- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (6/28)
- Next Post »A La Carte (6/29)
Hyper-Calvinism: A Brief Definition
- 06/28/07
- 114
The term hyper-Calvinist is often used as a pejorative. Almost any Calvinist who adheres to the doctrines of grace is likely to be considered a hyper-Calvinist by at least someone. Frankly speaking, a hyper-Calvinist can be any Calvinist to a person who doesn’t understand Calvinism. So today, just briefly, and because the term has come up a few times in recent weeks, I want to narrow in on a more accurate definition of it. First we’ll look at a few examples of what does not constitute hyper-Calvinism. Then we’ll actually define the term.
While most Calvinists hold to the five points of Calvinism as summarized by the acronym TULIP, there are some who refer to themselves as six or seven-point Calvinists. One person who is known to identify himself as a seven-point Calvinist is John Piper. He does so half-jokingly but does so to communicate a truth that the five points of Calvinism are not exhaustive in a consideration of God’s sovereign saving grace. The Desiring God web site says, “Piper isn’t seeking to add two more points, but is simply calling attention to his belief in the traditional five points (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints) in a way that also points toward two additional ‘Calvinistic’ truths that follow from them: double predestination and the best-of-all-possible worlds.” Double predestination is widely considered the sixth-point. It is simply the other side to predestination, that just as God sovereignly chooses those whom He will save, in the same way he chooses those whom He will not save. There are some Calvinists who reject this idea, saying that God chooses His elect while everyone else makes their own choice to be condemned. A six-point Calvinist though, believes that God chooses some for salvation and some for perdition and that He does so not on the basis that some people are better or worse than others, but simply through His sovereign choice.
The seventh-point of Calvinism, at least according to John Piper (and I’m uncertain whether others regard this as the seventh point) is the best-of-all-possible worlds, which “means that God governs the course of history so that, in the long run, His glory will be more fully displayed and His people more fully satisfied than would have been the case in any other world.” Yet even someone who is willing to extend Calvinism beyond the five points is not “hyper.” A seven-point Calvinist is not a hyper-Calvinist.
An Enthusiastic Calvinist, or a person who really, really likes to talk about these doctrines, is also not a hyper-Calvinist. Someone who is an ardent Calvinist, who believes in these doctrines and talks about nothing else is still not “hyper” according to the historic use of the word.
So what, then, is a hyper-Calvinist?
Part of the confusion about this term no doubt arises from the use of the prefix “hyper.” “Hyper” does not refer, as many might think, to enthusiasm or excitement. Rather its basic meaning is along the lines of “excessive or excessively.” You might think of the word hyperactive which means “excessively active.” Hyper- comes from the Greek prefix huper-, which comes from the preposition huper, meaning “over, beyond.” So a hyper-Calvinist is one who goes beyond and over the bounds of what Calvinism teaches (and thus over the bounds of what the Bible teaches). He is excessive in his application of the doctrines. This manifests itself in an over-emphasis of one aspect of God’s character at the expense of another. Hyper-Calvinists emphasize God’s sovereignty but de-emphasize God’s love. They tend to set God’s sovereignty at odds with the clear biblical call to human responsibility. We can see how these are worked out as we look at a concise definition of the term. Phil Johnson, who has done extensive research on this subject very helpfully defines hyper-Calvinists using a five-fold definition. A hyper-Calvinist is one who:
- Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
- Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
- Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
- Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
- Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.
As Phil says, “All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message.” So this is the key to understanding hyper-Calvinism: it undermines evangelism and/or somehow distorts the gospel message.
Probably the most distinguishing characteristic of a Hyper-Calvinist is an unwillingness to evangelize at all, or to evangelize without extending a call to accept and believe the gospel. An example of a hyper-Calvinistic confession makes this clear. Article 33 of Articles of Faith of the Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies says, “Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them to savingly repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption.” In other words, they say, to command people to turn from their sin and to repent is to command them to do something they are unable to do for this would deny the doctrine of particular redemption. Yet this teaching is clearly at odds with the Bible’s call for all men to believe. The offer of the gospel is universal and God truly does command all men to heed it. Faith is a duty for all men. God’s common grace extends to all men and, while God does not love elect and non-elect in the same way, the Bible is clear that He does love all that He has created.
Keep that five-fold definition in mind and you’ll have a good idea of what it truly means to be a hyper-Calvinist. Of course I have little confidence that articles like this one will make any real difference. The term hyper-Calvinist is a convenient and baggage-filled one to lob into an argument or discussion. But at least now we know whether or not we truly fit that mold!
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (114)
Scott #46
Post 19 was mine, and no one has yet answered the obvious contradiction between the two statements I quoted.
Election based on God’s foreknowledge is not biblical, because it exalts an individual’s choice over God’s sovereignty. IOW, God, knowing a person’s future decision would then be obligated to elect that person. That is a Arminian position.
Even though I differ with most on this board regarding the basis of election, I am not an Arminian. I consider myself a 3-point Clavinist.. IOW, I believe that the vowels of the TULIP acronym do not confirm with the ENTIRE counsel of Scripture. God is still sovereign in election, but I believe He honours His promises to all who seek Him, as He has commanded all to do, a position that 5-point Calvinism cannot (or at least does not seem to) acknowledge.
I believe what is known as the “open decree of election” more closely satisties all of Scripture, taken as a whole.
“I believe He honours His promises to all who seek Him”
Amen.
But the Calvinist would say man is dead in his sins, and he odesn’t seek God, the true Triune God. Man seeks his own god. But never the Holy One of all creation.
But God, with His great love has sought us, and quicken us from the dead, all those to whom He has chosen to do so.
It’s not about man running and seeking God, or willing to seek God, btu it’s about God who shows mercy.
John, it’s not true that Calvinism does not address your concern. In fact, your very objection is at the forefront of most, if not all, Calvinist’s minds as well. It’s common among synergists such as you are (unlike many Calvinists, I would not call you an Arminian, nor an “inconsistent Arminian”, because I do not think it respectful to a person to call them a label they object to).
