[Note to those readers outside the CD community: we are teaching our way through Romans, and thus the topics of election and predestination are on the front burner for many in our community. It might be wise to refrain from commenting without first listening to some of the sermons which unfold the text and establish a common base for conversation.]
One of my goals in the coming weeks is to post various quotes on the blog that will ignite reflection and prayer on the subject of election/predestination. If you have thoughts or questions you’d like to throw out for discussion, don’t be shy! Let’s hash through this in ways that further the glory of God and the benefit of our community.
Here’s a quote to start the conversation. In his Commentary on Romans, Martin Luther writes, “There are yet three thoughts that should be considered in connection with the subject of divine predestination…”
First, there are the proofs of God’s unchangeable election, gathered from the words of Scripture and His divine works. [He goes on to quote Scripture for 3 paragraphs, referencing Romans 9:8, 9:15, 9:18; John 13:18; John 10:27-29; 2 Timothy 2:19; Matthew 26:14; and Luke 23:41.]
The second thought is that all objections to predestination proceed from the wisdom of the flesh. Hence, whoever does not deny himself and does not learn to keep his thoughts in subjection to the divine will, never will find an answer to his questions. And that rightly so, for the foolish wisdom of the flesh exalts itself above God and judges his will, just as though this were of little importance… For this reason the Apostle refutes all objections with two brief statements [Rom 9:20 and 21].
The third thought is that this doctrine is indeed most bitter to the wisdom of the flesh… But [the flesh] is fully defeated when we learn to know that our salvation rests in no wise upon ourselves and our conduct, but is founded solely upon what is outside us, namely, on God’s election. Those who have the wisdom of the Spirit become ineffably happy through this doctrine…
If one fears that he is not elected or is otherwise troubled about his election, he should be thankful that he has such fear, for then he should surely know that God cannot lie when in Psalm 51:17 He says: “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” Thus [the fearful] should cheerfully cast himself on the faithfulness of God who gives this promise… It is not the characteristic of reprobates to tremble at the secret counsel of God; but that is the characteristic of the elect.
LUTHER’S FIRST POINT
No one denies that the Scriptures discuss election. The question is how we are elected. Luther’s point seems to beg the question.
LUTHER’S SECOND POINT
I think that it is funny that Luther attacks objections to predestination as “wisdom of the flesh.” The reason that I have difficulty with predestination is out of what I have learned from Jesus and the Scriptures. In fact, predestination seems like the kind of doctrine that would especially appeal to my flesh.
The teaching of the Scriptures seems to be that God cares about seeking and saving the world, not just a special group of people (as many of the Jews in Jesus’s day believed for example). One of Jesus’s revolutionary ideas is the universal brotherhood of mankind. Instead of a tribal love for those like me (and fear of those not like me); I should realize that everyone else is a fellow creation of God. This expansive love is challenging, and it is a lesson from God that changed the world.
In the flesh, I tend to have an “us/them” mentality. I see myself as better than others–not only for the things I have accomplished that others have not, but even for things that I cannot take credit for. It is this latter attitude that is perhaps more dangerous (and incidentally it is also usually the root of the former attitude). And so we separate ourselves from each other by our economic situations, ethnic identities, religious beliefs, etc. When I follow Jesus, I learn to love others and give them chances to learn how to love God. I do not learn to see the world as elect (“us”) and damned (“them”). And I learn to believe that God can provide for all who come to him.
LUTHER’S THIRD POINT
Here Luther seems to imply that those who do not believe in predestination do not defeat the flesh by knowing that salvation is from God. Luther’s conclusion on this point probably stems largely from his belief in total depravity (though I’m not sure if he uses that phrase himself).
As God’s creation we have good in us. We have the ability to reason, to love, to appreciate beauty, and so on. Following Jesus teaches us to do all of these things better. Just about all of us have the innate ability to recognize the beauty of a sunset, so too do we have the ability to recognize the beauty of God’s way. The question that the Scriptures ask is will we respond to God’s way by following Jesus. And as I walk with Jesus, together we cultivate the good in me (and in the world) and weed out the evil. So the kingdom of heaven spreads.
Luther’s doctrine of predestination does not seem bitter to my flesh. It seems bitter to the part of me that has embraced Jesus and his vision for the world and my life. The vision of a world where the kingdom of heaven is all around us waiting to be tasted. Not a world in which God delights in witholding his mercy from some so that he can give it to others.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately I guess that Luther’s ideas about predestination worked for him. Coming from his background it was important for him to escape from any kind of works-based salvation. Nevertheless, his ideas are based on a faulty understanding of the Gospels, of Paul, and of God’s nature. We would do well to try to find a more balanced view that integrates a proper understanding of the Scriptures with our reason and experience.
I’ll do it for Bob and Will…
…who are you?!?!
Making a post like that, which attacks the original post without even giving a name is what’s known as a keyboard commando on the ole interweb. đ
Travis, who are you? I don’t know you, and your name doesn’t mean anything to me. You don’t know me, and my name would mean nothing to you. What do you need to know besides the ideas that I spent time coming up with and typing?
You can see what I wrote, respond to that. What I wrote reflects what I think, and as a man thinketh….
If Bob and Will don’t want any posts that challenge what they wrote, they can delete what I wrote. I was kind of hoping that people who disagreed with what I wrote would respond to it instead of censoring it though.
I am not sure what I believe on predestination. My instincts tell me that I shouldn’t believe it. The college I go to teaches against it, the church that I go to the “restoration movement” churches don’t believe it.
I don’t necessarily like professors, or pastors who tell me what I should believe, but would teach me how to think for myself. Is that being done in this sermon series? Knowing Bob I am sure it is.
I haven’t wrestled with the scriptures enough to come up with what I believe on election.
What do you guys think the difference between “foreknowing” and “predestining”
Also, do I see it correctly in this analogy?
Reformed theology would say that we were sinking in the bottom of the ocean, and God came down and scooped us up saving us.
Others might say that we were drowning on the surface and God threw out a life preserver and we grabbed it.
Would that be saying that we took part in our salvation, thus taking away something from what God did for us?
Also, is Calvinist even a correct term to use anymore?
I don’t have a lot of time to listen to all the sermons, forgive me, if someone can answer these questions I can be better informed in this conversation, as it is interesting, and I am working through how important it really is in the grand scheme of things, because I am not so sure.
