A Balanced Calvinism

yeah, I like to tease every now and then...lol

 

I've read it on this board that "if man can do x, then God is not sovereign" or "if man can do x, that makes man sovereign over God". This is telling God what He must do and what He must allow in order to be sovereign.

The rest of your post receives a hearty "Amen" from me

 

I somewhat understand the theological position that you hold, but I do not agree with it. But I've not heard before that it entails a double salvation. That would take some very careful wrangling of the Text to derive.

 

Thanks... But is it not equivocation and bifurcation to wonder why I am telling God how to be sovereign if you are doing the same thing, albeit in a different direction, yet with similar results?

You are saying that God has to be sovereign by allowing man free will. I am saying that God has to be sovereign by being sovereign (actually, I am not telling God anything, but for the sake of the discussion, your point is that I am indeed telling God something, though I'm saying that God is telling US something). The difference between the two points is the free will of man. At the end of the day, is not God just plain sovereign, no matter what we tell Him?

 

So he was happy to honor a man who advanced ideas that split Baptists on two continents? He can have that title if he wants to. By the way, I wasn't name calling. Fuller advocated things contrary to what Baptists had before believed. The man admitted such.

 

But Paul beseeched men to be reconciled to God after informing them they were already reconciled to God by the death of Jesus Christ.

 

True that. Some things are just plain biblical and have been passed down through the ages. We get nowhere when we throw out the baby with the bathwater, as is often the case I've seen in theological debate. One side says this, another side says that, the historical view is something else -- all are in fact about the same thing, but everything save the point that comes from the pen of the debater is wrong because "so and so, who holds this" said it.

In the case of P-grace, I cannot even find indirect evidence to support the theology, which is why I used the term "invented." P-grace is "derived" from what "must be" if another position is eliminated, otherwise known as an argument from silence. When we have ample evidence of God's intentional grace, why invent a category like P-grace, unless simply, to create a new theological position that strives to distance itself from what the Scriptures actually present.

On that note, that the Scriptures present one theology is evident in both C and A theology, as you have admitted, both hold to the same tenets in the important issues, such as God's initiation of salvation, the total depravity of humankind, the need for God's grace before humanity, dead in their sin and trespasses can approach God, etc. Why not then just adopt the biblical theology and hold it?

There are. Because (as I've been saying for some time) they both have to reconcile the same un-divided Word of God. God, nor His Word, are divided, and any theological position that does so is either not complete, not well-thought-out, or just plain wrong. I'd say, in the case of Arminian theology, that it is a "reaction" against another theology, and as such, it is not a completely "wrong" theology (otherwise it would be heretical, for that is what completely wrong theology is) but rather an incomplete or not-well-thought-out theology. That some (or most) of the tenets of Arminian theology mirror others of Reformed theology (or from my vantage point, biblical theology) is a given, as they are both seeing the same texts and having to explain the same issues.

Agreed. He did not. At the end of the day, the reason that Arminius saw things a tad differently than did the Reformers was quite simply a different view of God's overarching role.

The Reformers saw God as "sovereign" over all things, and with that view, God is then also sovereign over the process of salvation. God (as expressed in Scripture, not logic) then gives to humans certain culpabilities, i.e., we are culpable for our sin, whether or not we desire such, we are culpable for our separation from God, whether or not we can do something about it, and we are culpable for the curse on the cosmos, whether or not "we" actually did the thing or things that resulted in that curse (for starters). To these culpabilities, the message is, "You are doomed!" The penalty is death. There is no reconciling with the Sovereign God, for dead men cannot approach the throne (this is even seen in "types" where the OT law made touching dead objects accursed).

Arminius, on the other hand, saw God as the "lover of humanity." A loving God would not produce such a curse on humankind and hold them culpable without also offering a means for those same humans to do something about it. So, Arminius, sought to reconcile the Scriptures that say very clearly what it was that the Reformers said (note that they developed their theology at the point of a sword, the Roman Catholic Church was against them every step of the way, merely for returning to the Scriptures instead of adopting RCC tradition) with this view of a loving God who would not have left humanity without the means of reconciling their issues.