In fact, Calvinism does address it, as it must; for any Calvinist with a heart has the same objection. The Calvinist answer is quite simple: God does save any person who seeks Him; the problem is that there is no one who seeks after God, as Romans 3:11 tells us. Jonathan Edwards described this situation as the will being bound or “fettered” by sin. Any man who believes will be saved; but man on his own will never believe. God must take out our hearts of stone and put in a heart of flesh: at that point, we will be saved.
I have addressed this issue on my own blog; though no doubt not as cogently or completely as many others, my thoughts on the subject may or may not be worth at least considering.
Regardless, don’t think that just because you don’t agree with our conclusions, that we have not considered the problem. In fact, perhaps another way to differentiate between a Calvinist and a hyper-Calvinist is that a hyper-Calvinist doesn’t care about the very problem you raise: a Calvinist cares very much, and has considered all the evidence, and comes to the conclusion that, despite our feelings and emotions, the Biblical evidence is clear in favor of the “U”. Blessings.
To Stuart #45
“Bringing in the distinction between fallen and not-fallen angels is not useful in a discussion about elect and not-elect.”
Actually, I thought this is a discussion about hyper-Calvinism.
Let me quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith:”By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His own glory, some men AND ANGELS are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death”.[capitals mine]Do you agree with this?
“God created us as ‘sheep,’ but in our father Adam we became ‘goats’”.Interesting. But how and when did this happen?And has this to do with predestination? (see quoteWestminster Confession of Faith)
“If you want to talk about in our life now, read Psalm 51: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”
However KJV says: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. It says nothing about David’s sinfulness at the moment of his conception or his birth. Or do you think David was also conceived and born as a goat? In fact, David was elected and chosen to be a king. He didn’t sin because of his sinfulness, but because he made many wrong choices (in the case of Bathseba).
“What is imperfect cannot produce what is perfect”Can you support this by some scripture?
If this were true, all ‘offspring’ cannot hold responsible for their inperfection [sinfulness].
God bless,Joop
Joop, I think the comment about being created as sheep and becoming quoted was made off-hand and perhaps poorly chosen. In fact, we are chosen to be sheep from before the beginning: the fact that before regeneration we are acting like goats does not make us goats. Even today, every time I sin, I act like a goat: but that does not make me one.
I think his point is clearly that Adam was created sinless but became sinful, and we in him became the same. We are sinners because we sin, true: but it’s also true that we sin because we are sinners.
I believe that 5-point, and therefore 6-point, which follows directly from it, Calvinism is hung up on an overly literal reading of Rom 3:11, itself in turn a reference to the beginning verses of Psalms 14 and 53.
I believe David, in writing these Psalms was using the figure of speech of hyperbole, or deliberate exaggeration. Calvinists are fond of using the idea of
No one stands as righteous outside of the righteousness of Christ. His righteous is imputed to believers, they are in union with Him. All who are referred to as righteous in the old and new testaments have already been made righteous by Christ’s righteousness. They have already been regenerated.
John,
The only problem with your position on the Psalms passages is that you have failed to take into consideration that fact that Paul uses them to make his point that all the world is guilty and stands condemned before God.
What is Paul’s point for quoting them? Is it to say:
There is none righteous, not even oneThere is none who understandsThere is none who seeks for GodAll have turned asideTogether they have become uselessThere is none who does goodThere is not even one
Or is Paul instead using these verses for some metaphorical point? If so, what is the point Paul is making by quoting these OT verses, if it is not to state what I just listed above?
“I believe that if one sees the elect as the Body of Christ, it allows for God’s complete sovereignty in salvation. It acknowledges His commands that all seek Him.” -JohnK
John,Could you expound on this thought for me? I’m a bit confused. Thanks.
Hi again,I don’t have much time right now, but let try to explain at least part of what I believe very briefly. I do believe that no one is righteous, apart from God. Any righteousness we have is not ours, but is the imputed righteousness of Christ to all who believe. However, I don’t think that precludes anyone from seeking Him. God has revealed Himself to all people (they are without excuse), He draws all people to Himself and commands that all people seek Him. I don’t pretend to understand the mechanism by which he draws unrighteous people to seek Him, but if He can cause a camel to pass through the eye of a needle He can do it. “With God all things are possible.”
Jesus is the light of the world, the light given to all men. Those who turn toward the light will be saved, those who prefer darkness rather than light (John 3:19) will turn away and be eternally condemned.
Take Care,
I should add, for clarification, in my last paragraph above, those who turn toward the light and believe will be saved.
Take Care
He draws all people to Himself
John,
According to Jesus, everyone who is drawn is saved.
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. - John 6:44
Also, you did not answer my question concerning what Paul was saying by quoting from the OT in Romans 3. You said that perhaps the Psalmist was using hyperbole when he said there is no one who does good or is righteous or seeks after God, but what point was Paul making in quoting those OT passages?
“those who prefer darkness”
The Calvinist would say this is all mankind. We all hate the light, or the truth. John 3
No one will turn to the light, unless he is regenerated, or quickened from the dead. John 3
Unless someone is born from above, he will never prefer anything but the darkness. And even after salvation has come to one from the Lord, the heart is yet desperately wicked, and needs grace and the Holy Spirit to sanctify and keep within the marvelous light.
I truly believe if you believe one point of the TULIP, then the other four are necessary. They go hand in glove.
“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. - John 6:44
That verse merely says that no one can come unless he is drawn. It does not say that all who are drawn will come.
My point about the Psalms and Paul quoting them is that they can’t be taken in a wooden literal manner when the Bible clearly speaks in other places of people either seeking or being commanded by God to seek, or being told what rewards await those who seek, or being promised that if we seek Him we will find Him, if we seek Him with all our heart.
Take Care
John,
Read the verse again. Jesus equates the raising up w/the drawing, and the coming with the drawing. There is no indication from the text that there are those who are drawn but who do not come.
Couple this truth with what Jesus also says in verse 65:For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.
Would you also say that there are some to whom the Father has granted to come, but who do not? If so, then why would this statement have offended so many (who then were no longer walking with Jesus)?
“if we seek Him with all our heart.”
How does a heart of stone seek God?
Secondly,
Would you agree that - from verse 65 - there are some who are NOT granted to come? What is one to do to whom is has NOT been granted?
If they CAN’T come unless it has been granted (as Jesus cleraly states in this verse), and God hasn’t granted it to some, then what would be the purpose of Him looking down through time to elect those who would elect Him, if it is only those to whom He has granted to come will actually come?