Anonymous poster,
We do have a sort of unwritten rule around here that you identify yourself as you post, even if you’re from outside the Coram Deo community and therefore your name “wouldn’t mean anything.” For us, it helps to know whether you’re a part of our community or not, and therefore whether you’re interacting with all the thinking we are doing together (preaching, MC’s, blog) or just in response to the blog posts. Context is everything.
You seem to have attacked “Luther’s beliefs” without fairly exegeting the Scriptures he derived them from (Romans 3:9-20; Jer 17:9-10; Romans 9:6-23, just to name a few). Moreover, you claim “what you have learned from Jesus and the Scriptures” as the backdrop for your comments, but you never quote any Scripture to back up your broad and sweeping assertions. Because our community reveres the Bible as the authoritative word of God, providing some clearer exegesis would be a good step toward ensuring healthy interaction with your points.
You offer some good insights that could spur hearty and helpful conversation. But you seem to leverage those points against the doctrine of election in a way that doesn’t clearly follow. For example, you claim that election leads to an “us vs. them” mentality. I would say (and I think Luther would say): not necessarily. The uncharitable arrogance of some Christians throughout history should not be laid at the feet of Romans 9 or of Dr. Luther. Properly understood, election spurs deep humility and charity toward others. (Though I agree that, improperly understood, it has been used in damaging ways).
In a future post, you might discuss the Scriptural case for the following points you made: Jesus teaching of the universal brotherhood of humankind; why Luther’s belief in total depravity is wrong; why all of us have “the innate ability… to recognize the beauty of God’s way”; and how exactly Luther’s view of the Gospels, Paul, and God’s nature was “faulty.”
More importantly, you might re-read your post and consider how your own writing has fallen victim to an “us vs. them” mentality. It seems clear that you consider anyone who shares Luther’s view to be less enlightened, and you close your post with a pretty healthy dose of self-assured moralizing: “We would do well to try to find a more balanced view that integrates a proper understanding of the Scriptures with our reason and experience.”
Regardless of how we might differ in our current understanding of doctrines like election, my hope in these blog interactions is that all of us would experience the gospel more deeply. A deeper experience of the gospel happens as we see our heart-idolatry and the ways in which we generate our own righteousness rather than humbly resting in the righteousness of Jesus. Arguments about who is theologically right and wrong often hold up a mirror to the sinful tendencies of our selfish hearts.
Anonymous person, it helps to see a name so that people know whether you’re in our community, like Bob said. You could be someone in our community who wants to discuss this within the context of the community. Or maybe you’re someone who is not in our community, yet still wants to have an honest open discussion about election and reprobation. Or maybe you’re just trolling the internet looking to pick theological fights. See how giving a name helps? Given your anonimity and attitude of your post (which you have to admit, has an “us vs them” sound to it), I automatically assume you’re of the third type of poster. Maybe I’m wrong, it happens a lot.
When I first began thinking about this subject, I was very much opposed to the reformed idea of election. I had all the same objections as most people. How could a loving God damn some people to hell and save others? How could he impede on our free will? And don’t you dare challenge my belief in free will! We are not robots damnit! Problem was, I had very little scriptural background for most of my beliefs. My objections were based on human wisdom and emotions. 1 Corinthians 3:18-23 applies well here, I think. Human wisdom, based on anything or anyone other than Jesus is futile. So let’s not argue for or against Calvinism or Arminianism or whatver we want to call it ith human wisdom. Let’s be sure we are taking our thoughts and beliefs from the bible.
You all may not know me, but I am going to preface this email by noting that I am a physical education teacher in the Omaha area and have been following Jesus for the last couple years of my life. That should give me enough credibility to make a post on this blog. First of all, reading through this blog this evening created a mild adrenaline rush. So thanks to our passionate thought-provoking writers for that.
I liked how Bob prefaced this posting with the statement: âIf you have thoughts or questions you’d like to throw out for discussion, don’t be shy! Let’s hash through this in ways that further the glory of God and the benefit of our community.â
I know that this posting is not about âtotal depravity,â but I had the opportunity to visit with my in-laws this afternoon for a long while on this matter. My mother-in-law came from the same perspective of anonymous who noted, âAs God’s creation we have good in us. We have the ability to reason, to love, to appreciate beauty, and so on. Following Jesus teaches us to do all of these things better. Just about all of us have the innate ability to recognize the beauty of a sunset, so too do we have the ability to recognize the beauty of God’s way. The question that the Scriptures ask is will we respond to God’s way by following Jesus. And as I walk with Jesus, together we cultivate the good in me (and in the world) and weed out the evil. So the kingdom of heaven spreads.â
As she read Ted Trippâs book Shepherding a Childâs Heart, she became confused and concerned by the statement, âThe bible teaches that the heart is âdeceitful and desperately wickedâ (Jeremiah 17:9). We read through Romans 3 together before dinner and broke out the cross chart (on a previous post from this site) for the first time. After a long a persistent discussion through the evening you could see her begin to understand the depth of her sin and how no merit of her own could bring about her salvation. Her salvation could only be based on the election of God and the work of the gospel in her heart. This rocked her strong-Catholic faith. It is my feeling that she will be resting tonight with a stronger appreciation and love for the Holy Trinity and a deeper need for Jesus in her life. Again, just a PE Teacher, but this discussion regarding total depravity and election brought her to the point of wanting to glorify God which is a benefit to our community. Praise Jesus!
Someone tells me that I am inherently good; I am going to begin to believe that with some help from Jesus I can earn my salvation by works. Another individual tells me that my heart is inherently wicked and I naturally am bent towards sin; if convicted of this sin, I am going to fall to the foot of the cross praising Jesus for his sacrificial love and glorifying God for his predestined election.
I like how Wayne Grudem talks about how Paul presents the teaching of election in the New Testament. He notes that it is important to view this specific doctrine in the way that the New Testament itself views it. 1) As a comfort (Romans 8:28-30); 2)As a reason to praise God (Ephesians 1:5-6); and 3) As an encouragement to evangelism (2 Timothy 2:10) One thing I have learned from the gospels, Paul, Godâs Nature (specifically in my recent Old Testament reading), and SNST (miss you guys) is that God deems his own glory more important than anything, including saving everyone; and that he is glorified even more by the fact that some are not saved.
Also, Jeff I know where you are coming from. My college did not teach predestination either. It was actually an awkward balance between atheism, idolatry, and self-righteousness. Gotta love those State Universities!!!
