http://www.hitwebcounter.com
Counter Website

What Is Election? Debate: 3 Answers

May 24, 2013 by Leave a Comment

By ThereforeGodExists.com Contributor

Do you believe in compatibilism when Satan is tempting man?

• Yes. Compatibilism entails that all created beings (which would include Satan) are under the sovereign hand of God. The devil is a responsible, evil, moral agent. But the fact that Satan is an agent with such characteristics does not mean that he ever makes God absolutely contingent. The mistake that people often make is by envisioning two hermetically sealed off competing players—God and the devil. People tend to reason in this way, “The weather is nice—God did that. A tsunami hit Florida—the devil did that. I won the lottery—God did that. I was tempted and sinned—the devil did that.” This is false. God is the sovereign ruler. I submit that, like is taught in the story of Job, God has Satan on a very tight leash. God uses Satan, his deceit, his lies, his temptations (all of it), to accomplish His purposes.

Is the parable of the great banquet a problem for the doctrine of unconditional election?

• No. As Compatibilism would assert, the Jews (the ones who made excuses about coming to the banquet that they were originally invited to) were not acting apart from God’s sovereign plan. The Great Banquet points to the future messianic banquet, to which the people of Jesus’ day would have understood that only “godly Jews” would be invited. Jesus, however, uses the parable to teach his listeners, contrary to their expectations, that the guests invited originally will miss the banquet (v. 24) and will be replaced instead “the poor and crippled and blind and lame” and the outsiders (who are the Gentiles) found in the “highways and hedges” (vv. 21, 23). Paul, who himself was a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin, addresses the tremendous theological difficulties that come with the realization that God’s people, His chosen nation, has corporately rejected Him. In verse 6 of Romans 9, Paul argues that “it is not as though the Word of God has failed.” Indeed, this seems to be a severe problem. However, it is not. In reality, God is sovereign over Israel’s rebellion and rejection. Paul says that “a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Romans 11:25). But why did the Jews reject the Messiah? Because “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day” (v. 7). Is this fact inconsistent with God’s unconditional election? Not in the eyes of Paul. Paul seems to be a proponent of Compatibilism, because in his same argument, he states that God continually cries, “all day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people” (Romans 10:21). The rebellion is real, and man is therefore held responsible for it; God’s electing purposes are real. Both are true.

In Romans 9, Paul refers to Sarah and the Pharoah. Is he talking about salvation in regard to those two example?
• In Romans 9, I do not think that Sarah and Pharaoh are being spoken of in the terms of salvation. However, both of these historical figures are of significant importance when it comes to the logical flow of Paul’s argument in this passage. We shall start with Sarah. Paul has just introduced the idea that “it is not the children of the flesh that are the children of God, but the children of promise who are counted as offspring [that is, true descendants of Abraham who receive God’s covenant promises]” (9:8, emphasis mine). “The promise” (Gen. 18:10, 14) was not given to Hagar (Gen. 16) but was specifically given to Sarah and her offspring. This underscores the selective choice of who God uses in His redemptive plan. Now, Pharaoh is brought into the discussion as Paul begins to address his first rhetorical objection. The question, in light of the jaw-dropping statement “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,” is whether or not God is just! For, after all, how could He be good if He elected Jacob to be a chosen child of promise, and reprobated Esau, excluding him from His covenant promises before these persons were born! Paul argues that God “will have mercy on whom [He] has mercy, and [He] will have compassion on whom [He] has compassion” (Rom. 9:15). The assumption, of course, is that God is working with sinful, undeserving people; for the terms “mercy” and “compassion” imply that these people are in need of it! Furthermore, God says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up…” What purpose?—“that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Paul then asserts this incredible statement, “So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills” (v. 18). In the flow of Paul’s argument, he asserts this to show that God is sovereign over evil. Even the wrath of man praises God (Ps. 76:10), for God indeed installed Pharaoh as ruler and hardened his heart so that His own saving power and glorious name would be spread throughout the whole world! This underscores God’s sovereign right to do what He will with what He has created.
But this immediately raises another objection! “Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?” (v. 19). Boy, oh boy! Don’t ever complain that Paul failed to ask the tough questions! Of course, no one in their right mind would dare to argue that God Paul even considered the silly idea that God was contingent upon Pharaoh! Paul’s questions wouldn’t make sense unless he was arguing that God is sovereign over human choices!

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Disaster, Doubt, And The Divine

May 22, 2013 by Leave a Comment

By ThereforeGodExists.com Contributor

The devastating tornado that occurred on May 20th in Moore, Oklahoma has been on my mind constantly the past few days. I’m not sure about many of you, but in my experience, I have always thought of storms—even the most devastating of storms—as nothing more than “nature acting-out.” Mother Nature, if I may call it that, is likened to some blind force in the universe. One day its 70 degrees and sunny—everybody is happy; the next day it’s cold and raining—everybody is complaining. There’s no one in control of the weather, really. The weather just is, so I reasoned. To be honest, it has not been until recently that I have thought about such things theologically.

Last Monday evening (the same night the tornado hit), I was standing outside my front door in the suburbs of Chicago, watching the dark and distant clouds approach. As they moved closer, distant flashes of lightning became visible. You could hear the distant rumbles of thunder. Soon it started to drizzle. I stood, watching, waiting, thinking. Some time passed, and the sky suddenly lit up as though it was day time, only for a brief moment, and then it went back to blackness. Within a second my pupils adjusted to the shocking brightness, and then readjusted to the darkness again. As I watched the lightning hurl through the sky, Job 36:32 was on my mind:  “He fills His hands with lightning bolts and hurls each at its target.” With anticipating excitement I thought to myself, “Where will you send the next lightning, God?”

Then the rain began to poor down as the gushing wind swept it along diagonally. A steady stream of rain ceaselessly smacked against the pavement. I stood underneath the cove to the front door of my house, watching this spectacle with wonder: the rain, the wind, the lightning! Oh and who could forget the roaring thunder? It was so piercingly loud. First came the blaze of light; then the “CRACK!” and then, within less than a second, the echoing “BOOM!” which sent violent reverberations shooting at me. I jumped several times, being shaken to my core by the sheer rebound of the thunder. It was all so spectacular.

He fills His hand with lightning bolts and hurls each at its target. The thunder announces His presence; the storm His indignant anger. My heart pounds as I think of this. It trembles within me. Listen carefully to the thunder of God’s voice as it rolls from His mouth. It rolls across the heavens, and His lightning flashes in every direction. Then comes the roaring of the thunder—the tremendous voice of His majesty. He does not restrain it when He speaks. God’s voice is glorious in the thunder. We can’t even imagine the greatness of His power. (Job 36:32-37:5)

During the storm, I read this passage numerous times. “This storm, this horribly beautiful and terribly fantastic storm was created by God Himself!” I cried. Surely, just as His infallible, inerrant, authoritative Word declares, God was sovereignly sending each drop  of rain down from His heavenly storehouses; He was breathing out every gust of wind; He was shooting lightning bolts like arrows with point-precision; He was ushering down screams of thunder with His voice. God was behind everything. Suddenly I realized that the storm—what I once considered “blind mother nature”—was not a random, blind force! No, not at all! It was God Himself. “This God is big, and powerful, and terrible” I thought to myself. “He is not to be trifled with.”

I awoke to the news of a catastrophic tornado which killed numerous men, women, and children (death toll 24). I frantically watched video after video of the footage of this F-5 tornado ripping through the town of Moore, Oklahoma. The tapes reveal the jaw-dropping repercussions: homes demolished, schools obliterated, debris scattered for miles, families without a home, eagerly desperate people on the scene, trying to help in any way they can. It was a nightmare. It is a nightmare. I have felt a heavy pit in my stomach ever since hearing about this horrible event. Looking back, I know that the root of this queasiness was planted in my stomach the night the storm hit. And here is why: Whereas before I was ignorant of God’s providence over the weather, ever since that night, I cannot contemplate such happenings without doing so theologically. God did send the storm, did He not? I mean to be frank with you, if you’re a Bible-believing Christian (and I suspect that most of you who are reading this are) then you must heed the basic fact that God did not simply allow the tornado, but rather, He created the tornado.

I drove my little sister to school this morning. On our drive, we listened to 103.5 Kiss FM (the popular radio station for Chicago). If you’ve ever tuned in to 103.5, it won’t be news to you that the talk-show hosts are, well, secular. As my sister and I listened, the broadcasters were dialoguing about the recent tornado in Moore, Oklahoma. They were “reasoning” (to use the term loosely) with one another about why God allow such a thing to happen. (There is that term again! Allow!).The few who even believed in any kind of God/gods argued that he (or she, or it) allowed this to happen. One guy said something about how he grew up in the catholic church but that he now doesn’t know what he believes on the topic anymore. I was growing frustrated at this point. They then played a clip of some moronic pastor insisting that “if only people would have prayed harder, then God would have answered their prayers and stopped the tornado.” This one set me over. I thought to myself, “These people have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about!”

At that moment in time, it dawned on me. “If I were to be on the radio right now, being interviewed by these people, and was asked to explain why God would ordain something so terrible, what would I tell them?” Frankly, I don’t know what I’d tell them. The Bible tells me that God sends the rain, and the thunder, and the lightning, and the tornado; He ACTUALLY CREATES, SENDS, SUSTAINS, EMPOWERS, and DETERMINES the appointed ends for such things. But surely that would not satisfy the demands of the listeners. The reason why we’re made so distraught over these types of occurrences is because we want an explanation for why it happened, why God didn’t stop it. Hearing someone say, “God didn’t stop it because God made it happen” is hardly a comforting thought to most.

And you see, this event, this tornado, it was different than other devastating occurrences. It was different! It wasn’t like 9/11 or the bombing in Boston, Massachusetts or the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut! Why?—because it wasn’t brought about my people. Typically when Christians are asked to explain how an all-powerful, all-good God can exist when there is so much evil in the world, the response is that “God created free creatures who He allows to do bad things.” To be honest, this response has never satisfied me. It doesn’t satisfy me when we’re talking about evil committed by people; but it certainly doesn’t satisfy me when we’re talking about natural evils, such as this tornado. Why?—because, in the case of natural evils, God is the One creating, sustaining, and governing the nature.

Today I watched a video of someone recording the footage of the tornado. He kept saying, “Dear God, please keep those people safe. Oh dear God, please” as this massive twister is ripping through a neighborhood. (Video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTpceWd8UE4). Bless this man for his prayers. But let’s just think about it. Am I the only one made uneasy when the thought of God’s providential ordination of this storm is placed alongside of the prayer that God would simultaneously protect those who the tornado is destroying? God is the one causing the tornado, and we’re asking Him to keep persons safe? This seems extremely paradoxical, doesn’t it? It is a huge dilemma to me. I do not know what to do about it.

I hope you feel the tension as well. If you don’t feel it then you probably don’t believe in God at all. It was Miguel de Unamuno who once said, “Those who believe that they believe in God, but without passion in their hearts, without anguish in mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, without an element of despair even in their consolation, believe only in the God idea, not God Himself.”

At this point in my life, I am content not having all of the answers. To be honest, most of the writers who I love the most acknowledge their intellectual frailty as well. How foolish it would be for someone to act as though he had answers to all of the questions. I will not attempt to defend God on this one. I know what he has revealed about Himself, and I will go no further than what He has told me. It is moments like this, moments when my mind is tired and confused, that I find my consolation, not in a proposition, but a Person.

God is good. God is sovereign. God is bigger than I am. He is incomprehensible. His plan works all things for the good. He is sovereign over everything that happens. He is in control—I believe all of these things with my whole heart. And, to be frank with you, I am comfortable letting what I do know about God shine light upon that which is unknown to me about Him. There are some of you who will think about the overwhelming amount of evil that exists in this world (evil such as this tornado), and will want to chuck God because of it. But what good does that do? By chucking God, you have not only chucked the solution to the problem, but you have also thrown the entire notion of objective evil out the window, and so too have lost the problem to the problem!

God is the only satisfying answer to this problem. Let’s trust Him.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

What Is Election? (2nd Rebuttal)

May 22, 2013 by Leave a Comment

By ThereforeGodExists.com Contributor

I would like to quickly pause and address some issues that have been raised by my opponent Richard. He has repeatedly said that I am defining humans as being “free to do what God has already chosen for us to do.” This is simply a straw man. He has misrepresented my position, and pointed out the flaws. In order to do some damage control, I will explicitly define my terms.

I submit that the Bible as a whole, and sometimes in specific texts, presupposes or teaches that both of the following propositions are true:

  • God is absolutely sovereign, but His sovereignty never functions in such a way that human responsibility is mitigated.
  • Human beings are morally responsible creatures—they significantly choose, rebel, obey, make decisions, and so forth, and they are rightly held accountable for such actions; but this characteristic never functions so as to make God absolutely contingent.