John K: By way of attempting to satisfy you as to your question in #19, may I ask if you believe that God’s command to do something necessarily implies the ability to do it?
If not, there is no contradiction in the two statements you put in opposition. On the one hand, God chooses some out of the mass of condemned humanity to save while passing over or by the others; on the other hand, he commands all men, elect and reprobate, to respond to Christ in the gospel as their duty to their sovereign Lord.
If God is all-knowing (and He is), and if John’s position is correct about his assertion of contradiction, then it would also follow that it is a contradiction for God to commission us to go into all the world with the outward call of the gospel, when He knows full well the ones who are going respond and be saved, and He knows ahead of time the ones He has granted to come and the ones He has not.
My point is that - in agreement with Ken - the reality that God commands something does NOT automatically imply that the one commanded has the ability to do it.
Augustine’s prayer is right on point:
“Lord, command whatever thou wouldst…and grant whatever thou dost command.”
Piggy-backing on Brian’s comment—it was precisely on the point of man’s ability to obey all God’s commands that Pelagius objected to Augustine’s prayer quoted above.
John K,
It is interesting to me that you place such an emphasis in the sovereignty of man. As if in not allowing for the full intention of a man’s effort to secure salvation, somehow impunes the Holiness and Rigtheousness of our God’s desire to save…..yes, freewill trumps His plan of salvation. This too was a major stumbling block in my “Modern Evangelical” upbringing. Good ole rugged American Individualism must be given its recognition and resultant outcome.
Part of the problem is that we do not have an understanding of the Greek language. The Reformers did have just such an understanding, established through a rigorous study (and expressed in their commentaries)of the word in the original language….and of course, made real as to it’s correct understanding by the work of the Holy Spirit’s confirmation in the hearts of believers down through the ages.
In the final analysis, as I came to recognize it myself was that, it was, it is, and will continue to be God’s Grace that is manifested to ensure he has a people for Himself who will love and serve him because of the totality of the work that he has done for them.
Rarely does anyone respond to something I say about this issue, one which Tim likes to always bring up; as its is sure to spark a good discussion and lightup the blogrolls…I am altogether unsure if I am generally considered a “troll” here - therefore just ignored - or if my comments are either so scattered and dumb that they are not worth responding to - or - that they might actually be rarely brilliant. If I had to guess, I’m on the dull side, as I admittantly have a tremendous amount to still learn and the more I learn the less I understand - as the song goes; all the things I thought I knew I have to learn again.
I wince everytime I hear somebody make eloquent statements extolling double predestination or saying that they know what a hyper-calvinist is, but that they surely aren’t one themselves. Generally - most such arguments seem to me to be boarderline sophistic and functionally evasive.
Personally - I stop just short of calling John Calvin a heretic, thought I am leaning more and more towards making that a clear distinction, thought it is sure to hastily make any armchair theologian/self-professed calvinism defendor readily ashen faced at the mere mention of the word. As I have said before - I have openly speculated that he may well have taken up the mantle/legacy of Nestorious in the Nestorius/Constantinus debate regarding the nature of Christ - as Tillich posited, except with Calvin - the issue being the Soverignty of God. Tillich said that Nestorious was a heresy hunter himself and went too far and became an inadvertent heretic himself. In logic we know that there is “the law of the exluded middle” - but I believe that there is “the law of the exluded boundaries;” which is to say that you may not be able to define what the center is, but you can define the state of being “beyond the boundaries” of something as clearly being heretical; in other words I cannot allways explain how the center is right, only that beyond the sides of it - is to be wrong. This is my position on the whole soverignty of God/will of man issue. I have spent alot of time listening to calvinian theology - and I am all the more stronger for it - but it also reinforces my conviction that as Dogmatic as I want to be (I hate postmodernisms intrinsic jello-like inablity to believe anything and instead substite “experience” for doctrine) I have to release somethings back into mysteries and out of the clutches of my carnally-tainted reason. You can banter all you want back and forth and argue with one hand that God does not send anybody to hell and talk out of your other that he does, but the truth is that double-predestinationists have an anthromorphologically-influenced sotereologic assumption: that free will impugns or abdicates soverignty. It does not. As Tozer said - IT AFFIRMS IT. Furthermore - God does play favorites; but Calvinists who declair themselves “favorited” or “elected” or whatever term you wish, put themsleves in danger of hellfire to write off those who might just be called to be common laborours in the kingdom. If you are “special” or elected, or called to specific purpose that is fine; and yes, it is not fair to others - but spiritual reality is not fair; others might be able to play spiritual pattycake but you cannot - you have been given alot more and alot more is going to be required of you, but how dare you exalt yourself above others out there and just write them off as hopelessly uninlightenended because they have no “election ” like yours. That is Gnosticism and it’s “exclusivistic enlighment notion”; which Calvism may well be merely a deceptive reinterpretation of: You should be compelled to pray for the lost and dying with all due expediency. The issue is that there is a spiritual war going on; and you’ve got to wrestle with spiritual forces to reach the lost.
The truth is that all of us who have been called to the Supper of the Lamb were beggars on the streets; the “elect” had better things to do (see Luke) and instead the Master sent for the “unelected” the beggars and street urchins to come in and sup.
God is calling those whom he has special purpose for and has given special purpose to others and not those who refused it initially. Luke speaks against “irrististable grace” in these terms; those who were invited made a decision not to come. Period. Peter echoes this -when he says to do these things “so that your election will be sure”
All this theological gymnastics that says that when the scripture speaks of the elect and says that their act of resistance to what they were called to do ‘is not really resisting’; it reminds me of Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses trying to get around the truth. Luke 14:18 “and they all with one consent began to make excuse” I am yet to ever hear a 5 point Calvinist who thinks that those who are Elected cannot resist their Election: resolve how Christ clearly says that none of those who were bid to the supper shall eat of it in Luke. They Refused. You need to theologically deal with this reality and stop making excuses as to why this is not how the kingdom of God really operates; that what it says is not what it really means. Double predesistination says that those who did not come to the supper - on some higher supralapsarian level;that the scripture just seems to ‘inadverntently leave out’ - really had no choice to either go or make excuse. They did. They decided they had better things to do. You can be called to purpose and ignore it. The truth is that all of us who are called into ministry, more then likely - someone else was elected/called and they decided to do otherwise. Limited Atonement/Irristiable Grace makes a mockery of Luke 14 and turns it on it’s head - it essentially presents Christ as ultimately a sophistic teacher: that is to say - he is teaching things that he knows are ultimately wrong and deceptive, and pointing you in the wrong direction theologically. Let God be true and every man a liar - be he an Arminian who does not understand Soverignty or a Calvinst who does not understand Free Will.
I have no doubt that there are individuals who God elected and called, but they are so self absorbed and prideful that they are virtually useless to the kingdom of God. What God wanted to do with those people He rather called those who would have otherwise never had that calling upon them.
Calvinists need to study the imperitive implications of Free Will; just like Arminiams need to continually study God’s Soverignty; and they need to constantly and prayerfully make sure that they don’t go bounding out into the outfields of heretical oblivion. That is the best advice you can get.
I am sorry if this sounds ugly or mean. Sometimes I feel like I am dealing with alot of frustration with this issue as I have been meditating on it for awhile. I feel like I am called to teach and I have a conviction that I am not worthy to teach or persuade anyone of The truth of the Gospel until I have wept over them and, if the case be so, their ignorance and/or deception. I have a thrist for truth. Please pardon me if I do not always chose the softest of words.
I have a very strong conviction that there is a strong need for reformation within the “Reformed” church. The question -what side are you guys going to be on when it hits?
Respectfully Submitted,
-matthew
Read the verse again. Jesus equates the raising up w/the drawing, and the coming with the drawing. “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.Seems pretty plain to me. No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him. All who come will be raised up on the last day.There is no indication from the text that there are those who are drawn but who do not come.Argument from silence. Not convincing at all.Would you also say that there are some to whom the Father has granted to come, but who do not?Yes. God grants, or “>“>http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1325&Version=kjv”> permits (definition #4), people to come. He does not force them.If so, then why would this statement have offended so many (who then were no longer walking with Jesus)?Verse 66 (many turning back) refers back to verse 60 (This is a hard teaching), which in turn refers, I believe, to Jesus talk of eating his body and drinking his blood (53-59). Not because Jesus was teaching Calvinist views on election.How does a heart of stone seek God?I imagine the same way a camel can pass through the eye of a needle, which is the analogy Jesus used in connection with the very subject we are discussing: Who can enter the kingdom of God. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” 26Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”With God all things are possible.Would you agree that - from verse 65 (He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”) there are some who are NOT granted to come? What is one to do to whom is has NOT been granted?Not at all. You are going beyond what is written.
Take Care
I’m afraid my previous post turned out to be a bit of a mess. I’m not quite familiar enough with all the technicalities. I’ll try better here
“John K: By way of attempting to satisfy you as to your question in #19, may I ask if you believe that God’s command to do something necessarily implies the ability to do it?”>/i>
I guess I will rely on Augustine’s prayer, quoted by Brian. I believe if God commands something, he will grant the ability to do it.
The exception that comes immediately to mind, of course, is the ability to live sinlessly, which He commands, but which we cannot do, even with His help in the Person of the Holy Spirit. But in that case He has again provided us an escape, through the imputed righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ, who lived such a life on our behalf. In other words, to answer your question, I believe He will either give us the ability to do it or He will do it for us.
Quoted by WM:
It is interesting to me that you place such an emphasis in the sovereignty of man.
That is a gross assumption and mis-accusation on your part. Where have I ever given man sovereignty? God sovereignly allowing mankind freewill and inviting him to choose and to seek Him cannot be construed as “sovereignty of man.”
Take Care
One more thing:
WM, I’m sorry if I was short with you above. Just for the record I will makehe following statements before I go to bed. I hope they will clarify where I stand, and I hope and believe that nothing I have posted here in any way contradicts what I am about to say.
By the way, I will be on the road all day tomorrow, so this will be it for me for a couple of days.
But for the record I believe:1. God is completely sovereign in all things. There is nothing that is outside His will. Nothing happens in all creation that He does not either cause or allow.
2. God is omniscient. Nothing has happened, or will, that He does not know about and has not known about since before the creation of the universe.
3. The Bible is the inspired word of God. It is 100% God-breathed, inerrant and without internal contradiction.
Take Care
Dear John K.
Point 1: Innerancy is a scientific term. It is not a spiritual term. You need to do a serious study on Natural Theology. Inerrancy does not save your soul - the Authority of the Word is what does this. I might theorectically locate an innerrant-from-the-original copy of Plato’s Republic but it has absolutely no bearing on where you or I will spend eternity. You weaken the authority of God when you go about the business of building an argument for why we should believe the scripture. If you want to use it as a tool -that is fine. Unfortunately, when we beleive that we have to offer some form of crafty argument so that we can then expect someone to believe, we subvert the natural inherent self-authentication of the scripture. Take some time and mediate on the idea of what Sola Fide/sola scriptura means; faith alone/scripture alone - the proper response to the initiation/election of God is faith - not reason or an argument. This is extreemly basic but extreemly lost in much of modern evangelicalism. I love to argue from the supposed strength of the innerrancy argument -but it is illusory; but I beleive that you would join me if you thought it through. The scripture must assert itself - not us. Preach the Gospel and the authority thereof - let no man draw you into crafty converstation of 100 percent this or 99.98 percent that. It matters to the lost - but not to those who have heard His voice and genuinely responded to Him.
Point Two:For the Umpteenth time, I will repeat the following. It is a heretical Pelagian statement to say that any man can respond to Christ from his own capacity. This is widely known as thus and disavowed by knowledgeable Arminians. Hearing Calvinist endlessly beat this horse reminds me of Seventh Day Adventists who are sent to Sabbath School for years and years and years where they basically are not really taught about the Sabbath; they are just taught how to defend their near heretical views (for the record, I am in the Dr. Walter Martin viewpoint on them —->they are a sect, not a cult) If no one as told you this, or if you have not heard it, or you have not been listening, then please hear me - nearly all Arminians do not believe that. A consistant proclimation that we do is purposeful self-deciet and theological war drum banging. You are rallying the troops, and meanwhile your Arminian breathern look at you with great concern in regards to how you can continue to think we think things we do not. I hear that all the time here and it is gratuitous back slapping.