Justin, how I have come to understand the objection to Total Depravity is not that man is inherently good- no, he is inherently evil and sinful, lacking in the ability to ever reach perfection on his own. However, man is created in God’s image as a divine creature, owing his life to the very breath of God that brought with it life.
Anonymous’ wasn’t questioning the fact that all men are dead in their sins, he was questioning the depth of that death. Calvinism would teach totality, whereas a single act of selfless love on the part of a non-Christian would prove contrary to such claims. No one denies that said unbeliever is dead in sins, but his ability to love selflessly proves he is not totally depraved.
Moving along, stealing this from a wonderful site I found via google:
“If man has nothing to do with his repentance because the ability to repent is Godâs gift, then why did Paul so often reason with the Jews from the Scriptures to prove that Jesus was the Messiah (e.g., see Acts 17:2-4)? Why did he attempt to âpersuade menâ (2 Cor. 5:11) and beg people to be âreconciled to Godâ? (2 Cor. 5:20). Why do we read in Acts 28:24 (as Paul reasoned with the Jews about Jesus), âAnd some were being persuaded by the things spoken, but others would not believeâ? Why did Paul write, âI have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save someâ (1 Cor. 9:22, emphasis added)? Why did he write that the Jews hindered him from âspeaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved (1 Thes. 2:16)?”
And again:
“Jesus pronounced woe upon all the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida because they didnât repent, obviously indicating He believed they had the capacity to repent (see Matt. 11:21). He also declared that the wicked people of Tyre and Sidon, who didnât repent, would have repented if they had seen miracles like the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida had seen!”
What I have seen in the Bible is a God who grants salvation only to those who repent. A God who, while knowing who will and will not repent, still demands submission and repentance from us, prior to salvation. What Calvinism, in my studies, seems to boil down to is that I repent because I’m saved already, predestined to do so. I repent only because I’m saved already, and have been since time immemorial. However, this seems to contradict the Biblical teaching that salvation follows repentance. I am saved because I repent, not the other way around.
The Bible also clearly says that ‘all’ who call on the name of the Lord will be saved. Not those the Lord chooses, but all who call on the name. Not all that God causes to call out, but those that call out on their own volition.
Also contrary to Scriptural teachings is the idea that if God indeed controls it all (as Calvinism maintains, for if He’s not Lord of all, He’s not Lord at all, apparently), then He alone is the architect of sin. It is God who rapes women and children, it is God who murders loved ones in their beds, it is God who commits adultery, etc.
It seems to me that Calvinists cannot distinguish between control and causation. God exists outside of time, and knows all. He has a divine plan, and His will wins out in the end. But the Bible also says that it is God’s will for none to perish. If God allows a choice, he is still in control, as without His control, there would be no choice available.
And as He already knows the choice that will be made, where does the lack of control come in?
And if the Holy Spirit is irresistible, why do we evangelize? Those elected WILL be saved, no matter the situation, so there is no point in our teaching or preaching the Gospel. But Paul makes it clear throughout his epistles that there is no salvation without the Gospel being preached. So if I will be saved, and there’s nothing men can do to facilitate this salvation, why preach?
I’ve heard it argued that the preaching is then the means God uses to bring us to Him, but this means that men had a part in bringing about salvation, and this is contrary to the doctrine of Predestination. A means that does nothing to bring about change is meaningless.
And then of course, the idea that the Spirit is irresistible always is contradicted in Acts:
Acts 7:51 “[You] stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers [did], so [do] you
Or where we are told not to quench the Spirit. If the Spirit is irresistible, I can not quench it of my own volition.
A wonderful site (not the same one I quoted from earlier) that talks very critically of Calvinism:
http://www.allanturner.com/calbk_5.html
Bob, if thatâs the unwritten rule, okay. Let it be written, let it be done. As you can see, I’m no longer anonymous. Also, probably not a surprise, Iâm not part of the Coram Deo community. I don’t know anything about you all except what I’ve gathered from your website. I like your blog.
â[C]onsider how your own writing has fallen victim to an âus vs. themâ mentality. It seems clear that you consider anyone who shares Lutherâs view to be less enlightened, and you close your post with a dose of self-assured moralizingâŚ.â
I disagree with Lutherâs view and think that anyone who shares it is wrong. How does that create an âus v. themâ mentality? I would still be friends with, worship with, talk with, and blog with people who disagree with me. I might even eat with people who disagree with me occasionally.
Frequently I take time to look myself in the mirror and recognize that many of my beliefs may be wrong. They may be very wrong. They may be completely, absolutely off-base, dead-wrong. And when I think that I may just be right. We are all fallible and in search of truth. Nevertheless, we all do the best we can with the reason and experience that we have. If you agree with Lutherâs view, I donât know if your less enlightened than I am, but I do think youâre wrong.
And because I disagree with Lutherâs view I do think that we would do well to find a more balanced view. I believe that. Surely to believe something, act on it, and encourage others to do the same does not make me a self-assured moralizer. Unless that was a compliment?
âYou seem to have attacked âLuther’s beliefsâ without fairly exegeting the Scriptures he derived them from (Romans 3:9-20; Jer 17:9-10; Romans 9:6-23, just to name a few).â
Properly exegeting passages takes a lot more time than I have, and I doubt that anyone would want to read it all. But hereâs a brief look at these passages.
Romans 3:9-20. Iâm not sure how this passage supports Lutherâs thoughts. In this part of his letter, Paul points out that we are all under sin. (This, by the way, reinforces Jesusâ teaching about the universal brother of humanity). The law does not cure our sin; it reveals our sin. I think that it is telling in this passage that Paul recognizes one of the key aspects of following Jesus, consciousness of sin. At the end of verse 20 Paul has masterfully brought all mankind (Jew and Gentile) before Godâs judgment. What are we to do? Following these verses Paul answers the question by drawing our attention to the Messiah, the true faithful Israelite.
Romans 9:6-23. This passage is often misunderstood because it is not taken in its proper context. As you wrote, âContext is everything.â Verses 9:6 through 10:4 center on Paulâs argument that God has been righteous and kept his covenant promises, that his word has not failed. Jews should realize that God has done his part in keeping his covenant promises made to Abraham through Isaac and then Jacob. When Paul asks the question, âIs God unjust?â who is he speaking to? Not to those who are concerned with whether it is fair that God hated Esau. He is speaking to Jews, and the obvious answer at this point is that God has not been unjust to them but has kept his covenant promises. Look at verse 15. Paul reminds the Jews of one of Godâs most gracious acts in the Old Testament; he shows Moses his glory. The covenant promises do not depend on manâs desire or effort; God has kept his word. And then Paul mentions pharaoh. Many people have trouble with the language that refers to God hardening pharaohâs heart. In response to that I would point out two things. First, look back at Exodus. Contrast Exodus 7:13; 8:15, 19, 32; and 9:7 with 9:12, 35; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; and 14:4. Notice that God does at some point harden pharaohâs heart, but it is also clear that pharaoh hardens his own heart against God first. God tells Moses that God will harden pharaohâs heart so that the Egyptians will know who the true God is. (Ex. 14:4) Paul recounts the hardening of pharaohâs heart to remind the Jews that Godâs original purpose for his covenant promise had been that God might bless Abraham and through Abraham bless the world. (Gen. 12:3) In verse 19 Paul anticipates a response to his argument that God has indeed kept his word and been faithful to his covenant promises. Verses 20-32 answer that question. Paul reminds his hypothetical interlocutor that he owes his very existence to God in verses 20-21. (This reminds me of Godâs answer to Job.) Then Paul springs off of this question to continue his argument about Godâs righteous fulfillment of his covenant promises in those who have answered Godâs call (to all humanity) to follow Jesus. Ultimately his argument crescendos in verses 10:3-4 when Paul returns to his earlier idea of righteousness that has been made available through the Messiah, the culmination of his covenant promises. The Messiah who is followed by faith and belief and who is the âend of the law.â
Jeremiah 17:9-10. I donât know a lot about Jeremiah and his overall context or his specific meaning when he uses the word heart, but hereâs what Iâve got on these verses. I think that some versions say that the heart is deceitful and others that the heart is sick or wicked maybe? Verse 10 sheds a lot of light on verse 9. We can only judge each other based on the conduct we see, the deeds we observe. The motivations and desires that drives those deeds is often hidden to us as we look at others and even when we evaluate our own actions. God is able to reward us according to what we deserve because he is able to judge not only our deeds, but he is able to search the heart and examine the mind. Does Luther use this passage to buttress an idea of total depravity? Itâs not there. In fact, the passage seems to indicate the very opposite, that God is able to reward those who trust in him with their heart, mind, and soul. This reminds me of Jesusâ teaching in the sermon on the mount and elsewhere in the Gospels.
â[Y]ou claim that election leads to an âus vs. themâ mentality.â
I do not believe that election necessarily leads to an us vs. them mentality. My point was that my flesh has a divisive, us/them way of seeing the world that starkly contrasts with Jesusâs teaching that Godâs love is for everyone. (see Luke 10:30-37; 17:16) I donât believe that election leads to an us/them mentality, but it is a view that appeals to my flesh. For many years I lived my life harboring an unhealthy pride that I was a Christian and that so many others were not. The doctrine of election appeals to that part of me. That is why it is funny to me when Luther claims that âall objections to predestination proceed from the wisdom of the flesh.â If anything, my flesh rejoices in predestination because it separates me from so many who werenât chosen. My objections to predestination stem not from my flesh, but from what I have learned by following Jesus. Iâm sure you want a more detail about that so⌠(to be continued)
P.S. Travis, you wrote that we should be sure that we are taking our thoughts and beliefs from the bible. Even if we agree that everything in the bible is true, there is more to the world than just what the bible says. You can only read the bible because you learned how to read and write. You can put together thoughts and reflect on the bible because of the reason that God has given you. You can read the words on your computer because God gave you senses. Sola Scriptura does not mean Nolo Mundum. (I totally made up that last phrase but it’s supposed to mean “nothing of the world”). The bible is a gift from God, but it’s not his only gift.
John Sebesta wrote: “Anonymous’ wasn’t questioning the fact that all men are dead in their sins, he was questioning the depth of that death. Calvinism would teach totality, whereas a single act of selfless love on the part of a non-Christian would prove contrary to such claims.”
John, you have fallen victim to a caricature of total depravity. This doctrine does not teach that humans are as bad as they could possibly be. Nor does it deny the Imago Dei in every human. Rather, it says that every part of the human person – mind, will, emotions, dispositions, inclinations, etc – is marred by sin, and therefore it is impossible for any human being to turn to God or to exercise faith in God without God’s prior work of regeneration.
We are not teaching “isms” around here, we are teaching the Bible, so if someone wants to expound how Romans 9:10-13 teaches something BESIDES unconditional election, bring it. Otherwise, let’s not get sidetracked by arguing about Calvinism or any other isms which tend to be clear as mud because of all the misunderstandings out there.
John, thanks for taking the time to post. Appreciate your involvement in the conversation.
Craig,
Good to “meet” you! Welcome to the blog. Thanks for chiming in. And thanks for giving a little more support for your points. I can see you are well-versed in NT Wright and his counterparts (Dunn, Sanders, et al), and those godly gentlemen make some very good points in understanding Romans. However, I think there are some areas where their thinking is flawed, and therefore yours as well. (For instance, Romans 9 is not only about God’s keeping of his covenantal promises. It is also about individual salvation, because what prompts all of chapters 9-11 is Paul’s anguish that some of his kinsmen are cut off from Christ (Rom 9:1-5)! Saying that this chapter is ONLY about corporate/national issues limits the text in a way unwarranted by the writer).
But to be honest, this blog is not the place for hashing out that stuff. If you would be interested in drinking coffee sometime and talking through Romans 9 together, let me know.
The trouble with a blog is what has happened to this thread (no disrespect intended to Craig, John, and others): outside posters don’t have the same context, because they are not part of the learning community which has been working through these matters together. In preaching and studying through Romans over the past year, we in the Coram Deo community have covered much of the ground you guys are posting about. It’s inefficient for me to re-hash all that thinking here, especially since we’ve put all the sermons online.
So I guess I would say: thanks to you guys for being part of the interaction and offering your thoughts. But as I said in the original post: “It might be wise to refrain from commenting without first listening to some of the sermons which unfold the text and establish a common base for conversation.” Offering disagreements about a) “Calvinism” or b) the proper understanding of the scope and nature of Romans is of no benefit to the rest of us who have been hashing through these matters together since last year.
“P.S. Travis, you wrote that we should be sure that we are taking our thoughts and beliefs from the bible. Even if we agree that everything in the bible is true, there is more to the world than just what the bible says. You can only read the bible because you learned how to read and write. You can put together thoughts and reflect on the bible because of the reason that God has given you. You can read the words on your computer because God gave you senses. Sola Scriptura does not mean Nolo Mundum. (I totally made up that last phrase but it’s supposed to mean “nothing of the world”). The bible is a gift from God, but it’s not his only gift.”
Craig, I get what you’re saying here. God has most certainly given me the reason and intelligence to understand what I read and hear. But, I also know that my reason is faulty and imperfect. I firmly believe in total depravity. Every part of us has been touched by sin because of The Fall. We are, by nature, sinful because of Adam’s first sin. It seems to me that Paul is pretty clear on that in Romans. Even though you don’t buy total depravity, you have to at least admit that no one is perfect and so no one’s reason is perfect either. The bible is the God’s word and perfect, right? It never changes like our culture and our understanding does. I believe we need to hold it over our own imperfect reasoning. We need to hold it above us as our ultimate authority in everything it talks about. So, any conclusion I make about these matters of election needs to conform to anything and everything the bible has to say. I know that the bible doesn’t have something to say about every little thing we would want to know about. But I do believe that the bible tells us everything we need to know.
Wait…i actually really enjoy this conversation and aprecieate listening to points made by people who are not in the coram deo community. just as we ought to read old books because they are removed from our contexts, we should also listen to points of view people from other regions and contexts as well. yes, we have been going through romans for a while now, but we are not they only people with the ability to read romans. all christians have access to it, and i would be interested in an expansion on your disagreement with craig…precisely because he is operating from a different context. what benefit is it to only discuss something with people who agree with you? if you would like, imagine that the objections were made by someone within the community.
Bob wrote:
“John, you have fallen victim to a caricature of total depravity. This doctrine does not teach that humans are as bad as they could possibly be. Nor does it deny the Imago Dei in every human. Rather, it says that every part of the human person – mind, will, emotions, dispositions, inclinations, etc – is marred by sin, and therefore it is impossible for any human being to turn to God or to exercise faith in God without God’s prior work of regeneration.
We are not teaching “isms” around here, we are teaching the Bible, so if someone wants to expound how Romans 9:10-13 teaches something BESIDES unconditional election, bring it. Otherwise, let’s not get sidetracked by arguing about Calvinism or any other isms which tend to be clear as mud because of all the misunderstandings out there.”
I do not understand how what I said about TOTAL depravity is a caricature. If EVERY action, will, emotion, etc (as you wrote), is marred by sin, then how can the depraved do anything BUT sin, in every situation? It would, therefore, be impossible for a totally depraved man to EVER choose the sinless path, and it would be impossible for a depraved man to do anything out of selfless motives, as sin itself is, in it’s purest form, selfish above all else. Any selfless action would be beyond the ability of a depraved man.
Total depravity is either total, or it’s not.
As for unconditional election, how could the following verses be reconciled to such a claim?
All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him (Is. 53:6).
For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost (Matt. 18:11)
The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, âBehold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!â (John 1:29).
For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him (John 3:17).
I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world (John 12:47).
For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all (Rom. 11:32).
For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf (2 Cor. 5:14-15).
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time (1 Tim. 2:5-6).
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men (Tit. 2:11)
But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone (Heb. 2:9).
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves (2 Pet. 2:1).
He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
Each of those verses claims Christ died for all, for the world, even for the false prophets and teachers. This seems to me to be quite contrary to unconditional election?
Now, for Romans 10:9-13. You wrote that it was about more than just God keeping the covenantal promise to the Jews. I agree. Here Paul is showing to the Jews that God is just. The Jews were complaining that God was unjust because He was giving saving grace to Gentiles, and not to all Jews. Paul says ‘hold on!’ and shows the Jews that if the Jewish train of thought is correct, God was unjust to choose Jacob, the younger, over Esau, the older. Paul is also showing to his readers that works are meaningless, as a casual reading through Jacob’s life shows him to be just as bad, if not worse, as everyone else. God does not choose based on merit.
The Jews would believe that because they were descended from Isaac (as Paul discusses in the verses prior to the ones you brought up), they were saved and secure. But Paul points out that Esau, too, was a descendant of Isaac, and He was left out of the picture. Paul is illustrating that God has the sovereign right to make His choices, regardless of what any man thinks, and that neither physical lineage nor doing some good works guarantees His blessing.
We should also look into the verse Paul is quoting here in Romans.
âTwo nations are in your womb; and two peoples shall be separated from your body; and one people shall be stronger than the other; and the older shall serve the youngerâ (Gen. 25:23)
I think it unfair to leave off verse 14 from Romans 9, in order to prove unconditional election.
âWhat shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!â (9:14)
If Unconditional election is true, then God is indeed unjust, creating people just so He may torment them for eternity in Hell. Especially as the Bible tells us that God is not willing for anyone to perish. If it is not God’s will for anyone to perish, yet, as we cannot deny, people do spend eternity in Hell, then clearly God does not pick and choose freely whom He will and will not save. For if you have unconditional election, you must have unconditional reprobation.
I find it much more Biblically accurate to say that yes, God knows who will and will not be saved, He exists outside time, and Scriptures clearly show Him to be all-knowing. Yet this does not mean he causes these people to be saved or not saved. For the Bible is clear that we must believe before we can be justified. WE must believe in HIM. WE must humble ourselves.
Yes, Scriptures say that believers were chosen before time to be loved. Does that mean each individual believer had his life set in stone by God before He was created, God Himself choosing who would, and would not, submit to Him?
I think not. It seems much closer to Biblical truth to say that God chose the Believers before time to be His. As in, He chose those who would believe in Him, not He chose those to believe in Him.
It’s an easy reconciliation, and one that harmonizes much better with the overwhelming Biblical evidence that Christ died for ALL, and not just the elect.
(As an aside, I would just like to have you know that I listen to the podcast of your sermon every week. I was turned on to Will Walker through Campus Crusade at our Oklahoma State University Cru fall retreat, where he was the speaker, and at DWC, where I attended his workshop. I bought his book, and have found it to be one of the most impressionable and meaningful books I have read. Having done such, I found the ‘Musings’ blog, and from there was linked to this blog, and the sermons on podcast. As such, I am fully aware of where you have taught and gone through Romans 9, I just tend to put all the letters of TULIP together, as it seems that one cannot exist without the preceding ‘letter’, and as such, this seemed a quite clear advocacy of Calvinism. Hence the usage of the ‘ism’. Though I listen to your sermon weekly, that does not mean I agree with it weekly, and have often disagreed with your thoughts on Romans.)
John,
Good thoughts. Thanks for your copious quoting of Scripture. I can see you are wrestling well with these things. And thanks for your kind words about Will. He is an absolute stud and the Coram Deo community is blessed to have his deep insight and wisdom.
Christ died for all, and God desires that all will be saved. AND, God unconditionally elects who will be saved. I will try to clear all this up in a further post. I simply wish to point out that your attempt at harmonization does not absolve God of fault.
“I find it much more Biblically accurate to say that yes, God knows who will and will not be saved, He exists outside time, and Scriptures clearly show Him to be all-knowing. Yet this does not mean he causes these people to be saved or not saved.” So God has a WILL that people would be saved, yet he does not CAUSE them to be saved? What exactly, then, is he willing?
To reason through this quagmire well, you have to see that the issue that opens God to the charge of being unjust is not election or non-election. It is the existence of hell. If God COULD save everyone, but doesn’t, (either because HE chooses not to or because THEY choose not to believe in him), how is that loving? Either way, God could save people from being in hell, but chooses not to. What rises the feeling of injustice in our hearts is not HOW people end up in hell, but the very fact that they end up there at all.
You are asking good questions and wrestling with Scripture in a very healthy way. If I could humbly suggest some reading that might take you further in thinking carefully through these matters, I would suggest two works of Jonathan Edwards: his book entitled “The Freedom of the Will,” and his sermon entitled “The End of the Wicked Contemplated by the Righteous.”
“I find it much more Biblically accurate to say that yes, God knows who will and will not be saved, He exists outside time, and Scriptures clearly show Him to be all-knowing. Yet this does not mean he causes these people to be saved or not saved.”
If an omnipotent being does not directly cause an act or inaction, is not his inaction a cause in itself? Hypothetically, if you were to know about a crime before it was commited and had the power to stop it and you did nothing, doesn’t your inaction make you, at least in part, responisble fo the crime? Magnify that to God, who is infinite and omnipotent and I don’t think we can try to “excuse” God by saying he does not cause people to be saved or not saved directly.
“If Unconditional election is true, then God is indeed unjust”
I think we have to be careful with what perspective we take on this. We cannot define justice and then fit God to that definition. We already know that God is just. We have to work from that fact outwards using Scripture to see how that justice is worked out. I have come to the conclusion so far that God is just in his unconditional election because I believe that is what scripture teaches.
I am enjoying this discussion a lot! It is really stretching me to keep thinking!
Bob said:
“So God has a WILL that people would be saved, yet he does not CAUSE them to be saved? What exactly, then, is he willing? “
It seems to me that when the Bible says that God’s will is for all to be saved, and reconciled to him, ‘will’ is more analogous to ‘desires’ than ’causes’. For clearly if God wills for none to perish, but some do, as the Bible teaches, then God isn’t willing all to salvation.
And, since we have established that God desires for none to perish, how does that square with unconditional election? If God desires us all to be saved, but most are not, does this mean that God’s desires and his actions are inconsistent? Human desires and actions are inconsistent because we are fallen. God is not.
No one denies that God COULD bring us all to salvation ‘against our will’. But, again, if God desires all to be saved, and none to perish, but most perish anyway…
The only reason I could see this happening is if men themselves must somehow accept this God themselves. For then the majority would not, as we can see from history and Scripture.
Travis said:
“
If an omnipotent being does not directly cause an act or inaction, is not his inaction a cause in itself? Hypothetically, if you were to know about a crime before it was commited and had the power to stop it and you did nothing, doesn’t your inaction make you, at least in part, responisble fo the crime? Magnify that to God, who is infinite and omnipotent and I don’t think we can try to “excuse” God by saying he does not cause people to be saved or not saved directly.”
Let’s follow this example fully. Because if, as you said, you know there’s a crime about to happen, but do nothing, this makes you guilty of the crime itself, is that exactly what Unconditional election would teach? That God Himself is responsible for my sinful actions? This idea makes God the sole perpetrator and architect of sin.
This does not square with the Biblical concept of a perfect and blameless creator God.
I don’t know exactly how it works. It does seem as though God would be responsible for my sins by my earlier thoughts, but I also know that the bible says that God is not responsible for my sins, so obviously that conclusion from my earlier statement is wrong.
All I know is that the bible seems to teach that God is completely sovereign, yet we are held responsible for our sins. I’m not sure how that works together and I’m not sure I’ll ever understand, and I’m cool with that. God is waaaay bigger than I will ever understand and really, some confusion on how he works should be expected. đ
John S. wrote
“If Unconditional election is true, then God is indeed unjust, creating people just so He may torment them for eternity in Hell. Especially as the Bible tells us that God is not willing for anyone to perish. If it is not God’s will for anyone to perish, yet, as we cannot deny, people do spend eternity in Hell, then clearly God does not pick and choose freely whom He will and will not save. For if you have unconditional election, you must have unconditional reprobation.”
It would appear that 2 Peter 3:9 is being alluded to. Yes? Assuming so, please attend to Peter’s opening in 2 Peter 1:1 To those who have obtained like precious faith with us . . . | Peter is addressing this epistle to believers (the elect). And again in 2 Peter 3:1 Beloved, I now write to you . . . | and moving ahead to 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.| Indeed, God is not willing that any of His elect should perish and that all of His elect shall come to repentance.
Our Heavenly Father knows the exact number of those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world and He will certainly be longsuffering until creation/procreation/redemption have fulfilled that number and “all” have come to repentance.
Also, if God is not unconditionally electing some to honor/glory and the balance to dishoner/destruction, then Romans 9:19-24 makes no sense and God is not omnipotent but impotent.
Lastly, for now, if God did not create light and darkness, heaven and hell, mercy and wrath, redeemed and damned, the former could not be comprehended apart from the later, and “the riches of His glory” would not be known by the vessels of mercy/ the elect/ those who have obtained like precious faith.
Keep diggin’ into the Word.
God bless you, Chad Hansen
Bob, I get the message. Thanks for the coffee invite. Maybe I’ll take you up on it sometime. For now though, scratch the “to be continued.” I’ll limit any future posts so as not to interrupt the discussion.