I have already listed numerous examples of explicit biblical passages in which these concepts are stated. Richard has unfortunately failed to address any of them; he simply asserts that my interpretation is “a stretch” to him. I do not doubt Richard’s sincerity in that he desires to discover what the Bible teaches on this most complex doctrine, however, if he truly is eager then I encourage him to show it by actually wrestling with these texts, and to reveal his well-reasoned thoughts about them. This is not too much to ask for, since this is a debate. I, along with many others, do not find these passages to be so trivially brushed off, as Richard seems to think.

What I find interesting is that my opponent has already confessed that the Bible teaches, in at least one place (namely, Acts 4), that God’s sovereign determination is presented as being compatible with human freedom. Richard has dug himself into a hole. If there is even a single example of compatibilism in the Bible (which he has already conceded) then, at the very least, there is no necessary contradiction between these two propositions. At that point, what reason can be given to reject compatibilism? Richard insists that this is hogwash; that I’m defining humans as being “free to do what God determined that we should irresistibly do.” To say it bluntly, I am not insisting that God is enigmatically holding a gun to the back of our heads, whispering into our ears, “Do what I have decreed or else!” and then blaming us for our decisions. God is not some puppet-master playing with His human toys.

That is why I insist that we cannot leave the bounds of the two above propositions. There is indeed mystery in them, but I submit that the problems involved in holding to the truth of both of the propositions are profoundly tied to the very nature of God Himself. As Dr. DA Carson argues, “We are reasonably well placed to isolate some of the things we do not know about God; that is, we see that the Bible describes God as both transcendent and personal, and in part we justify this strange pairing because we can identify some of the things we do not know about Him. But some of these things that we do not know about God turn out to be facets of ignorance that make it reasonable to hold that both the propositions of compatibilism are also true, even though we do not see how they can be true.” Indeed, I know that God presents Himself as personal, but I have absolutely no idea how a personal God can also be transcendent. Do not ask me to explain such mysteries. The mystery of this dilemma is in the first instance not located in debates about decrees, free will, and the like; rather, it is located in the doctrine of God. In a very real sense, this debate belongs in the subject of theology proper.

Two Wills?

Yes, God’s will of disposition is that all men be saved. However, God will ordain what is evil (what He does not desire), in order to accomplish a higher purpose. I think that this is sufficient to defeat his rebuttal. After all, God’s holiness also means that He desires to recompense all men—which would mean that all would go to hell—but He does not effectuate that state of affairs!

Conclusion

Now, I am aware that I have taken a long time to address specific issues. I do not want my opponent to point out that I haven’t responded to all of his rebuttals directly without my first acknowledging it!

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Is The Oneness Pentecostal Church A Cult?

May 22, 2013 by Leave a Comment

jesushs1An important distinction needs to be made here between, namely between Pentecostal and Oneness Pentecostal, as the Pentecostal denomination as a whole is not a Christian cult. However we can indict the Oneness Pentecostalism denomination, manifesting today under groups such as the United Pentecostal Church International, and we might catch them nicknaming themselves Apostolic. So is this charge justified? Is the Oneness Pentecostal church a cult?

As is the case with most Christian cults, the Oneness Pentecostal church rejects basic scriptural theology, regarding the trinity as condemnable and abhorrent heresy. jesushs2They falsely tell their parishioners that the trinity is the view that there are three gods. But this sort of lie is consistent with most cult groups, and as one would expect, we find that sort of thing in other places in their bibliology.

As repulsive as their misrepresentation of the trinity is, they also preach that other denominations do not believe in the Holy Spirit. They teach ritualistic salvation, wherein people have to say chants and magic formulas, and unless they do that, they cannot be saved. They even impose legalistic strictures upon their members. From every angle, it is very difficult to distinguish between them and a Mormon group.

Jesus’ Name Baptism

great_commissionThere are many Christian churches who argue that water baptism is an essential element of salvation, and I happen to think that water baptism is essential for a Christian, it just comes after salvation. But that is a different debate. The Oneness Pentecostal church teaches not only that water baptism is a prerequisite for salvation, but that unless the baptizer recites the words “In Jesus’ name,” there can be no salvation. It was not a true water baptism.

This radical doctrine is based on the Acts of the apostles, most frequently they cite Acts 2:38 as evidence for this claim. But the problem that I would see with this would be that when the apostles baptized “in Jesus name,” that is not to say that they literally recited those words.

Rather, to be baptized in the name of Jesus means to be born again in him; as Romans 8:29 tells us, to be conformed to the image of the Son. The words that we say are pretty much irrelevant, I do not see why somebody would have to say anything at all when they were baptizing somebody. To recite those words is merely an oral expression of being a new creature in Christ. If we are to make it necessary for salvation, we alter salvation to include Pagan chanting, or a Wiccan formula. The words which the baptizer says are not relevant.

Moreover, we can appeal to the Great Commission, wherein Jesus commanded that we baptize “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” In response to this, they will typically reply that Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit! But Jesus is obviously not the Father.

The Holy Spirit

KJV_Acts_4-31The Oneness Pentecostal church teaches its’ parishioners that other Christian denominations either do not believe in the Holy Spirit, or do not believe that we need the Holy Spirit. Now obviously this is either a blatant lie or a statement of ignorance. Insofar as I know, there are no Christian denominations who do not think that we need the Holy Spirit.

This teaching is a consequence of the fact that they believe that angelic tongues are an essential evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Since other denominations reject this heresy, they say that therefore, they reject the Holy Spirit. Most Christians, when they read this statement, will wonder where in the world they could get such a doctrine that angelic tongues is essential to salvation.

Well it is pretty much from the book of Acts, wherein the early church was getting off its’ feet and God provided them with many miracles to convince nonbelievers, including tongues. But if we look at these examples… these people were not speaking in angelic tongues, they were examples of non-Galilean speakers instantaneously learning Galilean dialect by the work of the Holy Spirit. Further, and critically, in Acts 4, we see an example of people who receive the Holy Spirit and do not speak in tongues.

As a sort of ad hoc measure of avoiding this death blow to their doctrinal system, they will say that there are different kinds of tongues. The tongues which are known as edification tongues are the one which they teach is essential. But let’s examine that.