The Arminian view is that we are fully enabled to make the choice, but we can still rescind it.
Point Three:Your assertion that God must have absolute control to be soverign is a Soteriological Anthromorphism; you are asserting your own mortal power/authorty dynamics upon the Divine. This is a Reverse Condescension; wherein you force God to bend to your apprehension/personal ideological-epistimolgical frameworks, whereas God condescends Himself to be understood by you -but not vice versa.
Respectfully Submitted
-matthew lipscomb
Brother Lipscomb: Let God be true and every man a liar - be he an Arminian who does not understand Soverignty or a Calvinst who does not understand Free Will.
Indeed, and a wonderful post otherwise. That is why I refuse to shackle myself to the theology of either side of this debate. To do so leads one into some pretty sketchy territory.
The Scriptures clearly teach both God’s sovereignty and man’s free will - both in the complete sense, not some explained-away sense as both “sides” are wont to do.
As such, I believe both. Wesley’s idea of prevenient grace may be a way to explain it. But, even if that is not “it”, the truth of both is still there in Scriptures, and it is time to stop fussing from one distinct (and flawed) position or another to the exclusion of just getting on with the work of His Kingdom.
John K: When man’s free will bumps up against God’s free will, who wins?
Matthew: You ask why your posts here seem to be ignored. I submit that part of it has to do with a tone of condescension that is probably unconsciously communicated and part of it is the evident hostility you bear toward Calvin and classical Reformed theology as you interpret it. Do you honestly expect to come here on a self-appointed mission and make converts? Face facts—the proprietor of this blog is a bright young Calvinist who possesses a winsome writing style. It attracts the like-minded who appreciate his work.
One other thing—while you’re obviously very intelligent and well-read, your posts are long, wordy, and occasionally turgid with technical language. People’s eyes glaze over. Try paring things down a bit.
EG: Would you please provide your definition of free will? I find doing so helps immensely in carrying on the conversation.
Being “Bidden” to the supper to eat (Luke 14) shouldn’t be understood as being “Elected” to enter the Kingdom. Mr. Lipscomb seems to ignore the distinction between a general call and an effectual call, which are necessary considerations for a clear understanding of Irresistible Grace.
Also, no discussion on “Free-will” is complete without exploring the Federal Headship of Adam.
Carry On! :)
Sure. Man has the ability to choose good or evil - and thus to believe or not to. God, in His sovereignty, gave Man that ability, and thus, such an ability does not negate sovereignty or grace as the ability is by God’s grace.
Both sovereign grace and man’s free ability to make choices are quite obvious in Scripture. To extol one at the expense of the other is a grave error and leads to all kinds of heresy.
…in a very very brief nutshell.
EG,
Why do you say that man has the ability to choose good or evil? What is the basis for your thinking this? I would agree that he has the responsibility to do so but not the ability.
God’s universal commands to “Choose” do not imply ability. After all, He gave us ten commandments and we’re not able to keep them. Would He have given us these ten commandments while knowing that we lacked the ability to keep them? Apparently so, He did. The imperatives of Scripture teach us something of God’s character. He commands us to “Choose” because He is gracious and good and He is not the one making it impossible for us to do so.
There are enough instances throughout scripture, and in life in general, of people expressing free will to do both good and evil to enumerate.
Basically, the doctrine of prevenient grace seems, to me, to be of use here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_Grace
To Ken #77
I will be honest with you, I find your post towards Matthew quite arrogant. Especially the words like:
“Do you honestly expect to come here on a self-appointed mission and make converts?”
I think everybody on this blog a right to express his/her opinion, weather it is to support Calvinism or not, as long as we can respect our opinions.Please choose to agree on some disagreements here. And a disagreement doesn’t always mean a hostility.Your last remark to Matthew, though, was much more thoughtful and could be an advice for many of us too.
God bless,Joop
Prevenient grace is no grace at all.
We are not saved by prevenient grace. Prevenient grace has no power to do anything. The theology of prevenient grace is, I am most confident, an offense to our great God.
Did Esau receive prevenient grace? Did Pharaoh receive it? Did Judas?
How about those to whom it has not been granted from the Father to come to Christ…have they received it? It seems to me that, under prevenient grace - it would be given to all to come to Christ…yet Jesus is clear that there are some to whom it has NOT been granted? Why is that?
To Brian (about prevenient grace).
First, I myself am not familiar with the expression ‘prevenient grace’. But I will not argue here wether or not ‘prevenient grace’ is biblical. After all, worlds like ‘original sin’ and ‘trinity’ can’t be found in the bible either!Now looking at Judas (I’ll skip Faraoh and Esau avoiding writing down too many words)”: did Judas receive (prevenient) grace?I believe so. For you see, Judas was elected as both an apostle and a disciple. Being an apostle is not something YOU can choose. Rather, you have to be chosen to. However, to become a disciple, YOU have to do something as well. Like giving up everything (Lk 14:33).So that would mean that Judas was (once) truly saved! Grace was given to him (wether prevenient or not). Jesus did not just pick up any man to become an apostle and a disciple.However, Judas fell away and went astray (Acts 1:25). Your question should be: why did Judas fall (from grace)?
God bless,Joop
“For you see, Judas was elected as both an apostle and a disciple.”
Amen.
And he was the “son of perdition”. Jesus said it would have better if had never been born. He was born for destruction.Hard to swallow this truth, But it is there to be pondered with deep thoughts. There’s no self-righteousness in thinking about this, because if not for the grace of God, and His quickening me from the dead state I was in, I would have been better off never having been born.
But God with His great love, showed mercy. Thank you Lord.
Sorry, Joop (#83), but I wasn’t talking to you. Matthew had asked why he received so little response to his posts. I gave him an answer from my perspective—including the impression that he visits and comments here mostly to criticize the Calvinism of this blog’s host and that the tone he uses is more than a little off-putting.
If Matthew is offended, he may take it up with me.