This dichotomy produced two different views of salvation also. Reformed or biblical theology sees Christ primarily as our substitutionary atonement (plus kinsman redeemer, perfect example, ransom, satisfaction, etc., all are found somewhere, which has led theologians to major on one or the other to the exclusion of all else) who "imputes" on us His righteousness, so that we stand before Holy Sovereign God in the image of His perfect Son. Arminian theology sees Christ primarily as our "suffering example" who if followed well will ultimately cleanse us of our sin by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Wesley took this and ran with it, developing the concept of a "second blessing" that launched the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements -- mostly all centered in some "experiential" or "existential" version of Christianity based more around us than God, though to be fair, all claim that God is the center and reason for all that they do.

At the end of the day, however, the less-well-developed theologies leave an impotent God, who is only an example, while we humans bear the brunt of working out our salvation. That mirrors most of the world's religions, including Catholicism (which many would fight against for merely mentioning though they hold virtually identical tenets of faith!) but that is not at all "good news." Just the same old thing spoken by the Serpent in the Garden, "Do this and you can be just like God..."

The God of the Bible had/has a plan that He has been revealing in His Word from the very first verse. He intends for His glory to be the sole thing in this universe, and yes, within that glory comes a God who loves us and wishes to be in relationship with us forever! The God of the Bible lays out a promise to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, that one day, a Messiah would come, who would crush the serpent (representative of the evil one who is the father of lies and the enemy of God) and who would redeem the curse on mankind and the cosmos.

From there, every word points to the coming of Messiah, who would be the final and ultimate sacrifice -- not "just" an example, but that His blood would be efficacious for salvation, once and for all. It is this all-powerful, electing, sovereign God who is portrayed throughout the Scriptures, and both Arminius and the Reformers knew it. The ones who had forgotten were the Catholics, who were so enraptured with their own mis-interpretation of Christ's words to Peter that they mistakenly thought that THEY held the true power of God in earth. The Reformers fought against that system, Arminius, in effect, ran back to it, and we fight until this day.

Those who hold to the tenets of the faith they say they believe... Many here, who would claim human free will go well beyond allowing God to initiate salvation, they taking their view of humanity well past traditional or even Wesleyan Arminianism.

 

It sounds like you misunderstand Paul's nested arguments.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Not really since I'm saying in His sovereignty He CAN allow man freedom and still remain sovereign, not that He must do so in order to be sovereign. The reformed position does not allow for that.

 

Sovereignty does not mean that God CAN do anything.

Among the millions of things that Sovereignty does NOT allow God to do is not be in charge of something and be in charge of it at the same time.

If man is in charge of his destiny then God is not.

If man is doing things that God wishes would never happen then God is not Sovereign over those things man is doing.

Non-reformed often say, "If it was up to God then NOBODY would go to hell. But it's not up to God- it's up to men whether or not they will repent."

The problem is that Sovereignty is ALL about who it's up to.

Whoever it is up to is who is Sovereign over the "it" whatever it is.

If the "it" is whether we will eat at Chili's or O'Charley's tonight and it is ultimately up to me which one we will eat at, then I am Sovereign over where we eat dinner.

If I forfeit that decision to my wife then what I have done is forfeit my sovereignty over tonight's dinner to her control. It is no longer up to me. I am no longer in control of it. My wife is sovereign over dinner tonight.

If God leaves it up to man then God has forfeited his sovereignty to man and man is now sovereign over it- not God.

It cannot be up to man and God still be sovereign over it at the same time. Whoever it is up to is the one who is sovereign.

 

You keep saying that. Why not? Perhaps you are not describing the true Reformed position? The Reformed position MUST still deal with every passage of Scripture that the Arminian (or any other position that claims to be "biblical") and so, if there IS human free will demonstrated in the text, then the Reformed position MUST deal with that freedom -- and it does.