1 Corinthians 14:4-5 (NIV) Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

So in the beginning of verse four, Paul makes it clear that he is referring to the edification “class” of tongues (if there is such a thing), and he goes on to say that not all Christians can do it. I am thankful for the counter-cult apologetics of Paul the apostle.

Legalism

Often a Christian cult can be seen clearly by just taking a look at their doctrine or listening to one of their sermons. But in an effort to effectively relay their cult status to the rest of us, the Oneness Pentecostal church has adopted a legalistic dress code for their men and their women, and a sort of enforced modesty in every aspect of their life.

Their female parishioners are taught that to be members of the church, they must wear long dresses (typically that extend passed the knees), and never cut their hair, ever. In contrast, men are told in a similar manner to keep their hair short. The church members are told to not own a television, and in some of the more extreme Oneness Pentecostal groups, these strictures are regarded as anathemas.

Conclusion

The reason that the Oneness Pentecostal church is so popular in the west is its’ charismatic preaching. Most Christians will be fooled by this group since it bears the name Pentecostal, and they will think that it is just another denomination who happens to hold rivaling views. But it is not just another denomination. It is a cult group. We can see that simply by looking at their rejection of the biblical gospel and their legalistic tendencies.

If you have any questions about this, come join our Theology Discussion Group

Filed Under: Uncategorized

What Is Election? (Second Rebuttal)

May 21, 2013 by Leave a Comment

tempt1In my introductory post to this debate, I put forth five arguments that I think libertarian free will is true, and my debate opponent Franklin made a point to address all of them, except for the argument from the Parable Of The Great Banquet, which is essentially shows that some were predestinated for salvation, but they rejected God of their own accord. This aligns well with the most common definition of free will. But even this definition of free will is something that the Calvinist must reject, and this is portrayed in Franklin’s last rebuttal.

He said, Put simply, man is free to choose that which he desires. But in is introductory post, he explained the total depravity of man, so that man can only choose to do that which is radically depraved. tempt2What he is really proposing is that man is free to do what God has already chosen for him to do. But I say again, this is not a breed of free will that anybody would interpret from the plain reading of the scripture. It is a complete fabrication of Calvinist theology; it is ad hoc, in that it is a hypothesis which exists for the sole reason to keep Unconditional Election from being falsified.

Franklin requires this definition of free will for his theory of Compatibilism to work. But let’s take another look at Compatibilism in light of his most recent remarks.


Compatibilism

Most Calvinists might say that they believe in free will, but I say again, they do not really believe in free will. They only use the term, yet apply it to something different, namely, this view that man can choose that which God has already chosen, and this is compatible with God’s absolute sovereignty. The problem that I see with this view is that, as I said, it works with a faulty, ad hoc definition of free will.

Free will is not, in any way, compatible with God choosing our future choices. That is the opposite of free will. So while Calvinists might want to say that they do believe in free will, they do not really. I say again, they only use the label.

But this view that we choose what God has already chosen for us is not scriptural. When we see things that seem to reflect it in scripture (as Frank offered seven verses, I cannot deal with all of them thoroughly due to limited space), it is saying that, in passages such as Genesis 50:19-20, our choices aligned with God’s will. But does that alignment really suggest causality? That seems like a stretch to me.

When I say that there is no explicit language, I mean that there is nothing that says that God chooses our choices in advance, even though it is the case that mans’ will often aligns with God’s will.

Two Wills In God?

My original argument was that if God wants everybody to be saved, and he chooses who is saved, then why is everybody not saved? Franklin replied that Conditional Election has a similar problem, because God wishes for everybody to be saved, but does not save everybody for his greater will. I do not deny that God does not save everybody for his greater will, but I do deny that it is a problem for Conditional Election.

On Unconditional Election, God chooses who is saved. If God wants everybody to be saved, and he chooses who is saved, it seems to me that it would follow logically that therefore everybody should be saved. Although, I would object, everybody is not saved.

Is God The Author Of Sin?

Frank objects here that he does not believe that God is the author of sin, or that God tempts people, and to this I would agree with him. I would simply add that this is not compatible with the view that he has represented. On his view, everything that ever comes to pass is the will of God for the greater good of those who love him.

It seems to me that this is a view that the Calvinist cannot look too closely at or follow to its’ logical conclusion because it leads to direct contradictions with the scriptures. Franklin realizes this, and so he has abandoned his represented view in this particular area and adopted libertarianism to account for temptation.

He goes on to explain that it is not God who tempts David, Saul, and other biblical prophets, but it was Satan, the flesh, and so forth. But wait… is not Compatibilism, as Frank has represented it, is the view that God uses the evil actions of men, for the sake of his greater purpose? How, then, can we blame Satan for this and say that God is not responsible, if Compatibilism is true?

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Jesus Christ Is Not A Myth

May 20, 2013 by Leave a Comment

apostle1There are a growing movement among laymen who make bold statements which challenge the actual existence of the historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth. I commend my brothers in Christ for their thorough rebuttals of the historical element of this movement, and indeed even the sophisticated atheists who can see passed the wacky conspiracy theories. Although I think what this really comes down to is not a view in regard to a historical figure, but rather this is a dispute about Jesus Christ, the Son Of God. Jesus Christ is not a myth, and I do not argue from the historicity of the resurrection, but rather I think the person of Christ so revealed by scriptures can demonstrate to us that he is unlikely to be a fabrication.

For this reason I hold the position that we do not need a study of comparative religions to know that Jesus is the Christ as he claimed to be, but rather we can apostle2know that Jesus is the Christ based solely on the gospels and the epistles of the twelve disciples. Christians should stand with their heads held high in the face of opposition, because our faith is based not on a book, but rather an event in history, the resurrection, and a person, Jesus Christ, the Son Of God.

In contrast, many other faiths are perfectly willing to say that their scriptures can be taken as mythology and it would not affect their belief. Many Hindus believe that when an Avatar of Krishna appears, he leaves no footprints or trace that he was ever there, so that the idea of history and evidence confirming or refuting their view is impossible. But as 1 Corinthians 15:14 tells us, “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”

The Morals Of Jesus Christ

scourgingsin121811When we conceive of Jesus, we often conceive of a sort of pushover; a very kind man who would never say anything to offend anybody. People think of Jesus as tolerant and non-judgmental, and that angry Christians just distort his teaching to fit their own will. Now it is definitely the case that many Christians do distort the teachings of Christ, however I would argue that the morals of the great Messiah are not something which we would expect to be a human invention.

Jesus Christ was much more strict than most people are aware of. He told his followers that those who do not do the will of the Father will be told to depart from him, that in fact, he never had a relationship with them. He said, “Nobody comes to the Father, except through me.” He taught exclusivity with more zeal and intolerance than the angry Christians of the day, and he did it in absolute truth. But after believing in him, what were these truths that we wanted his followers to obey? What was it that Christians need to repent of?

I say to you, That whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

What man would impose such a law upon himself, if he knew that the law was an outright fabrication? But Jesus went on from there to destroy laws which allowed them to be lustful and covetous while sort of dancing around the Law. He made divorce a sin in Matthew 19 (except in cases of infidelity).

These were laws which could have remained the same and nobody would have questioned it; they were either of the authority of Jesus Christ as a command to purity, or they were the collective outright fabrication of a group of men. But what group of men would invoke sexual boundaries upon themselves and people who they want to follow them? Why would anybody think that, in an effort to attract people to their made-up religion, they should tell people that if they believe them, they cannot enjoy the lust of their flesh?

But it was not only sexual lust, but every manner of worldly lust. Jesus Christ condemned lust of money, as when vendors were gathered in the Temple to sell, Jesus made a scorge of cords and began whipping people. He cried out, “You cannot serve both God and money.”

When a man asked Jesus what he needs to do to be saved, he told him to keep all of the commandments for his entire life, and sell all of his possessions, rendering the money unto the poor. This was a command that was literally unreachable. Jesus Christ commanded perfection of men.

But what man would command perfection? Should we not expect a man use his fake religion to back up his actions and show how righteous he is? Perhaps if it were a myth; if it were a story which we wanted to sell people. But if it were the truth, one would expect it to be hard.

Jesus Christ Was Not A Jewish Invention

Jesus Christ contradicted traditional Jewish practice. Now this is not to say that Jesus contradicted to Old Testament scriptures, for as he said, “I do not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.” He explained this to the Jews so that when they heard his revelation, they would not think him a Pagan or preaching some foreign philosophy. He made it clear that he was preaching within scriptural theology.

But he taught against what tradition had developed Judaism into. That is why he said, “You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” So Jesus believed in the scriptures; he loved the scriptures. He hated what men had done to his Father’s house.

In their tradition, they had certain expectations that the Messiah was supposed to fulfill, such as freeing them from the authority of the Roman government. The Messiah was supposed to be a great man; a man with an army, a man who led the charge and restored the nation of Israel to its’ rightful place. They expected triumph and life. But Jesus did come with that. The Jews just did not see it, because their hearts were focused on worldly things, such as the freedom of Israel as a nation.

So Jesus Christ is not likely to be a Jewish invention because his teachings were patently in contrast with traditional Judaism. Moreover, for a Jew to invent such a tall tale would warrant severe punishment from the Jewish authorities. I therefore have trouble imagining that a group of Jews inexplicably decided to ditch the religion of their fathers and invent a Messiah who was nothing like what tradition held, all for the glory of being beaten, tortured, and murdered.

Jesus Christ Was Not A Greek Invention

Sometimes we hear the charge that the story of Jesus is merely an offshoot of Pagan mythology, such as the story of Osiris and Horus and so forth. One flaw I see in this line of reasoning would be that the early apostles were, emphatically, not Greek. They were Jewish.

These myths, such as that of Horus, were known through Judaism during that time, and were regarded as utterly abhorrent. The idea that the Jews decided to begin a religion based on these myths and evangelize people with them in mind is absolutely absurd.

Conclusion

If Jesus Christ was not a myth, or an invention of his followers, then who was he? Who Is This Jesus?

If you have any questions about this, come join our Theology Discussion Group

Filed Under: Uncategorized

What Is Election? (1st Rebuttal)

May 20, 2013 by Leave a Comment

By ThereforeGodExists.com Contributor

I am encouraged to hear that my opponent Richard acknowledges that Calvinists are known to be well-read in the Scriptures. I think that this reveals a valuable indication about the entire theological system of Reformed Soteriology. Frankly, nobody is born a Calvinist. No person is born with the inherent knowledge that “God unconditionally elects certain individuals to eternal life.” No person could reason to that conclusion on the basis of philosophical argumentation. The truth of unconditional election is something that is revealed by God in Scripture. And only with rigorous study can a person, by God’s grace, heed this most beautiful doctrine. No one believes in Calvinistic doctrine because it solves all of the intellectual inquiries. Men are Calvinists because they sincerely believe, as I do, that it is the most faithful understanding of God’s revelation in His Word.

What is Free Will?

Put simply, man is free to choose that which he desires. Man is held accountable for his choices if, at the moment of his decision, he chose that which he most desired. In short, a person’s nature determines his desire. Jesus taught this same concept, “A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit” (Matt. 7:18). Why? –Because the nature of the tree determines the value of the fruit. Christ also taught that “out of the heart come[s] evil thoughts, murder, adultery…” (Matt. 15:19). Moreover, Proverbs 4:23 says that you must “guard your heart” because “everything you do flows from it.” This is the biblical definition of human freedom.

My opponent Richard admits that there is “one distinct reference in the Bible of this type of free will.” I appreciate his generosity in admitting that it is found in at least one place in the Scriptures. However, he is frankly mistaken. Truthfully, the biblical concept of Compatibilism can be found in countless places (Gen. 50:19-20; 2 Samuel 24; Isaiah 10:5-19; John 3:1-16; 6:37-40; Phil. 2:12-13; Acts 18:9-10; etc.). I encourage the reader to study these passages.

Two Wills in God?

Three of Richard’s objections are basically the same—if God desires all people to be saved (as is clear from Scriptures like 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4; Ez. 18:23), and at the same time He elects certain individuals unconditionally, God seems to become a divine schizophrenic, wishing for what can only be given by Him. So we must ask, is Unconditional Election incompatible with God’s desire for all men to be saved? I do not think it is. Both the Arminian and the Calvinist believe that God desires all to be saved. But, in reality, not all persons will be saved. So what does this mean? It implies that there are at least two wills in God. Both Arminian and Calvinistic theologies concede this fact; indeed, it is impossible to do otherwise. The Arminian says that God desires something more than for all people to be saved; namely, that man’s self-governing autonomy be upheld. The Calvinist too says that God desires something more than for all people to be saved; namely, as Paul too argued, that God desires “to show His wrath and to make known His power” on His “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory” (Rom. 9:22-23). In other words, God’s glorious grace will shine brighter if it does so in light of the backdrop of God’s wrath—just as the light from stars shine brightly in the pitch black darkness of the cosmos.