Ken/Joop/others,
No offense taken, and I appreciate the kind words from EG and others; I understand that I have a potentially self-limiting aggressive nature that potentially serves as a hinderance in conversation. I have done alot of thinking about “my tendencies” and have generally felt like this is a part of my “created nature” and like everything else I have to make it a point to assume that while I am a fallen creature; not everything readily apprehendable as being bad might be so when baptised into kingdom purpose in the life of someone called. I have struggled with a contentious nature - but over the last few years have come to see that God might use that part of me to affect some good, if I can allow Him to guide me and use it effectively. It’s the whole “power is nothing without control” idom; and I have lots of ‘power’ and need to learn how to apply it constructively. Over the last year I have begun the process of responding to what I think is a call to teach on my life. I work hard to keep the energy level down; but I don’t always do a good job - and invariable ruffle feathers, but that’s not always exclusively a bad thing either.
Long Posts: I am sure that I am not quite as fast as Tim “lightning fingers” Challies - but I am definitely time constrained most times I respond here. I usually wind up doing it at work, so I try not to spend more then 5 minutes on a response; it’s the whole “sorry, I did not have time to write a short email” thing.
Another point - and this is perhaps the gist of what I want my post to be about: I have written some in some posts here regarding what I consider a worthy theological method, and that is the analysis of any body of doctrinal formulation from within the deconstructive analytic of dereactionism; or an apprehension of a process both apart from and under the influences of Reactionary Forces. 95% of the time we do not consider the overall governing dynamics that proded either forcefully or casually the formulation or engagement of ideas/reactionary tactics. In medicine; within the realm of trauma care, there is the idea of a “coo” and “counter-coo” force; if you hit your head on the dashboard of your car in a high-speed impact that is the “coo” force - but the reactionary force to that “coo” is the “counter-coo” force of your brain slamming into your cranium. This is where blood vessles are torn, brain tissue is turned into scrambled eggs, and nerves shredded. Not to be morbid, but a “coo” trauma is what you see in the movies, the damage from a “counter-coo” force is what real world health professionals fear more, it is the individual who rolls in with absolutely no mark on them but is the process of massively hemoraging internally from externally unseen injuries.
These same principles make their mark in the theological/ideolgical/philosophics playground. You cannot fully understand Calvin unless you know what he was reacting against (Pelagianism) or Luther (Catholicism), Postmodernism (modernism), Modernism (Classicism/Mythology), Feminism (abusive partriacalism), Prohibition (societal alcohol abuse), Warfieldian Cessationism (Abuses of Early Pentecostal Outpourings), so called “postcolonial reconstructionism” (assumed western capitalistic abuses) etc. The list goes on and on and on. So when I am studying Calvinism, I am doing it not just from the standpoint of deconstructing and reevaluting the responses to either postive or negative forces, I am also valuating whether the response was postive/negative.
A great example of this - and it dovetails with issues brought up in the previous conversations is that Calvin did not make an issue of “Innerancy” as most scholars, such as Alister McGrath conclude, based on his notion of the Condescension/Accomodation of God to Man principle, though it is not universally accepted as such - the larger number of theologians do aggree. It is not something that a “Classical Man” like Calvin would have really worried about - as he would not be confronted with Modernism’s rush to statistically/scientifically prove anything worth beleiveing. To bring this issue together with my long rambling statement regarding “Reactionary Forces” - Innerancy is a Counter-Coo or Resultant byproduct of the Reactionary Force of Modernism upon Classical Theology. Modernist feel like we have to be able to prove everything and in effect, we don’t realize that the Gospel is not a Modern Assertion; it is neither a Classical nor Postmodern one either - no matter how much any Cultural Reactionary Epoch denizen would want to control or say that it is entirely theirs - it is not. To me a truly astute theological student must practice transcendence in regards to both Cultural (soceital expectations/behaviors) and Cultral Epochal periods (classicism/mod/post).
So in a Nutshell, when I study Calvinism (and I think that everybody should strive to do this as well) I approach it as a mortally-assembled body of theological thought and I beat it around - not just to see the postive/negative reactionary forces that have influenced/spawned it, but to learn from those postive/negative things about it.
That is why I have a huge problem with starry-eyed theological students who just accept everything about something because everybody else always has. That is why there was a Reformation to begin with - and that is why there is - I beleive - another one soon to come. I think Calvinism has tremendous potential to impact the body of Christ for present and future generations, because of any number of issues that it is intrinsically about, such as The Soverignty of God. But that wil never happen if Students/Teachers/Theologians cannot accept that there may be problems in the way that it has been generationally taught and accepted. I am not so sure that there is not a huge differnce between Calvin and “Calvinism” - this is something that I am continuing to study. This is why repentance and humilty are absolutely postively central and paramount to any theologian/teacher/student. The power that is unleashed in saying “I was wrong” means that you now know that you may well be now right about something and that is a step forward. Theological systems that abstain from concerted theological inflection limit themselves; they just become obtuse shadows that serve only to endlessly reproduce themselves. Maybe I’m a Neo-Calvinist in the regards that I’m taking the “good reactions” of Calvinism and eliminating the Nestorian tendency of over-reactionism or negative reactionary forces; which to me, for “Calvinism” as it is taught today - is a total disregard for Free Will. But you have to ask yourself - all these people in the Calvinian Blogsphere- if suddenly the Pelagian Boogyman of Armianinsism suddenly went away - would there be anything left to talk about? And is that a problem itself? Is Modern day Calvism just a roaming sophistic argument just waiting to happen, one that is meaningless and silly to those who understand Soverignty AND Free Will? And if that is so - then can Calvism really in an authentic sense respond to the postmodernist washout of individuals who have reacted against so much they now know they either have Nihilism or or a resemblance of a Systematic Theology to embrace? If Calvinsim just endlessly presents arguments that are ultimately meaningless to those who can accept mystery, it shoots itself in the foot and merely just takes it’s place among other historically entrenched theological systems that are bankrupt because they never audited themselves, they never reformed themselvse in an ONGOING BASIS. The principle of Reformed Theology should not be that ‘we once did that’ because that this the source point for almost everybodies system - the issue is that we should be Reforming Now.
Those of you who are agast at that idea, I am sure that you do have MEGO at my ramblings here (my eyes glaze over) but I am writing for those who are eager for a reformation. Besides, I have my own book/journal (1300 pages) to satisfy a craving for writing - I don’t do this for that.
And no - I’m not looking for “converts” to my system; if I can be understood to have a system. I am trying to advance the theological conversation and provoke introspection and analyis. The abdication of Pride is an intrinsic part of this; and it is something that any regenerate child of God should rejoice in the honor and pleasure thereof and therein.
Respectfully Submitted,
matthew lipscomb
I am not “agast” at the idea of always reforming (that doesn’t mean truth changes over time, though)…but my eyes still glazing over anyway.
This is the one that really made my head hurt:
the analysis of any body of doctrinal formulation from within the deconstructive analytic of dereactionism; or an apprehension of a process both apart from and under the influences of Reactionary Forces.
huh???
Too many multi-syllable words for me…
Ken:When man’s free will bumps up against God’s free will, who wins?
I really have no idea wht you mean by this.
EG:Man has the ability to choose good or evil - and thus to believe or not to.
Apart from God, man cannot choose good. Even deeds that the world would consider “good” are as filthy rags.
Nor can man choose to believe. Saving faith comes only from God, given to those who seek.
What man can choose to do is to seek or to ignore. I believe he can choose to turn toward the light or away from it. But salvation itself is not a human choice. That comes only from God.
Take Care
Matthew Lipscomb:
While you may consider this too simplistic, the issue really comes down to the final “cause” of salvation. If God is the terminal cause, then salvation is totally of grace. If man, then salvation is of works. People can say the same thing and mean something different. I know people who say they are saved totally by grace, but when it gets down to it, they are not willing to give up on their own ability and so are really trusting in themselves. As you consider these things I would strongly recommend reading Martin Luther’s “Bondage of the Will”, which he thought was his most important theological work, as well as Jonathan Edward’s “On the Freedom of the Will.”
From Luther: “But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled till he realises that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will and works, and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure and work of Another - God alone.”
It seems that today’s Arminians are generally more like Pelagians. The more historic Wesleyan Arminianism at least asserted the need for some sort of grace for man to act. But when it comes down to it, salvation is still ultimately up to man and not totally of the grace & mercy of God as is so often stated in scripture. One other point: God’s command does not of necessity imply man’s ability (Luther deals with this false assumption in his book). Where does scripture teach that man is ABLE to obey God?
ML:Just re-read my post and realized that it has a somewhat assuming tone. I’m not claiming to be more well-read or even to have considered the issues as much as you perhaps have. I’m just trying to point out what is the root difference that then drives all other differences. Surely we can never even begin to know anything about God in comparison to his infinite character. But I also think it wrong to come to a logical contradiction and simply conclude that “God’s ways must not be our ways” as I’ve often heard by others. If we find scripture that appears to logically contradict other scripture, then it is our understanding of scripture that is in error, not the very foundations of logic itself.-Aaron
Aaron -
I agree with you that a number of modern Arminians seemingly drift towards Pelagianism; but I don’t think that it is a concerted effort - rather one that is resultant of a certain lack of doctrinal clarity; one that - on average - if asked, they’d go sure we believe in the soverignty of God but the fact that it is not emphasised as much gives a shadow of the appearance of something else. An example of this might be that I was raised in the Assemblies of God, and we heard infinitely more about the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Toungues then we did the soverignty of God and Election as a pure work of grace. The latter would be a subpoint in a teaching sermon on sunday night.
This is why I think that Calvinism is so necessary for today; at least in what it speaks on this issue. The problem is that when there are doctrinal issues that don’t square with the scripture and wander out into reasons’ domain too much - it potentially places the entire enterprise into a state of virtual bondage. It takes a measure of understanding, and paradox perhaps ( I am increasingly thinking that it really is not that big of a puzzle after all) but a doctrinal system that gives God full soverignty and recognizes that our salvation is fully enabled and provided at his capacity, but also understand that that same God was great enough and soverign enough to be capable of giving His creation Free Will to me is beyond awesome - it can scarcely be accepted outside of an understanding that God’s greatness is beyond our ability to quantify it and qualify it. I think that Calvin’s progenitors failed to heed his advice on “the curious” - those who try to understand everything. There is a story - I beleive that it comes from Augustine, where he said something to the effect what was God doing before he built heaven for the Saints - he replied that he was building hell for the curious.
I have genuinely felt that my own theology has been greatly advanced and strengthened by my studies in the reformed and calvinian realms. I know that most of my arminian breatheren would feel the same - and would enjoy studying more as their time would allow them. The issue is that while that atidude is well in effect “on our side” dyed in the whool Calvinists will say - we’ll your just a heretic, anyway - why study that?” I know that sounds judgmental - but the term heretic gets tossed around alot.
To answer your question with hopefully a degree of specificity; I do think that God is the cause of salvation, in that He is both the enabler and the initiator - but the act that we must follow through with is a response. I cannot yet articulate it in a formal way (I am still working it out) but I see a pattern in the way that God interacted with Moses. God speaks to Moses (in the burning bush) and then He speaks with him, and then he speaks through him. I think that God speaking to us is entirely Monogistic, but after that comes a Synergistic reality where we respond to and with God. I think that this is followed by a transcendence wherein both our spiritual and personal (Tillich might call it our “Ground of Being” in existencialist terms) identity come from and through Christ. Paul’s speaking of himself as a bond servant I think speaks to this. But this transformative power is something that we must avail ourselves to - it is not forced upon us, at least in a direct way. There is a natural consequnece to rejection and rebellion in that God’s soverignty is ultimately affirmed either by your acceptance and your being used for God - or your rejection of Him and your being used by Him to your detriment. I believe that we are made party in the process of the proclimation of His Word to the World, and that in the effectual preaching of His Gospel the Power of the Holy Ghost can take affect, and I beleive that it will - only you are given the greater responsibity under whether you accepted it or rejected it. I fully accept that those who have never heard the Gospel are still used for and against it; but it is in the mind and heart of God as to how and why he decided to use them, but I know from what I can know of His character, that how He used them was more then likely in keeping with existing decisions that they had already made towards Him either directly or indirectly. God may not be fair, nor may he be safe - but He is Just.
Respectfully Submitted,
-matthew lipscomb
To Donsands
“And he [Judas] was the “son of perdition”. Jesus said it would have better if had never been born. He was born for destruction.”