Travis, our reasoning is certainly imperfect. But how can you say, “we need to hold it [the Bible] over our own imperfect understanding.” What does that mean? Our reasoning is imperfect, but we cannot hold the bible over our reasoning, only our interpretation of the bible. I’m not saying this to attack the authority of the bible, far from it. But the fact is, that in order to interpret the bible each of us has to use our imperfect reason and experience and pray that God leads us as we seek truth in his word. When you speak of holding the bible as your ultimate authority, please separate the objective truth (which we cannot fully and absolutely know in this life) from the subjective truth (which we do our best to align with the objective, absolute truth of God’s reality).
Every part of us is touched by the evil of the Fall, but every part of us has also been touched by the goodness of Creation.
Bob, by the way, two things:
1) I’ll try out the sermons.
2) Where does your individual salvation slant come from? Unless it’s buried in the Greek, it’s just not there. In Romans 9:1-5, Paul isn’t grieved because of a kinsman or some of his kinsmen. HIS words are “my brethren”, “my kinsmen according to the flesh.” Throughout Romans 9:1 through 10:4 his language is exclusively corporate/national and that’s how I interpret it. An individual interpretation ADDS to the passage in a way unwarranted by the writer.
Craig,
Hey, I’m serious on the coffee, so take me up on it.
So why exactly would you say Paul is grieved and anguished and willing to be cut off from Christ? Is it because… his kinsmen have forfeited their corporate/national role? Or is it because they, as individual Israelites, have rejected Christ and are therefore cut off from all the eternal covenant blessings which come through union with him?
John, Iâm glad youâre posting. A voice of dissent leads us to reexamine our own convictions. Here are a few thoughts in response to your commentâŚ
As I understand it, the âtotalâ in Total Depravity refers to the breadth of our brokenness, rather than the depth- every part of us is fallen, but our depravity is not absolute. This definition allows for individual good actions, but also is in accordance with Scriptureâs stance that no one apart from God is righteous before God. The Bible allows for unbelievers to do some good (Luke 6:33), but I challenge you to find any instance of an unbeliever earning any sort of merit or righteousness- and it is in the sense of this complete lack of righteousness that total depravity is best understood.
Also, I take issue with your implied definition of sin (sin = selfishness). Some sin, idol worship for example, is not selfish. Nor is all self interest sin (âlay up for yourselves treasure in heavenâ). Also, Godâs highest goal is his own glory, which is selfish, in a way, and he is without sin. Sin = selfishness is too narrow a definition.
Grudem defines sin as any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude or nature, a definition that includes all manner of sin. Our guilt here is total- we cannot please God (Rom 8:8, Heb 11:6). Again, acts of good are still possible, but are not pleasing or meritorious to God (Is 64:6).
If you disagree with total depravity, please explain how you read Romans 1-3.
Arenât the verses you reference more about the Atonement and its extent, rather then election? Your argument seems to be that these passages show that Christ died for everyone, providing the opportunity for salvation through a response on the part of man (the condition in conditional election). The reformed position, of course, is that Christâs atoning work is limited to the elect. It seems like the first question is for whom did Christ die?
Did Christ die for all/the world literally (every person), or did Christ die for all (who come to him)? The first doesnât seem like it could be the case. In John 17:9, Christ specifically excludes the world in his prayer. So the all/everyone/world language in the passages you quoted means something other than the literal meaning, or the âworldâ in this verse does. I donât see how this verse can be taken any other way than the literal meaning- clearly, Christ is distinguishing between those whom the father has given (interesting language, that) and some other group- a limited atonement. I could see the language in the verses you quoted, however, to describe the availability of salvation through Christâs death to any who would seek it (i.e., no one who comes will be turned away). As for the false teachers verse, do you read it to mean that Christ died even for those who reject him? You cannot read it so (Jn 3:16, 14:6). I read it to refer to their (physical, not spiritual) inclusion in the local community of believers- dwelling among us, but never really one of us, a wolf in sheepâs clothing.
To say (as we do) that Christâs atoning sacrifice is available to any who will respond and sufficient for their justification does not contradict election, or even address the question of WHO will respond- that is the election question.
âI think not. It seems much closer to Biblical truth to say that God chose the Believers before time to be His. As in, He chose those who would believe in Him, not He chose those to believe in Him.â
This argument doesnât establish free will, it merely depersonalizes it. If God looks through time and elects those who will believe in Him, they still arenât free to choose- their foreknown actions will certainly come about. Their actions are still predetermined! Only now, instead of God ordaining their actions, something else does- fate, perhaps. This is an awfully poor trade, in my opinion.
“Travis, our reasoning is certainly imperfect. But how can you say, “we need to hold it [the Bible] over our own imperfect understanding.” What does that mean? Our reasoning is imperfect, but we cannot hold the bible over our reasoning, only our interpretation of the bible. I’m not saying this to attack the authority of the bible, far from it. But the fact is, that in order to interpret the bible each of us has to use our imperfect reason and experience and pray that God leads us as we seek truth in his word. When you speak of holding the bible as your ultimate authority, please separate the objective truth (which we cannot fully and absolutely know in this life) from the subjective truth (which we do our best to align with the objective, absolute truth of God’s reality).”
What I mean by “holding the Bible over our own imperfect understanding” is that if our reasoning takes us to a conclusion that is not supported by God’s word, then we need to conclude that our reasoning is wrong. Of course, then we need to be sure that our interpretation of the bible is as good as possible then as well. Like you said, we need to align ourselves as closely as we can with the objective truth, which I believe is possible to know, in part, through the Holy Spirit. We need to pull out of the text the fullness of what it means and try not to read into it what we want it to mean.
A couple days ago I was listening to a Driscoll sermon on John 6 that came around to this predestination stuff. As per usual, Driscoll has his own way of explaining things. đ I’m sure John and Craig will disagree with what he says but if you guys are interested in hearing it, here’s the link:
http://www.marshillchurch.org/audio/01.28.01_hard_words_driscoll.mp3
He doesn’t get into the predestination stuff until about half way into the sermon or so, in case you start listening and think I gave you the wrong link or something. đ
Bob, I’m sure that Paul is concerned about individuals that are part of the corporate/national whole. He doesn’t write that, but it is a reasonable assumption, I guess. So, I guess I would have to say “Yes” in answer to your questions. Paul is grieved that Israelites have forfeited their corporate/national role and that inidividual Israelites have rejected Christ. And it probably doesn’t really matter if you want read in individual concerns to the first 5 verses because I guess both are true. But it becomes important to be a little more careful with 9:6-10:4.