Moreover, this coexistence is found throughout Scripture. One such example is Christ’s purpose in using parables. In Mark 4:11-12, Christ said to His disciples, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.” Here God wills that they turn and be forgiven (cf. Mark 1:15), but He acts in a way to restrict the fulfillment of that will. There are other examples, but time does not permit us to go further. Needless to say, this objection is, at best, unconvincing.

Is God the Author of Sin?

There are two mistakes that a person can make when thinking about God’s relationship with evil. 1) Some suppose that God does not stand in any sense behind evil and (2) others think that God stands behind good and evil in exactly the same way. In the first case, God is so removed from evil that it is outside of His control. In such a view, there is another power, outside God’s sovereign domain, that challenges Him. In philosophy, such a viewpoint is called dualism. In such a universe, it is hard to tell which side, good or evil, will ultimately win. In the second case, God stands behind good and evil in exactly the same way; what God ordains takes place, what He does not ordain does not takes place. If good and evil take place, it is because God ordains them.

Contrary to both of these views, I submit that God stands behind good and evil asymmetrically. He stands behind good in such a way that good can ultimately be credited to Him; He stands behind evil in such a way that evil is ultimately credited to secondary agents and their malignant effects. Evil cannot escape His way, in exactly the same way that Satan has no power over Job without God’s sanction; yet God remains mysteriously distant from evil itself.

One example of God’s using evil secondary agents to accomplish His purposes is in 1 Samuel 19:9 when Scriptures states, “Then an evil spirit from the LORD came upon Saul.” In 2 Samuel 24:1, Scripture declares, “again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and He incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” But elsewhere, in 1 Chron. 21:1, the same historical event is described, except Scripture says that “Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.” This seems like a big problem. Is God tempting David or Saul to do evil here? More to the point, who in the world incited David to disobey God’s clear command not to take a census? The texts are as clear as day. There are a plethora of others throughout the Scriptures as well.

Now, I hope that I have made it clear that God’s sovereignty over evil isn’t simply a logical deduction of sorts. Not at all! Rather, it is rooted in Scripture. And I submit that God can decree evil, and yet He is not to blame, for anytime these concepts are revealed in Scripture, evil is always attributed to second causes. God is mysteriously and sovereignly in control. “I form the light and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things” (Is. 45:7).

Filed Under: Uncategorized

What Is Election? (First Rebuttal)

May 18, 2013 by Leave a Comment

fw1As my worthy debate opponent Franklin Della Torre pointed out in his introductory post, men do have a desire to be free. I admit it, and this is not a note of shame for conditional election or libertarian free will, as a biblical doctrine. Men have a desire to be free. However, as a cause of the doctrine of conditional election, this seems curious. Our desire for autonomy presupposes that we want to do whatever we want; not what God has willed us to do.

But on Christian theology, our goal is to shed our free will and to do the will of the Father. I therefore do not think it will suffice to say that because we have a desire to be free, we created this doctrine, because it is not the case that Christians have a desire to be free. Christians have a desire to do the will of the Father.

fw2However I do not think it is profitable to hypothesize where these doctrines came from, because at its’ core, this is a debate about scriptural theology, as Frank pointed out in his introductory post. But, if Calvinism is true, how could we harmonize it with what is seen plainly? When the Bible speaks of the four corners of the earth, or a rising and setting sun, we take what we see plainly into account and say that the earth is round and the sun sets; these are cases of phenomenal language.

We inevitably harmonize what we see plainly, because the natural world is, essentially, a book that God himself authored. But an awkward silence seems to be the protocol when applying the most basic method of doing theology to Calvinist doctrines that reject free will.

However I do think the Bible is the ultimate authority, and Franklin raised three biblical arguments in his introductory post.

Total Depravity

The doctrine of total depravity is essential that man is depraved and cannot do good. He argues that from this it follows that man cannot choose to do good in and of himself, he cannot choose God, and therefore libertarian free will would be the ultimate condemnation for all people. I will just say this: I agree with total depravity; I believe that man is radically depraved, and in and of himself, does not choose God.

However, I argue that God gives grace to all men sufficient to render him neutral, and freely able to choose God. This is known as prevenient grace, and Jesus himself told us about it when he said that he will draw all people to himself (John 12:32, 16:8).

This is reflected also in the universal call of the gospel; the gospel is for all people and all nations (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15, John 3:16).

The Teachings Of Jesus Christ

Franklin argues here from John 6 and John 10 where Jesus uses very strong language about the nature of the Father’s drawing. He teaches that men do not understand because they are not his sheep, that they do not come because the Father does not draw them. I think I would basically agree with his interpretation of this passage.

But I would reconcile this position by appealing to dispensationalism, namely that God has related to his people in different ways throughout the eras, and this seems obvious to me. After the ascension of Christ, God related to his people in such a way that the gospel was for everybody, as I pointed out in my last section, and this was because of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out on the world (Joel 2:28/Acts 2:17, John 14:26) and therefore God’s method of drawing men into himself was notably different.

The Teachings Of Paul And The Apostles

When it is said that God predestinated a person to be saved, this is not inconsistent with conditional election as I have so defined it. It simply means that God has predestinated them based on the knowledge that he already had. To this I may be accused of reading into the text, but I think it is justified because it is a doctrine that is taught in other places, and scripture does not contradict itself.

When I say that God predestinated based on the knowledge that he already had, I mean that he had a series of possible worlds before him (this is of course a bit of anthropomorphism), and he chose the one that produces the highest amount of creatures coming into a loving relationship with himself freely.

But how can I reconcile this view with Romans 9:11-12? Does it give the death blow to conditional election? I do not think so; quite frankly, I do not think Paul was even referring to salvation. Instead he was referring to the same thing that the writer of Genesis 27 and Hebrews 11:20 was referring to, namely, the blessing that Jacob was to receive.

This interpretation flows smoothly in Paul’s letter; Jacob received God’s blessing based solely on the will of God, and Paul goes on to give another example in the Pharaoh: (verse 17) “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Referring to raising the Pharaoh up, God hardened whom he wishes, and in regard to Jacob and Esau, God blessed whom he wishes. But it does not seem to me that either of these cases reflect salvation by God’s choosing.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

What Is Election? (Debate: Introduction)

May 18, 2013 by Leave a Comment

By ThereforeGodExists.com Contributor

Man has an obsession with freedom. We demand that we make our own decisions, choose our own paths, and determine our own destinies. We stand on guard, vigilant, ready to attack any system of thought that calls into question our right—and we insist that it is our God-given right—for autonomy. Even the thought of being controlled by any power, no matter how omnibenevolent, is a direct assault on our liberty. Within Christian theology, this debate climaxes in the form of a question, “Why is one person saved, and another not?” In other words, “Who is the elect? And how were they elected?” There are two mainstream evangelical views that attempt to answer this question:

Conditional Election: God, in eternity past, looked down the corridors of time, and foreknew who would, by faith, accept the Gospel invitation and persevere to the end, and thus, off of His foresight of an individual’s choice and persistence in obedience, He elected such persons to eternal life. Those who God foreknew would reject the Gospel invitation are reprobated to an eternal damnation.

Unconditional Election: This view asserts that God, from eternity past, has elected, out of the mass of sinful, undeserving, depraved men, those whom He will bring to Himself, not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; but rather, His choice of such individuals is unconditionally grounded in His mercy and grace alone. Those who God allows to remain in their sinful state are reprobated to eternal damnation, and thus receive the just punishment for which they are due.

I will be arguing that the Bible presents a God that unconditionally elects individuals to salvation. This theological system is commonly known as Calvinism or Reformed theology. The opposing view point is known as Arminianism. Before I begin, I would like to preface by saying that, apart from what many will say, this debate is, and always will be, a debate over Scripture. As those who are seeking to rightly handle the word of truth, ultimately, we must bow our knees before the authority of God’s Word. I stand with St. Thomas Aquinas when I say that doctrines which are taught by Scripture that are neither demonstrably provable nor empirically evident must be accepted by faith on the authority of Scripture. Any supposed philosophical issue taken with God’s revelation in the Scriptures must be subject to the all-sufficiency of God’s infallible Word.

The Total Inability of Man

The Bible presents man as being corrupted by sin. In himself, man is totally unable to pursue the things of God; every part of man—his mind, will, emotions, and flesh—have been infected by this disease. God looks upon the earth and sees that “the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5). Jeremiah confesses that the heart is deceitful and desperately sick (Jeremiah 17:9). Isaiah describes that “all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” before a holy God (Isaiah 64:6). David cries out to God, “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5; cf. Ps. 58:3). Jesus taught that man is held captive by a love for sin and darkness (John 3:19; 8:34). Paul observes that “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God” (Romans 3:10-11). And because man is totally depraved, this sinful lifestyle seems right to him (Proverbs 14:12).

In one of the most explicit passages in all of Scripture, Paul says of man’s depravity, “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Eph. 2:1-3). Furthermore, the Bible says that the “natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). To natural man, the Gospel of Christ is foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18). Man’s mind is “hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so” (Romans 8:7).

The Arminian presupposes that mankind has the moral and spiritual capacity to be in-tune with the things of God. But Scripture cries out in protest! Indeed, man is totally unresponsive to the things of God. The saving lies in God’s court. Man’s will is in bondage to sin. As Scripture declares, “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,” so that “they may come to their senses” and thus “escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will” (2 Tim. 2:25-26). Salvation is from God, beginning to end; man is spiritually dead. From this truth follows the inference that God’s election must be unconditional. If it is not, all men will remain dead in sin, and will thus receive punishment in hell. This doctrine is indeed repulsive to many, but it is nonetheless taught in the very Word of God, and therefore must be heeded. Due to man’s disease, nothing short of a spiritual transformation is necessary (John 3:1-8).

The Teachings of Jesus Christ

In His infamous teaching in which Jesus calls Himself “the bread of life” (John 6), He says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (6:37). Jesus indicates that those who “come” to Him are responding to the Father’s “giving.” Subsequently, those who “come,” Jesus will never drive away. The Arminian must interpret this statement to mean essentially the opposite of what it says. For it says that God’s giving precedes man’s coming; it does not say that God looks down the corridors of time and reacts to the choice that man makes. Shortly following this, Jesus continues, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws [helkuo] him, and I will raise him up at the last day” (6:44, 65). This word “draw” is used to describe a sword being drawn (18:10), and a net full of fish being hauled or dragged to shore (John 21:6, 11). God’s elective prerogative triggers the human decision, not the other way around.

Jesus also said to the unbelieving crowds, “I told you, and you do not believe… you do not believe because you are not among my sheep” (John 10:26). This is fascinating. Jesus unequivocally says that the unbelieving do not believe because they are not of His sheep. Again, the Arminian must feel squirmy hearing Jesus. For the text does not say, “You are not my sheep because you do not believe.” Indeed, it says the exact opposite! Any interpretation that contradicts the Words of Christ must be rejected.

The Teachings of Paul and the Apostles

Paul the apostle was a predestinarian in the highest sense of the word. Indeed, there are numerous passages in the NT that we could touch on that explicitly deal with election (Romans 8:28-39; Ephesians 1:1-14; 2:1-10; Acts 13:48; Galatians 1:15-16; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Peter 2:8; Jude 1:4; etc.), however we will deal with one that is of immense contribution to this discussion. In Romans 9-11, Paul deals with the issue of Israel’s rejection of the Gospel, and in his master exposition he traces an “elect remnant” (Rom. 11:5) throughout history. He says that “it is the children of promise” who are the children of God. But who are the children of promise? Paul gives the example of Jacob and Esau. “Though they were not yet born [Jacob and Esau] and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” (Rom. 9:11-12).

“Before they were born? Before they had done anything good or bad? Paul, you can’t be serious.” Paul responds, “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (vv. 14-15). Paul continues, “So then it depends not on human [free] will or exertion but on God, who has mercy” (v. 16).

“Paul, if God has predestined people to salvation, then why does he still hold them accountable? For who can resist His will?” Paul responds, “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (vv. 20-23).

Is it not ironic that the exact same objections raised today against the doctrines of Calvinism are the exact same objections that Paul refutes? Frankly, if we are on the side that Paul is arguing against, we may want to rethink our theological system. In words that are similar to God’s powerful negation against Job, Paul obliterates man’s insistence that we are the determiner of our own destinies. God is the determiner of each individual’s salvation. He is the sovereign Yahweh. “None can stay His hand or say to Him, ‘What have you done?’” (Daniel 4:35).

Filed Under: Uncategorized

What Is Election?

