shown mercy because his former sins (blasphemy, persecution, violent aggression) had been committed in ignorance and unbelief.
I hope your move has gone well.
In Christ,
Frank
Jul 6th, 2009
Frank
Brother Mark,
Likely in reference to Psalm 65:4, you wrote: “In any case, if God CAUSES, does’nt that mean, He Causes?”
Yes. But isn’t the case or context important? We need to know who is caused to approach and whether the approach coincides with conversion or relates to something else.
What’s your take on Isaiah 1:18?
In Christ,
Frank
Jul 6th, 2009
Sir Aaron
an excellent discussion of election can be found here:
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/07/divine-sovereignty-and-human.html
Jul 7th, 2009
Frank
Sir Aaron,
Phil Johnson’s use of Acts 27 to illustrate Calvinism’s divine sovereignty and human responsibility seems a stretch. We can understand the rationale of the sailors trying to escape. For if the ship was doomed to destruction, abandoning the ship seemed a way to improve their likelihood of survival. What the sailors didn’t foresee was how lumber from the battered ship would help the weak swimmers reach shore.
The follow-up requirement that the sailors had to stay aboard in order for others to be saved illustrates how God’s promises may come with conditions not always expressed with every mention of the promises. Chiefly, however, it reminds us to trust and obey God as we are taught in Proverbs 3:5-7.
In Christ,
Frank
Jul 7th, 2009
Mark Caro
Frank
Your tone sounds cordial and civil. Thanx.
You quoted Ps.13. Within the text it says(paraphrased) God looked and He saw there is NO ONE who seeks God. True, I believe that.
So….. does Scripture teach us that Unregenerate men love God?
That is what you believe, no?
I believe,through Scripture, that God COMMANDS and that He does not SUGGEST. (most Christian’s do).
I believe we make choices driven by our desires.
So……… Ro. 8 means; God elects on the condition of man loving Him.
Also, He justifies and Glorifies them as well……….right?
Here is my question: Who loves God, the unregenerate or the one who has been reborn?
Is1:18 God is going to discuss or talk about their sins……
See ya!!
Jul 8th, 2009
Frank
Brother Mark,
Thanks for writing back. I appreciate your spirit in this discussion.
You mention that Psalm 13:1-3 in the LXX says there’s no one seeking God. Please note, though, that the passage refers to fools (verse 1) and says God “stooped down from heaven to look upon the sons of men, to see if there were any who understood or sought God” (verse 2). That’s different from saying none of the unregenerate ever seeks God. Besides, the passage adds that this group of people–fools, sons of men–have mouths full of curses and bitterness, feet swift to shed blood, and no fear of God (verse 3). That description doesn’t fit all the unregenerate, does it? It seems that if you’re going to contend that none of the unregenerate seeks God, you must also contend that all the unregenerate commit those other sins. If not, why?
You ask if I think unregenerate men love God. I think some do. Cornelius (Acts 10) likely was such a person as were the Bereans whom the Bible describes as noble- or fair-minded because of their readiness to receive Paul’s and Silas’ teaching and search the Scriptures (Acts 17:10-12). Paul may have been such a person if Romans 7:7-24 describes his preconversion struggles while he was experiencing prevenient grace.
You say you accept God’s biblical commands as commands rather than suggestions. I do the same.
Scripture says that God’s election is according to His foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2) and that He chose us in Christ before the world’s foundation (Ephesians 1:4). Paul said he received mercy because his sins had been committed in ignorance and unbelief (1 Timothy 1:13) and because God intended to show him longsuffering as a pattern to other people who were going to believe in Christ for everlasting life (1 Timothy 1:16). No doubt our all-knowing God has many reasons for electing some people and rejecting others, and these reasons make election conditional. This is why I noted that the promises of Romans 8:28-30 apply to people who love God and who are called according to His purpose (verse 28).
You say Isaiah 1:18 says God was going to discuss the wayward Israelites’ sins with them. To me, His appeal to reason together with them amounts to drawing them rather than dragging them. You agree?
Have you considered Revelation 22:17: “And the Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come!’ And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely”? (NKJV). Jesus said, “Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst” (John 4:14). The water of life, of course, is the water that gives life. Since no one who has drunk of it ever thirsts, anyone thirsty for it hasn’t drunk of it and therefore lacks eternal life. So, according to Revelation 22:17, it’s possible for the unregenerate, the spiritually dead, to thirst for the water that gives life. Isn’t that a beautiful picture of prevenient grace?
In Christ,
Frank
Jul 8th, 2009
Mario
Frank,
You stated in the previous post to me,
“I’m not persuaded by this national-versus-individual explanation, especially since Jeremiah 32:40 also concerns the nation of Israel. Can you do better? My view is that Deuteronomy 5:29 contradicts the belief that God makes some men willing, and leave others unwilling, to receive new hearts.”
How can you say that your view on Deut. 5:29 contradicts the belief that God makes some men willing and leaves others unwilling to receive new hearts? Are you saying that you establish your theology for what you believe about God making men willing to receive new hearts is based on this passage alone?
You have to contend with the passages throughout the NT……
Jul 8th, 2009
Mario
Frank when I read what you post about election being conditional, you place man’s motive at the forefront.
In Romans 8, those who love God are the called. If election is conditional, it is God alone who decides the conditions, not man. Man has to be called out of darkness, out of spiritual death, therefore, God is the author and finisher of the faith. It is He alone that does the willing and the doing in us of His good pleasure…….
You mention to Mark about Paul in 1 Timothy…….
“Paul said he received mercy because his sins had been committed in ignorance and unbelief ”
For the context of verse 13, Paul writes, “I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because he considered me faithful, putting me into service.”
Paul was called while he was a blaphemer and murderer. Paul did not seek Jesus out. Jesus divinely intervened and asked him why he was persecuting Him. It was a divine transformation for Paul to become who he became otherwise he would have continued as a murderer.
Paul further says, “even though I was formerly a blaphemer and a persecutor, and a violent aggressor.
“Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly and in unbelief; and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.”
The basis of His conversion is grace, in spite of his ignorance and unbelief, grace was far more abundant, with the faith and love in Christ alone.
Though Paul says he was ignorant, he knew well what he was doing when he was killing Christians. This ignorance and unbelief was his condition spiritually. It was not the “condition’ why he was saved. He was shown mercy in spite of ignorance and unbelief, which is to say he was not destroyed by the Lord, rather amazing grace gave him the gift he did not deserve.
He goes on to say that it is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom Paul was the foremost, he stated.
He says, “for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demostrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.”
What Paul is describing is about what Christ did, not what Paul sought. When he says I found mercy, it was certainly not because he was looking for it. Mercy found him and gave him grace and faith and love in Christ Jesus.
How is it that you can get the idea that Paul received mercy because of acting in unbelief, and make that the “condition” for which he was called into service?
Jul 8th, 2009
a helmet
Frank,
You are making some good points. Though I don’t agree that God elects according to foreknowledge, the fact that “unregenerate” men do seek God is evidenced from the scriptures and not only the OT. You use Cornelius in Acts 10 as an instance. I’d like to pick that up and make some remarks on this. The example of Cornelius is a good one to show that men do make the first step, not God. The same is true in case of the woman Lydia in Acts 16. In Cornelius case there are 5 actors involved in his convesion story: God, the angel, Cornelius and Peter. What is the order of the actors in the chain of events leading to Cornelius conversion? The order is as follows: Cornelius had been faithfully worshipping God. As a response God sent an angel to Cornelius. The angel announced that there was good news in sight for Cornelius, which he would receive through Peter. Cornelius in turn looked up Peter who in turn preached the gospel to Cornelius who then believed?
So who was the first link in this chain – God or man? It was Cornelius, who had been praying to God.
The story of Lydia is akin. She had been worshipping God who graciously answered her prayers and guided her into the truth. Nothing in the story points to God doing the first move.
Note also the parable of the sower. The seed falls on any ground without respect of its quality. In the following, the sun shines on all grounds alike and so does the rain that falls on any ground without respect. What makes the difference? What does it depend on whether a fruitful plant will grow? — The quality of the ground makes the difference. Nothing else.
What’s what in the parable of the sower? There is God’s side and man’s side. God’s side is the seed, the word that is sown. Man’s part is the ground. So the ultimate decisive criterion whether there will be any fruit hinges soley on man. Not a secret hidden in God makes the decisive difference, but only man. Much more could be said about how the bible points this out.
-a helmet
Jul 9th, 2009
a helmet
Oh, I miscounted. There were really 4 actors involved
Jul 9th, 2009
Sir Aaron
Frank,
I disagree. And apparently so does Phil.
Jul 9th, 2009
Frank
Mario,
You asked how Deuteronomy 5:29 contradicts the belief that God makes some men willing and leaves others unwilling to receive new hearts? You also asked if it’s on this verse alone that I base my views about God’s way of saving some people and rejecting others.
Please reconsider God’s words: “Oh, that they [Israelites] had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep my commandments, that it might be well with them and their children forever!” (NKJV). Here God uses the subjunctive to express a desire or wish that was not likely to be fulfilled. It reminds me of a prisoner who said, “Oh, that I had the wings of an angel so that over these prison walls I might fly!” The prisoner desired to be free, but knew his desire wouldn’t be granted.
Such a statement as God made at Deuteronomy 5:29 is the opposite of what we’d expect if God operated Calvinistically, providing new hearts whenever he pleased. In fact, if God operated according to the theology of Calvinism, the statement would be schizophrenic, amounting to a complaint by God against Himself for His failure to provide the hearts necessary for Israel’s obedience. This statement alone shows that Calvinism needs to be taken back to the theological drawing board.
You’ll find a similar passage at Psalm 81:8-16:
“Hear, O My people, and I will admonish you!
O Israel, if you will listen to Me!
There shall be no foreign god among you;
Nor shall you worship any foreign god.
I am the LORD your God,
Who brought you out of the land of Egypt;
Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it.
“But My people would not heed My voice,
And Israel would have none of Me.
So I gave them over to their own stubborn heart,
To walk in their own counsels.
“Oh, that My people would listen to Me,
That Israel would walk in My ways!
I would soon subdue their enemies,
And turn My hand against their adversaries.
The haters of the LORD would pretend submission to Him,
But their fate would endure forever.
He would have fed them also with the finest of wheat;
And with honey from the rock I would have satisfied you” (NKJV).
How can these statements be squared with Calvinism’s view of God’s operations?
You told me, “You have to contend with the passages throughout the NT.” Actually, Arminians are not the only ones with the burden of proof. Whoever asserts must prove.
You added: “If election is conditional, it is God alone who decides the conditions, not man.” I agree. God is King, Lawgiver, and Judge (Isaiah 33:22). He has determined the terms and conditions for salvation, and He decides which people do or don’t meet the terms and conditions necessary for receiving grace and mercy.
Ignorance such as Paul’s (1 Timothy 1:13) is not the only condition for forgiveness, but it is an important one. Let’s not forget our Lord’s prayer at Calvary: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34 NKJV). I’m amazed that you think “Paul knew what he was doing when he was killing Christians.” Do you think he lied when he claimed to have acted ignorantly in unbelief? Paul was not alone in his ignorance; for he said the rulers of his day would not have knowingly crucified the Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2:8). It’s evident that in deciding whom to elect and forgive, God has examined men’s hearts in order to know who did or did not know what they were doing. Apparently He would not have forgiven Paul if Paul had been opposing what he knew to be true. No doubt God considered ignorance when time came for Him to deal with people who, in killing the apostles, thought they were offering Him service (John 16:2).
You quote Paul as saying, “I found mercy”; yet you add that he found it, not because he was looking for it, but because it found him and gave him grace, faith, and love in Christ Jesus. No doubt God put mercy where it could be found; but Paul was able to find it, and that’s synergy.
You said God alone “does the willing and the doing in us of His good pleasure.” But isn’t human will involved too? Paul wrote, “… Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:12-13). Why would Paul tell the Philippians to work if God alone worked? Isn’t Philippians 2:12-13 another example of synergy?
In Christ,
Frank
Jul 9th, 2009
Frank
A Helmet,
Thanks for your encouraging words. As to Cornelius, I think God made the first move, for He speaks to mankind through nature and many other ways. John wrote, “We love Him because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19 NKJV).
In Christ,
Frank
Jul 9th, 2009
a helmet
Frank,
That’s right. Similarly, no ground can produce a fruitful plant unless the seed (God’s part) falls on it first. However, the following depends on the ground (man’s part) only.
Jul 10th, 2009
Glen
Frank,
Would you agree that 1 Tim 2:1-4 would be correctly interpreted that God wants/desires all men (meaning everybody who has ever walked on the earth) to be saved?
Everybody,
Sorry for my long absense. I was in a military school for a couple of months and now have relocated to Alaska from Calif. I have to say, much better environment (not talking about the smog). I am up here solo until paperwork is cleared on a couple of adoptions then my family can join me. Please pray that we have a quick sale of the house and end to the paperwork so they can come up.
Update on Daniel… He is doing better. We have settled into a routine with his medical care. He will have the trach/vent for a couple of years yet. We are still working through some GI issues with him and our new son Caleb who we adopted in Feb. Praise God for His sovereign love.
Jul 20th, 2009
Stephen Macasil
Dear Glen,
Great to hear from you! Glad to hear the report about Daniel and now Caleb. Your family is in our prayers, and your steadfast trust in the sovereign Lord is an encouraging testimony.
Jul 20th, 2009
Frank
Brother Glen,
You asked me: “Would you agree that 1 Tim 2:1-4 would be correctly interpreted that God wants/desires all men (meaning everybody who has ever walked on the earth) to be saved?”
Because men must repent and convert before they die, I’m uneasy that you’ve written “wants/desires”—present tense!—regarding even those men who no longer walk the earth. I think God has wanted all men without exception to convert and be saved during their lives, if they would repent. We know, though, that God has hidden the truth from worldly wise, unrepentant people:
Yes, God decides when to reveal or hide the truth about Jesus, and His decisions, far from being capricious, depend on who is a babe or infant. Jesus taught His disciples: “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3 NASB). Becoming humble—the opposite of what Pharaoh did!—is necessary for salvation.
Jul 20th, 2009
Glen
Frank,
Wait, wait, wait… You said “I think God has wanted all men without exception to convert and be saved during their lives, if they would repent.”
And then “We know, though, that God has hidden the truth from worldly wise, unrepentant people:”
Question… How can someone repent if they don’t know the truth of their sin? If God has truely hidden the truth from unrepentant people, how can they repent based on the truth of His Word? Or are you saying that God only reveals His truth to those who have already become like infants?
Jul 21st, 2009
Frank
Brother Glen,
Yes, I said both that God has wanted all men without exception to convert and be saved during their lives, if they would repent, and that He has hidden the truth from worldly wise, unrepentant people. To avoid contradicting myself, I used the present perfect tense (”has wanted” and “has hidden”) instead of the present (”wants” and “hides”), which would have indicated a continuing action as though God was simultaneously wanting the conversion of all people and yet hiding the truth from many of the same people.
As you know, my statements were based on Matthew 11:25-27, which I quoted. In Matthew 11:20-24, Jesus had rebuked some citizens for not repenting although His disciples and He had worked enough miracles to prove the good news of the Messiah’s arrival. God the Father hid the truth from these citizens and revealed it to infants, because Christ was supposed to save people from their sins, not in them. This process of hardening the rejecters is what we see in 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, where we read of God’s sending strong delusion upon people for taking pleasure in unrighteousness instead of receiving the love of the truth. A key difference between what I believe and what many Calvinists believe is that I don’t think God unconditionally decides whom to harden and whom to enlighten.
You went on to ask me: “How can someone repent if they don’t know the truth of their sin? If God has truely hidden the truth from unrepentant people, how can they repent based on the truth of His Word? Or are you saying that God only reveals His truth to those who have already become like infants?”
Your concern about God’s hiding of truth from the unrepentant and their lack of a genuine opportunity to believe and repent makes me think you’re not far from being an Arminian. Maybe you should take the Society of Evangelical Arminianism’s survey “Are You an Arminian and Don’t Even Know It?”
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Are_You_an_Arminian_and_Don%27t_Even_Know_It%3F
Contrary to Calvinism, I believe God doesn’t harden people until they have rejected a genuine offer of the Gospel. I also believe in the importance of humbling ourselves as Jesus taught in Matthew 18:3. In Arminianism, man’s pride must be lowered just as it is in Calvinism.
Jul 21st, 2009
Glen
Frank,
I understand the difference between the terms you used, but don’t understand how that changes things. God either hids the truth or He doesn’t. My point about repenting is that you must know the truth of your sin before you can repent. Would you agree?