At the moment Jesus called His disciples, Judas was not the son of perdition.. yet.Jesus would never use a son of perdition to go and heal the sick, preach the gospel etc (Mt 10:7-8).Judas was even called a close friend to Jesus (Jn 13:18 / Psalm 41:9).
Likewise, in Church our leaders and apostles should be Christians and disciples in the first place.We wouldn’t appoint sons of perdition to be our leaders, wouldn’t we?Of course, leaders may fall away, as we can see that all the time!
Note that Petrus also was called ‘satan’ by Jesus. However, does this mean Petrus was not saved either when Jesus called him being an apostle?
Your statement: “He [Judas] was born for destruction” is adding to Scripture.
“But God with His great love, showed mercy. Thank you Lord.”
Amen brother!
Ken:”When man’s free will bumps up against God’s free will, who wins?”You might consider Ex. 32:9-14. God wanted to destroy Israel after they made the molten calf. Moses however pleaded to God not to do so.So, who won?
God bless,Joop
Joop -
Good point regarding the Intercession of Moses. Another good example is Abraham…
Unfortunately - the indirect consequence of a theology that is stripped of any Free Will functionally depreciates the value of an Intercessor. Once the frame of mind is set that “everything is already set” the Gospel is oriented toward those who can and will respond; though this is in fact an enabler and not a suppressor in this regard, though I once thought otherwise. It does however discount the one who sees or is even told by God what will happen, and yet interceeds with God for something else or another outcome. We have to remember that this is the Same God, and that we come dangerously close to writing off these stories as non-related because of past Dispensations or no longer related Covenental relational structures; but all these run this risk of the Old Marcionian deception that the Old Testament God is a God of another Nature. It is the same God.
I don’t buy into the whole “open theism” idea that God does not already know the future. And how He can think one thing and yet let His creature persuade Him differently may not be all that big of a puzzle. I could imagine God feeling one way, though He would know that an individual functioning as an intercessor will soon make him feel another way. When you really take the idea of a “Divine Romance” seriously - this is really not all the strange a concept. You can be in love with someone and be absolutely furioous with them and want to break up with them even though you know that tommorow they will genuinely say they are sorry and make up for it. That is a terrible way to frame it I know, so don’t pounce on it too hard; it’s just a roughshod metaphore - but it illusrates that God can be mad but know that He will soon feel different.
It would be intresting to hear some of our Calvinists freinds here give a good explaination of their understanding of the dynamics of Intercession.
-matthew lipscomb
God speaking to us is entirely Monogistic, but after that comes a Synergistic reality where we respond to and with God
With regard to salvation, this is totally unbiblical. A dead person cannot respond to and with God.
God CAUSES us to be born again.
With respect to salvation, Scripture doesn’t talk of God “speaking” to us, but of making us alive. How does someone who is dead cooperate with God?
joop,
“Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you IS a devil?” He spoke this of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve. John 6:70
He was a devil, and Jesus choose him, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. John 17:12
Judas was an evil man. He was with the Lord of love all those years, and then betrayed Him for 30 pieces of silver.He was the “son of perdition”, and he would have been better off never being born.
And if not for the grace of God, I would have been better off never being born.
Donsands,
“Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you IS a devil?” He spoke this of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve. John 6:70
From John 6:70 you cannot conclude Judas was already a devil at the moment he was chosen by Jesus to be both an apostle and a disciple.In fact, in would be absurd Jesus choosing an apostle and a disciple who also is a devil!
John 17:12 (KJV) says (…) those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them IS lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled
It doen’t say: [Judas] WAS ALREADY lost at the moment ‘thou gavest me’.It does say however: those (including Judas) that thou gavest me I have kept,…
“Judas was an evil man. He was with the Lord of love all those years, and then betrayed Him for 30 pieces of silver.He was the “son of perdition”, and he would have been better off never being born.”
Scriptural here is: Judas BECAME an evil man….He BECAME the son of perdition…
To Brian:
Salvation itself is from God. Man cannot add to that. It is also true that God causes us to be born again.
“A dead person cannot respond to and with God.”
“With respect to salvation, Scripture doesn’t talk of God “speaking” to us, but of making us alive. How does someone who is dead cooperate with God?”
You are mixing up the spiritual dead with the fysical dead. Look around you and observe the non-Christians. Can you speak to them? Can you conversate with them? Can you be friends with them? Can they respond to you when you would give them a duty to perform? Can you cooperate with them?Scripture tells unbelievers to believe the gospel and be saved.Scripture invites us to come to Jesus.Scripture invites us to seek the Lord.etc.
Your analogy: a [spiritual] dead man cannot respond because dead men cannot respond, is not according to Scripture.
God bless,Joop
Joop,
Scripture does indeed command all men to repent, believe, look, come, et.al. Scripture is also full of invitations and exhortations to choose, receive, seek, etc.
These commands, invitations and exhortations do not imply or suggest that men are capable of obeying, choosing, seeking or any other spiritual action.
God has the right to command even though we are incapable of obeying. Our inability to obey is our own doing. We are dead - IN ADAM. We are condemned - IN ADAM. We all had a choice and we all chose to disobey and go our own way. We did this - IN ADAM.
matthew lipscomb:
You stated: “I do think that God is the cause of salvation, in that He is both the enabler and the initiator - but the act that we must follow through with is a response.”
You are then left with the followig options:
1. God is unable to finish the work that He started, which is first directly contrary to scripture (“He who began a good work…) but second a very low view of God.
2. God has decided that the final say in the work of salvation rests with man. He’ll get things rolling, but it’s ultimately up to man. Now we’re back to Pelagianism.
To say that God is so sovereign that He gives man free will is really like saying, God is so powerful that He has decided to make man more powerful than Himself. Why worship God anymore? Why not worship man and his free will instead? You really should read Bondage of the Will if you haven’t already — in fact, I think everyone should read it! :-)
The real question is: what is your motivation for hanging on to so-called free will? If as Edwards more or less says, man is a will, then there is no such thing as doing something against your own will. You will always act according to your greatest desire at any moement. Can man desire God unless God first puts the desire in His heart. If God does this work, will he not complete it?