May 18, 2013 by Leave a Comment

election2When approached with the question of why God allows evil and suffering in the world, the most frequent Christian response is that God created creatures who could come into a loving relationship with him freely, of their own will and their own accord. But a consequence of this is that man often does not freely choose God, he freely chooses to do evil. This conception of free will is known as libertarian free will, or conditional election. Unknown to many Christians, there is an alternative doctrine out there, which rejects free will and asserts that men are essentially robots; we are saved because God elected us to be saved. We are damned because God predestinated us as such. This alternative doctrine is known as unconditional election. Now there is an election, but is it conditional (based on our free will) or unconditional (based solely on the sovereign choice of God). What is election?

election1The former, that the election is conditioned upon the free will of man is described as Arminianism, and the latter is described as Calvinism. I often find that most people who adhere to traditional Arminian theology do not even know that they are Arminians. They do not know why they believe in their conception of election and free will, they simply know that they believe it. It is what they were taught and what makes sense to them, but typically I think we fail to actually dissect this issue. Therefore when the Calvinists come along, they are able to steamroll the Arminians because they have studied the topic and know how to defend their stance. That, in my opinion, is why we see so many intelligent Calvinists. The Arminian position is so poorly represented.

Despite that, I think that there are good reasons for us to believe the Arminian position, that man freely chooses God, who then saves man by grace through faith.

Compatibilism Of The Cross

reflections on Christ - crucifixionSomething that I found surprising was that people who believe that men are puppets to the will of God actually believe in free will. Obviously, how could they reject it, considering the amount of scripture which refers to it? They just sort of redefine free will, so that it no longer means, freely choosing God. Instead, they force it to mean, freely choosing what God has already chosen for us. So when they see a passage about free will, they will just reply that man does have free will – the free will to choose what has already been chosen for them by God. But I ask, who could possibly interpret free will like that?

However there is one distinct reference in the Bible to this type of free will. This was the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. God predestinated men and used them like puppets to crucify Christ. Despite this, they freely chose to do it in their own hatred. Free will and unconditional election, in this case, were compatible, and there are very explicit scriptures suggesting this, such as Acts 4:23-28, Acts 2:23-25, Ephesians 1:3-6 and Isaiah 53:10.

So there is explicit language suggesting compatibilism in one particular case. But since such explicit language is required to establish this view, then why do we not have comparably explicit language supporting general compatibilism? Just think about it: if it appeared in one case, why not in every other? Instead we find something radically different in regard to the general salvation of man, such as the following verse.

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”

If compatibilism is true, why did not Jesus say, “but I was unwilling,” rather than “and you were not willing.”?

The Problem Of The Unsaved

2Peter3.9God has love for the backslidden and there is a spiritual struggle wherein he desperately tries to draw them into repentance with his love. In Jeremiah 2, God is described as mourning over those who abandoned him, and he reveals later that it was not his desire that they, or anybody else should perish (2 Peter 3:9). But of course, they do; the way is broad that leads to destruction. So how can the Calvinist reconcile this?

Typically they reply that there is a difference between God’s will, and God’s desires. He wants all of us to come into repentance and be saved, but he is still not powerful enough to get what he wants. He is meticulously sovereign over every human being, every action, every salvation. He is in absolute control, and yet he still does not get what he wants.

So the question I would pose is this: if God is in absolute control of our salvation, and he wants everybody to be saved, then why is everybody not saved?

The Parable Of The Great Banquet

From Reformed Memes Daily facebook fan page

From Reformed Memes Daily facebook fan page

I will not bore anybody with lists of scriptures describing free will. I suspect the rebuttal to them will be similar to the rebuttal of the prayer for Jerusalem that Jesus made which I submitted above. Rather I will appeal to the this parable, which I think is quite an obstacle for anybody who rejects the concept of libertarian free will.

This parable is found in Luke 14:15-24, and in it, there is a great feast, which is being had in the Kingdom of God. A certain man (God) prepared the banquet, and he invited many guests (the Jews). At the time, his servant (Jesus) went to tell those who had been invited. But those who were invited made excuses and did not join the banquet. The certain man (God) became angry, and sent his servant (Jesus) into the streets and the alleys to gather together the blind and the crippled and the lame (the Gentiles) and invite them to the banquet in the place of those who were originally invited.

So God made a place for many people in the Kingdom Of God, but they did not show up. They freely chose to reject God’s plan. But instead, those who God did not make a place for were invited. Those who were not predestinated; the dogs, were given the reward that the Jews could have had if they chose to!

The Author Of Temptation

If God is in control of every little thing in the world, then just think about what that leads to. It would be very difficult for us to condemn the Westboro Baptist Church for statements such as “God sent the shooter!” or “God killed your kids!” because indeed, if this view is correct, how can we avoid the conclusion that God is the author of the evil events in the world?

This is not an assertion that I would like God to be different, but rather it is the claim this conception of God is unscriptural. As James 1:13 tells us, he does not tempt men to do evil or succumb to the flesh. But if God is meticulously sovereign, then he does tempt men to do evil.

Nature Reveals God

The Bible tells us in Romans 1 that nature reveals who God is through what is seen plainly. But what is seen plainly? I ask: can anybody really believe that free will is an illusion? If it is the case that free will is an illusion, then there is nobody in rebellion against God. There is nobody who God has won over with his love, or pursues with his love. Is just a game that God is playing, like a chess match, against himself.

God has placed us on this chess board with an illusion of free will. Why would he do such a thing is there is no free will? We can see animals, guided by instinct, contrasted against ourselves, as we make decisions based on more than instinct. Why not just make us like animals, guided by instinct with no illusion of autonomy? Why did God even bother to give man the illusion of free will?

Conclusion

For these reasons, I hold the position that we can trust what is plain to us. God has not authored evil, nor confusion (in giving an illusion of a non-reality). Calvinism is held by so many sophisticated theologians simply because most Arminians do not defend their position. Libertarian free will makes sense of the scriptures and correlates best to the world that surrounds us. Regarding that last point, I think even most Calvinists would agree with me.

But I think that poses a major difficulty for the Calvinist, because God has essentially created a world which we cannot make sense of, nor can we even trust our basic beliefs. If we cannot trust our basic beliefs, then how in the world can we trust ourselves to read and interpret the scripture?

If you would like to discuss this further, come join our Theology Discussion Group

Filed Under: Uncategorized
«Older Posts
http://www.hitwebcounter.com
Counter Website