If your answer is yes to that question then how can this be true “I believe God doesn’t harden people until they have rejected a genuine offer of the Gospel?” The Gospel is truth and if God has hidden it from people how can they know the truth? If they first reject the truth before God hides it from them then at least at one point they knew the truth and since God is the one who reveals the truth that would mean that at one time God revealed it to them, then they rejected it, then He hid it. Not really sure I’m following the logic here…
BTW… If you admit that God is the one who reveals truth and hides truth, I think you are more on your way to being a Calvinist that you think.
Jul 23rd, 2009
Frank
Brother Glen,
You wrote: “God either hids the truth or He doesn’t. My point about repenting is that you must know the truth of your sin before you can repent. Would you agree?”
I agree both that God hides the truth (Matthew 11:25) and that people must know the truth of their sin before they can repent. How may people know of their sins? From the Law, which was known to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:6 NASB 1995), whom Jesus had dispatched His disciples to witness to. It’s as Paul later wrote: “… The Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:24 ibid).
You continued:
In the parable of the sower, Jesus illustrated how people may lose truth they’ve heard:
The unplowed soil beside the road represented hard, unprepared hearts. The people of Israel were responsible to break up their fallow ground (Jeremiah 4:3; Hosea 10:12).
Jesus later explained what He’d said:
Yes, people may forget truth they’ve heard without caring enough to act on. It’s as James wrote: “23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; 24 for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was” (James 1:23-24 NASB http://www.studylight.org).
Something else: Jesus spoke in parables as a way of hiding truth from those who didn’t want it:
Most people who heard this parable didn’t care enough to request an explanation. They’d even closed their eyes and become hard-hearted and spiritually deaf. Because the disciples, in contrast, cared enough to ask, Jesus helped them understand new truth in addition to the truth they already had. As to earlier generations of prophets and righteous men who had desired to see what the disciples saw, they were justified for believing and obeying what God had revealed to them.
You closed: “BTW… If you admit that God is the one who reveals truth and hides truth, I think you are more on your way to being a Calvinist that you think.”
As an Arminian rather than a Calvinist, I don’t think God reveals or hides truth unconditionally. How much consideration have you given to Arminianism? If you’re surprised to hear an Arminian say God reveals and hides truth, you may have Arminianism confused with that popular soteriology which tries to market God to people who want a mushy, unconditionally loving god instead of the holy, all-knowing, all-powerful God of Scripture.
Jul 25th, 2009
Glen
To answer your last question, I was raised an Arminian and it was not until 3 years ago that God changed my views.
Now… Just to make sure you and I are both on the same page and using the terms the same and comparing apples to apples. Will you please define “truth” as you define truth when you say God reveals or hides truth from whom He wills?
Jul 27th, 2009
Frank
Brother Glen,
You say you used to be an Arminian until three years ago, when God changed your views. That’s interesting because about the time of your conversion to Calvinism, God changed my views from the five-point Calvinism (John Gill variety) I’d held for about 15 years. I’m curious what kind of Arminian you used to be and what Bible verse or verses were key to your change. A few verses that precipitated my change are Deuteronomy 5:29; Revelation 22:17; 1 Timothy 1:13—you know, the ones that Calvinists here have avoided thus far. Besides, I became troubled by all the biblical conditions I had to ignore in order to believe in unconditional election and eternal security.
You asked me to define the word “truth” as I use it when I say God reveals or hides truth from whom He wills. Wow! The truth I have in mind is what Jesus referred to when He had sent out His disciples (Matthew 11:25-27) and when He gave the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:18-23). This truth would consist of the information necessary for trusting in Jesus as Messiah, Savior, Lord, Son of God, Son of Man, King of kings, Lord of lords; believing in His death, burial, and resurrection; and thereby having forgiveness and life in His name (John 20:30-31).
Jul 28th, 2009
Glen
Frank,
I know that defining God’s Truth is not easy in a short paragraph. Would you say that the Ten Commandments and the OT law are part of that same truth?
Jul 28th, 2009
Mario Herrera
Frank,
Ok, so now explain how Deuteronomy 5:29 helped “change” your mind? What exactly caused the change? How were you convinced?
Jul 28th, 2009
Frank
Brother Glen,
Yes, I consider the Ten Commandments and OT part of the same truth, especially since the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament quote and/or paraphrase parts of the OT in many places. To get saved, people would need enough knowledge to recognize their sinfulness, repent of it, and turn to the true God through His Messiah. Gentiles with no biblical background could be reached through the revelation given to them, as is evident from Paul’s Sermon on Mars Hill (Acts 17:22-34) and his approach of knowing “nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2).
I hope that’s a decent answer.
Jul 28th, 2009
Frank
Brother Mario,
You asked how Deuteronomy 5:29 helped changed my mind. In the NASB, that verse has the LORD saying of the people rescued from Egypt, “Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever!”
As a John Gill type of Calvinist, I believed in unconditional election and irresistible grace as well as the other teachings in the acronym TULIP. Of course, I also believed in sola Scriptura and semper reformada. So, when biblical evidence showed God talking in ways inconsistent with the doctrine that He gives new hearts to people whenever He pleases and without regard to any foreseen response from those people, I began the semper reformada process of conforming my views to Scripture.
In short, I couldn’t handle Deuteronomy 5:29 just as you and the other Calvinists here apparently can’t.
Jul 29th, 2009
Glen
Frank,
That was a fine answer. I would agree with you 100%. Here’s why I was asking…
If the Truth of God is the entireity of the Bible and God hides and reveals this Truth then I ask how you can say what you said eailer..
“I agree both that God hides the truth (Matthew 11:25) and that people must know the truth of their sin before they can repent. How may people know of their sins? From the Law, which was known to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”
If we know our sins by knowing the Law (to which I would agree) and the Law is part of the Truth that God hides and reveals, then how can we know our sin in light of the Law that God reveals and hides? Does he reveal it to us, we reject it, then He hides it? Exaclty how would you say that process works?
As for Deut 5:29, I will be honest and admit that I have not studied that particular verse enough to discuss it with you, but I do have a question. In Gen 3:9 God asks Adam where he was. Does this mean that God did not already know where Adam was? My point being that could not Deut 5:29 be rhetorical?
Jul 29th, 2009
Frank
Brother Glen,
You asked: “If we know our sins by knowing the Law (to which I would agree) and the Law is part of the Truth that God hides and reveals, then how can we know our sin in light of the Law that God reveals and hides? Does he reveal it to us, we reject it, then He hides it? Exaclty how would you say that process works?”
To me, that’s what the Bible teaches. It’s why we read, “The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that they may all be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 ESV). It’s why we also read that God has given up people to depravity and idolatry for their rejection of Him and His truth (Romans 1:21-31).
Dr. Vic Reasoner goes into this in great detail in his book A Fundamental Wesleyan Commentary on Romans (ISBN 0-9629383-9-4), especially in his analysis of the Hebrew verbs qashah, kabed, and chazaq as regards the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. Here’s part of it:
You continued: “As for Deut 5:29, I will be honest and admit that I have not studied that particular verse enough to discuss it with you, but I do have a question. In Gen 3:9 God asks Adam where he was. Does this mean that God did not already know where Adam was? My point being that could not Deut 5:29 be rhetorical?
“Rhetorical” doesn’t seem a fitting word for this verse. Because the verse is a wish rather than a question, it can’t be a question asked for effect or emphasis instead of for information; besides, the verse lacks the eloquence or wordplay characteristic of rhetoric. John Gill considered the verse an example of God’s sarcasm, based on the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aben_ezra). You can find Gill’s comments here:
http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=de&chapter=005&verse=029
But are Gill and the rabbi right? The ESV Study Bible, whose notes are Calvinistic, comments: “God’s wish is that their [the Israelites] holy and appropriate fear at the theophany of Horeb would become a permanent fear of the Lord in their hearts (see note on 1:20-21).” Apparently the ESV annotators consider God’s wish sincere.
To me, the sincerity seems reasonable from the context. Moses had received the Ten Commandments on the mountain (Deuteronomy 5:1-22). When he descended, he found the Israelites so frightened that they requested, “Go near and hear all the LORD our God will say and speak to us all that the LORD our God will speak to you, and we will hear and do it” (5:27). Aware of their words, God told Moses, “I have heard the words of this people, which they have spoken to you. They are right in all that they have spoken” (5:28). Unless God was being sarcastic in saying the Israelites had spoken rightly, I don’t see how Deuteronomy 5:29 could be an example of sarcasm. Besides, God’s wish in Deuteronomy 5:29 seems similar to the sorrow He expresses in Psalm 81:8-16 over Israel’s unrepentance.
I hope this information helps.
In Christ,
Frank
Jul 30th, 2009
Reply to “George Bryson and James White’s Closing Argument”