Throughout 9:6-10:4 Paul’s concern is God’s dedication to fulilling his covenant with Israel. Reading 9:6-10:4 as though Paul were talking to an individual about his or her lack of salvation is problematic on various levels. The only time that Paul talks in terms of an individual is in raising a hypothetical issue that somewhat might raise in verses 19-20. But verse 21 and the following verses, he answers the question in a corporate/national vein. This just isn’t a passage about the way that God brings about salvation in an individual way. It is about the covenant that God was faithful to, culminating in Jesus. The passage is about God’s love and patience and glory. Only when the corporate/national context is missed does it turn into something that seems like kind of a dry, philosophical proof (not that I have anything against philosophy per se).
Travis, I’ll check out the sermon if I get the chance. I always enjoy listening to a good speaker who makes me think.
Okay, now, let me try to see if I can respond to your previous post. Of course I agree that we should not read into the text what we want it to mean. Whether you’re reading the Bible, Shakespeare, a VCR manual, or a newsweek we should try to interpret what the writing means and not read into it whatever we want.
My point is that it is problematic to subjugate reason to the bible. God may have written the bible, but it is men who have assembled it. The bible may be infallible, but our decision as to what should be in the bible is fallible. If you were reading through the bible tomorrow and read a verse in Hezekiah that says, “God loves the Aryan race but hates Jews, blacks, and hispanics.” Surely you might stop and think. That doesn’t sound like a god who should be worshipped. Upon further reflection, you might even realize that statement is not consistent with the rest of the bible. Your reason might lead you to question whether or not that is really God’s word. Martin Luther himself has some serious doubts about the canonicity of certain books (though I believe that he never actually declared them unbiblical).
Reason and the bible should not be set against each other in the way you seem to suggest. Instead, they should beat in time with each other. God is a God of his word and of his truth.
Hey Craig,
Certainly agree with you that there is an important corporate/national aspect to Rom 9:6-10:4. And I definitely don’t think these verses are anything close to a “dry, philosophical proof.” But then, I don’t think any part of the Bible is dry or philosophical. đ
But: would you at least agree that Jacob and Esau are historical individuals? And is God saying something about those two individuals, even as he says something about the nations which came from them?
So are you saying that if you ran across a passage of the bible that you didn’t like, you would just throw it out?
In Malachi, God says he loves Isreal and he hates Edom. Sounds similar to your hypothetical statement about aryans and Jews, blacks, and hispanics. What do you make of that then?
Chad and Lane-
It seems to me that you’re allowing your doctrine to interpret Scripture, not the Scripture interpreting your doctrine.
Yes, many of the books were written to the Church. Does that make the words ‘world,’ ‘all,’ ‘everyone,’ et al, mean something less than what they mean? It is nowhere implied in any of these verses that world now equals only the elect, that God wishes only for the elect to not perish, etc. The Word says ‘world’ and ‘all’. To look at the verses and give new meanings to those words that are not implied, nor supported, in order to fit your preconceived doctrine is irresponsible.
Who the book/letter was addressed to is no excuse for giving words new definitions. If I wrote a book, and addressed it to my best friend, telling her that I was going to give all my (for the sake of the situation, infinite) money to ‘the world’, and she had received some money from me earlier, would she read what I had written (‘the world’)as a declaration that my ‘sacrifice’ was only for her? Especially if we had earlier stated that it was for all, and that some, unfortunately, would not accept my gift? Would she believe my term ‘the world’ only meant those who had accepted the money?
In both cases, the real and hypothetical, it is irresponsible to interpret them in the ways that you have.
As for the false prophets/teachers verse, yes, I quoted it because it says that these teachers/prophets will speak against “He who bought them”. Meaning that Christ’s sacrifice was for them as well. Whether or not they accepted it, or not, does not mean it was not for them as well.
And speaking of Mars Hills’, I really like what the other Mars Hill’s pastor, Rob Bell, has to say on this. Heaven is full of forgiven people, and Hell is full of forgiven people. The only difference is those in heaven chose to believe so, and trusted in this forgiveness, and the Forgiver, and were credited with salvation. Those in Hell did not. That doesn’t mean Christ didn’t die for them.
I see nothing in Scripture limiting Christ’s death to only those who believe. The rewards, yes, are limited to those who believe, but the sacrifice was clearly for all men.
And if, then, it was for all men, and God desires none should perish, than Biblically, this does not square with the idea that Christ only died for the elect, and God chooses those before time who shall believe in Him. For if God wills that none should perish, why would He not choose all to receive salvation? The Reformed view and Scriptures seem to be inconsistent.
Lane said:
“
This argument doesnât establish free will, it merely depersonalizes it. If God looks through time and elects those who will believe in Him, they still arenât free to choose- their foreknown actions will certainly come about. Their actions are still predetermined! Only now, instead of God ordaining their actions, something else does- fate, perhaps. This is an awfully poor trade, in my opinion.”
I disagree. Remember, God is not bound by time. He exists outside of it. We cannot, as finite, time-bound humans, truly grasp such an idea in it’s fullness, but God is not bound by these constraints. He simply IS.
Also, knowing what will happen is not the same as the event being preordained. If I offer a choice to my little brother, and I know which choice he’ll make, and what he’ll do with it afterwards, that does not mean I have preordained his response. It was still his personality, choices, etc, that led to the events that transpired.
This idea means that yes, as surely as God knows our decisions, He allows us to make them. It is here that we can than sin. For a sinless being ordaining my sin means that God made me sin, meaning that it was not me who sinned, but the one that caused the action. God is therefore no longer sinless.
Control =/= causation.
In my years of studying Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, Wesley, Arminius, Augustine, and (God forgive me, lol) John Piper, I’ve seen that the Reformed/Calvinist/whatever idea that sovereignty demands control is, from what I’ve read and studied in my Bible, flawed.
Let’s look at Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 19:5 [God said:]”They have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into my mind,”
This is not only something God did not command or speak to happen, but something that did not even ‘come into His mind’!
So is everything that happens because God has made it to happen as such?
I just don’t see Biblical support for such an idea. Maybe it’s a failure on my part, but it just doesn’t make sense to me Biblically.