But, you are not arguing for some limited form of moral free will, are you? You are arguing for libertine free will, where God cannot intervene or do anything other than what man first dictates. Correct me where I am wrong, for you cannot have it both ways -- total libertine human free will and also a sovereign God.

In so saying, you violate the Law of Non-Contradiction, where something cannot be both A and Non-A at the same time and the same place.

I even know that you are trying to glorify God with your concept of God granting libertarian human free will under the guise of His sovereignty. But suggesting a contradiction that merely sounds like a good way to explain a difficult issue doesn't glorify God at all. God is truth, and all truth is God's truth, and by its very nature there are not multiple "truths" but rather, one and the one truth of the Bible, revealed to us by God Himself, is that God is sovereign over all things.

 

First, I want to say I appreciate your exchanges on here the past couple weeks.

Agreed...it means He is in control of everything which is not contrary to free will.

That is a false dichotomy. By God granting man a choice to receive what He has decreed, man is not in charge of his destiny, God is.

That's an incorrect view of sovereignty. My children do things all of the time contrary to what I want them to do and I'm still sovereign over them in our relationship.

As a non reformed, I can honestly say I have never heard that one. Maybe it's those blasted arminians :laugh:

Yes, but you are not sovereign over what time, who is paying and even whether your wife wants to go with you.

Forfeiting a decision IS an act of sovereignty!!

 

See Luke's replies on sovereignty, and tell me if that is the "true reformed" position.

You tell me I'm not arguing for something...then tell me I'm arguing something else...and then to correct you if you are wrong. Well, you are wrong Nothing I said even hints at libertarian free will, you just branded that onto me. Where have I even alluded to the fact that man can up and do anything on his own apart from God (libertarian free will)?

 

I disagree somewhat. If God defers a decision to humanity, that is not necessarily a reduction of his sovereignty because he ultimately would have the power to override the decision if he so chose. Now, if it is stated that God CANNOT interfere, then you would be correct.

God is inherently sovereign. He can defer decisions to his creation, but these choices are still under his umbrella of sovereignty. However, if God does not make the decision directly, he has given up causation. He is not the direct cause of the act. In salvation this is the critical distinction between monergism and synergism.

This is a major problem with election based on foreknowledge. Election based on foreknowledge doesn't so much involve God choosing anyone as it does people choosing themselves. This doesn't mean that God is not sovereign, but it does mean that God is not primarily responsible for the act of conversion.

I do agree with your rejection of the idea that the idea of people going to hell is somehow "not up to God." God could save everyone, if he chose to do so.

 

Regarding the choice to receive...

If God permits a man to make a choice entirely of his own will, God is not directly responsible for the choice made.

I agree that forfeiting a decision is an act of sovereignty.

It is theoretically possible for God to have ordained any of the soteriological systems under discussion without losing his sovereignty. Under some, he would lose primary responsibility for conversion, but he would be sovereign under any of them.

The question is simply a matter of what God has chosen to do.

 

And if you eat at Chilli's you will get the runs.....not a wise choice brother.

 

I've modified my post since you quoted this, but this part remains the same.

Okay, I am wrong. You are not arguing for libertarian human free will. Please tell me (and I've asked this before) what, exactly, you ARE arguing for. The last thing I ever wish to do in one of these debates is mis-represent someone's actual position. I am not in this for strawman arguments. I have better things to do, and I am solid enough in my own position to not have to worry about using strawman fallacies.

I've given you a chance with my statement, "Correct me where I am wrong..." to do just that. But don't just correct my position, I am asking you to detail your own position so that I know it.

You are for human free will, but not libertine human free will. You are for human free will that God has to respond to. You are for human free will that God cannot trump (or coerce). That, to me, sounds just like libertine free will, so you may have to forgive my saying that because I can only go on what you post to decipher your position.

 

Some very good, clear and articulate thinking on the topic. Kudos

:thumbsup: