In the fourteenth proposition of John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One he proposes that God’s roles as Creator and Sustainer have more in common that we sometimes think.
Walton says there are two extremes to be avoided (pp. 118-119):
(1) God’s work as Creator is completely finished. This includes the idea that the universe now “runs itself.” Some examples of this would be forms of theistic evolution that remove God from the scenario or deism.
(2) God is a micro-manager, dictating everything that happens as creation develops.
This sounds like a similar contention between some Calvinist and Arminians regarding salvation!
Walton argues that his “functional origins” view allows for us to think of creation as still going forward with God’s involvement, though not as micro-manager. In other words, when we think of God as “sustaining” creation this is also his continual work of creating.
How does this impact how Christians understand evolution? Walton writes:
The existence of biological processes is not a major concern, whereas the denial of any role to God in relation to those biological processes–whatever they are–are theologically and biblically unacceptable. (p. 122)
the archives near Emmaus 
Is there a distinction here between ‘micro-manager’ and absolute sovereign?
I presume that depends on what one means when they say “absolute sovereign.” I think we can think of God as being in complete control without controlling completely. He is absolute in his sovereignty in that no one shares it with him and nothing happens that he cannot prevent, but that doesn’t mean we have to accept a deterministic paradigm.
I believe that every particle of dust that dances in the sunbeam does not move an atom more or less than God wishes—that
every particle of spray that dashes against the steamboat has its orbit as well as the sun in the heavens—that the chaff from the
hand of the winnower is steered as the stars in their courses— that the creeping of an aphid over a rosebud is as much fixed as
the march of the devastating pestilence [for example, of God’s plague of locusts upon Egypt (Exodus 10:13–14, 17–19)], and the fall of the sere leaves from the poplar is as fully ordained as the tumbling of an avalanche. He who believes in God must believe this truth. — Charles Spurgeon
Where would you place such passages as Exodus 10:19 — deterministic?
It seems like Ex 10.19 is depicting something extraordinary, though the ancients do seem to find God in the events of nature. I think there is a tension we shouldn’t overplay either direction. Maybe a both-and reality we cannot explain.
I don’t believe it’s any more extraordinary than all of the revelation regarding the miracles in Exodus. God is clearly absolutely sovereign in Scripture. Don’t you recall reading about the plagues in Exodus where they explicitly declare his sovereign power over nature?? Ex. 8:3, 4, 22, 24, 31; 9:11, 25, 26; 10:21, 23; 16:20, 24. This is why Calvinists say stuff like this:
“If there is a single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free from God’s sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled” (R.C. Sproul).
Would you say that God is sovereign and determinate in Saul’s suicide? 1 Chronicles 10:13-14
Again, not to splice hairs (because I don’t deny that there are endless passages of Scripture one could reference), but I don’t think these examples of God’s utter sovereignty equate to determinism any more than passages that seem to indicate human choice equate to cosmic chaos. While Spurgeon, Sproul, et al., may be excited and fascinated by one side of this paradox that doesn’t make the other side go away. I’m pleased to stand in the tension.
Granted, you prefer the tension. So seeing as how there are a multitude of verses that show God’s ‘utter sovereignty’ that prove he is sovereign, what verses prove that human choice nullify that?
Again, you want to retain the either-or dichotomy. I don’t accept that premise, so you’re barking up the wrong tree.
I think that it’s actually that I support the Calvinistic premise of divine sovereignty with Scripture, while you support the deterministic premise with what then? Philosophy? Human reason? And these from a seminary grad no less?
“The “god” of this twentieth century no more resembles the Supreme Sovereign of Holy Writ than does the dim flickering of a candle the glory of the midday sun. The “god” who is now talked about in the average pulpit, spoken of in the ordinary Sunday School, mentioned in much of the religious literature of the day, and preached in most of the so-called Bible Conferences, is the figment of human imagination, an invention of maudlin sentimentality. The heathen outside of the pale of Christendom form “gods” out of wood and stone, while the millions of heathen inside Christendom manufacture a “god” out of their own carnal mind. In reality, they are but atheists, for there is no other possible alternative between an absolutely supreme God, and no God at all. A “god” whose will is resisted, whose designs are frustrated, whose purpose is checkmated, possesses no title to Deity, and so far from being a fit object of worship, merits nought but contempt”. (The Attributes of God; chap 5, The Supremacy of God. A. W. Pink)
Sadly, I think God has determined that I would be intellectually inferior to you, unable to get excited by random quotes from Spurgeon, Sproul, and Pink. Now go happily gloat in your gnosticism somewhere else.
Actually I doubted that God had determined that you are of inferior intelligence to me Brian — until your last comment. You do appear however, to be unable to back your belief system with Scripture, or quotes from Arminians — which is almost as surprising as it is troubling. The quotes are random? Hmmmm. There’s nothing quite like Scripture and quotes from the masters that are hittin’ the ‘ol nail right on the head huh? As for Gnosticism, next time you’re at the Western library check out my Master’s thesis — “A New Look at First John via the Proto-Gnostic Concept of Satan.” It’ll help you get a better understanding of what it actually is.
Well how exciting is that? God has given you the opportunity to bask in your own awareness and brilliance (so is this thesis your own…is it made of gold?). What a blessed man art thou! Sadly, I don’t know why I would quote Arminians. I did not claim to be an Arminian either. It is unfortunate that God didn’t reveal that to you. As to proof-texting to support one or the other–Calvinism or Arminianism–all I have said is that there are passages that indicate choice and responsibility and passages that indicate God’s sovereignty and control. I indicated that therein lies a tension, one I am satisfied to accept as is. I am sorry that God determined that I wouldn’t be as gifted as you and your “masters” in comprehending the deep things of the Almighty.
“all I have said is that there are passages that indicate choice and responsibility” …. and all I have said is “What are they?”
You want me to through the whole canon discussing passages like, “Choose this day whom you will serve…;” Jesus’ calling to the rich young ruler; the sermons of Acts; the warning passages in Hebrews and on and on and on?
No … Just give me the best two verses (sections, passages) that you believe teach that a man’s ‘free will’ is not ultimately subject to God’s sovereignty. That is what we’re discussing. Be specific please (not something like ‘the sermons of Acts’).
There are none. Calvinism is correct. Yay, you win! Now go take a walk or watch TV or something.
Ok, I’ll bite. One verse at a time, if you please. I’ll give you a verse, you tell me how you can force it into a strict Neo-Calvinist paradigm. 1 Timothy 2:4 (with extra verses for context)
“I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” Verse 4 clearly states in no uncertain terms that God wants ALL MEN TO BE SAVED. ergo, unless you are a universalist (which I don’t expect), you have a problem, since not every man is or will be saved. Therefore, God wants something to happen, that hasn’t or won’t happen. I eagerly await your response, although I suspect Brian will be vexed with me for engaging…
Really Brian? A seminary graduate undoubtedly going into teaching or the pastorate, unable to defend your view with Scripture, and resorting to “Yay, you win!?” You been hanging out with Gerry Breshears too long! Chad –I don’t know what a Neo-Calvinist is but this is a Calvinistic response to your Arminian plea that “God wants something to happen that won’t happen.” Scripture teaches that God does everything he pleases, and everything he does pleases Him — which I will speak to before addressing the 1 Timothy passage:
[Every activity that God is engaged in gives Him delight! Again and again in Scripture we read that he acts for the sake of his Name. His great goal is to magnify his fame and to manifest the renown and the honor of his Name in all that he does. When Psalm 115:3 says, “But our God is in heaven, He does whatever He pleases,” we find that the English versions translate the word pleases with a variety of words like desire, wish, want, pleases, purposes, wills, and determines. This is significant. When this Hebrew word for pleases is used of God, it is translated to include not only His wanting and determining but wishing and purposing and desiring and doing. 1. Psalm 115:3 says, “Our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.”
2. Isaiah 46:9, 10: “I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure.’” 3. Jonah 1:14: “Therefore they cried out to the Lord and said, “We pray, O Lord, please do not let us perish forthis man’s life, and do not charge us with innocent
blood; for You, O Lord, have done as it pleased You.” 4. Again, Psalm 135:6: “Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deep places.” Psalm 115:3 says, “But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.” Here in Psalm 135 we have, “Whatever the Lord pleases, He does.” It is what pleases Him that is the motivation
for His action. And all of His actions please Him. There is nothing that God does that displeases Him. Clearly, the Bible teaches that God does all that He pleases. And all that He does pleases Him. Therefore, what do we do with an Arminian interpretation that implies that God desires to do something, but clearly doesn’t do what He desires, in light of the fact that other verses clearly teach that God does do what He desires, and everything he does pleases Him?]
Obviously, if Scripture is trying to teach that God “desires” to save everyone, then the good Bible student must ask: Why doesn’t God do what He apparently desires to do in 1 Timothy 2 and elsewhere, namely, save everyone? If He’s the God of Scripture, he certainly must be able to at least do what He wants to do, or do what pleases Him. Clearly, even a bad theologian will admit that God does not save everyone (I am not a Universalist). Why then doesn’t He do what Scripture suggests that he wants to do? I propose that there are only four possible ways of dealing with this:
1. He can’t do what he wants to do; or
2. He won’t do what he wants to do; or
3. He doesn’t want to do what he wants to do; (none of which are acceptable), or
4. He has no intention of desiring to save every single individual when Scripture says He desires to save all men because Scripture uses all in many different ways (which I will be happy to demonstrate if you desire), one of which means “some only.” And in this passage it seems quite clear that what God desires to do, and does do, is to save “all *kinds* of men” (some only) which he clearly demonstrates later.
Considering these options may seem silly, but after we explore them we see that the only reasonable way to look at 1 Timothy 2 is to reevaluate the meaning of *all.* Strangely enough, it seems to be the Arminian preference to teach that God wants to save everyone, but He won’t because of our apostate free wills, i.e., that God won’t save us because we don’t will it so! Or that He really isn’t sovereign enough! Somehow it’s more satisfying to the Arminian theologian that the wills of pagans in rebellion to God’s wishes are able to do what they want to, but the sovereign, directing, providential God of the universe isn’t able to do what he wants to do. Amazingly, for some theologians this is a better option logically than to just rethink how Paul must have intended the word all to be used in this context. He says, “Therefore, I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men,” in 1 Timothy 2:1.
But if he meant each and every existing individual when he wrote “all men,” why not leave it at that instead of qualifying it in verse two by saying “for kings and all who are in authority”? If “kings and all who are in authority” are a part of the “all men” in verse one, there wouldn’t be any need to qualify who he meant. Kings and all who are in authority are not all men; they are some part of all men. Likewise, in verse four, the statement “who desires all men to be saved,” must not mean “each and every existing individual”; it must mean all kinds of men; kings, those in authority, those who are not, etc. The truth about the gospel is that it saves all kinds of men from every tribe and tongue and in every nation. The gospel does not save every single existing individual. God does no do that because he doesn’t desire to do that — not because he can’t. The Gospel saves every single individual who believes it.
What can I say? Your amazing intellect overwhelmed me. I bowed before you hyper-Calvinistic superpowers given to you by the “masters.” Is that a He-Man reference?
1. stop referring to me and/or Brian as Armenians. Neither him nor I have claimed this.
2. I find your hermeneutic lacking. By stacking up verses from psalms mostly in order to address a passage from Paul is comparing oranges to apples. Clearly you don’t feel that Psalm 137:9 (Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.) should be taken as a counterpoint to Jesus’ admonitions to love your neighbor, right? So let’s try to separate the psalms (which are clearly songs written to God, not technical manuals on God’s nature) from the actual teaching about God from people who were trying to do so with their words. Surely someone in your position and of your learning can tell the differences in genre and context, yes?
3. It is awfully convenient for you to point out the many and varied uses of “all” in Paul’s letters. How often do you apply that technique in your reading of the scripture? I bet I could come up with a number of different uses for the words in the verses you continue to quote. However, as you have shown in your last post, you don’t apply this consistently. You said, “When this Hebrew word for pleases is used of God, it is translated to include not only His wanting and determining but wishing and purposing and desiring and doing.” Well, perhaps that Hebrew word doesn’t mean ALL of those things, but just one of them? Perhaps you are correct that “ALL” in Paul’s usage has more than one meaning (which isn’t really true, since Paul is a master of Greek rhetoric, and we can assume that he is using a turn of phrase to make his point). Still, given how you used the language for your Hebrew word, why not incorporate ALL of the usages into the translation? Because it doesn’t fit your predetermined theology.
4. Why do you insist on redefining the word “sovereign?” Since clearly the majority of those were considered sovereign throughout history controlled everything down to the molecular level, but as royalty, they had the rights and power to enforce their will if they wished to, why insist on this postmodern changing of the word’s meaning to fit your theology?
5. You said, “His great goal is to magnify his fame and to manifest the renown and the honor of his Name in all that he does.” Your God sounds like a masochist. And if that is His great goal, it is clear that he isn’t very good at what He does. Even the gnostics saw the problem with your theology. Enter: demiurge… wait, that sounds an awful lot like your god…
6. Another Bible story to wrestle with: Since God knew what Nineveh would do, why did he tell Nineveh (through Jonah) that they would be destroyed, when clearly God wasn’t going to destroy them? Was God lying for no good reason? Surely it wasn’t to glorify himself, since the Bible doesn’t really Glorify liars often.
A seminary grad (with a double degree I believe you said?) who, on top of everything else, undoubtedly doesn’t know what hyper-Calvinism is either! Brian — Get a refund!
I would get a refund, but God has dictated that I cannot get a refund, and he won’t tell me why, but it seems to give him glory. Sadly, for me, he sent me to seminary twice and he has determined that I be blinded to the truth of your holy gospel and your brilliant theologizing mind. I want to be thankful, but he has predetermined my sadness.
1) Chad — it’s Arminian — not the people group Armenian. You’re responses are the responses from the Arminian theological position Chad.
2) “the psalms (which are clearly songs written to God, not technical manuals on God’s nature) from the actual teaching about God from people who were trying to do so with their words. Surely someone in your position and of your learning can tell the differences in genre and context, yes?”
Generally I can, but not always. That’s the whole point to talking about theology Chad. Context, author’s intended meaning, etc. The psalms are God’s words to men about men’s words to God. They do describe God’s nature though too don’t they? Psalm 135:8 — doesn’t that describe God’s nature? And hey look!!! It’s right after the comment that God does whatever he pleases again — He kills children. Wow. How weird is that?
3) NKJ Romans 5:18-19 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men [every existing individual], resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men [all who believe], resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many [every existing individual] were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many [all who believe] will be made righteous.
4) I took my initial definition of sovereign from Spurgeon. I doubt that’s post modern. I think you find that my definition of sovereign line up exactly with Westminster Confession of Faith — 1646. Not post modern
5) WCF : God has all life,[25] glory,[26] goodness,[27] blessedness,[28] in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made,[29] nor deriving any glory from them,[30] but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things;[31] and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases.[32] In His sight all things are open and manifest,[33] His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature,[34] so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.[35] He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands.[36] To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.[37].
Is the masochistic God you’re talking about? Or do you prefer the Western Seminary version: God is love and has a wonderful plan for you life?
6) Sorry. I won’t move on to another passage until you deal with my response to 1 Timothy. One verse, at a time as you asked.
Touche Brian. perhaps it is in God’s best judgment that he not tell you why you cannot get one. No sense in pleading I guess either huh? Well look on the bright side. I was an Arminian when I graduated too. There’s still hope Brian. Don’t give up the ship.
PS — Like you –I didn’t know I was one either.
I am glad to know there is hope. I was worried that I would forever be a Christian, but you give me hope that someday I might be a Calvinist.
I know how much you love quotes Brian —
If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, ‘Salvation is of the Lord.’” I cannot
find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.” Tell me
anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed
from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, “God is my rock and my salvation.” What is the heresy of Rome,
but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ–the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in
our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every
heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. —Charles Spurgeon
I’m finally understanding why Dan Kimball wrote “They Love Jesus, But Hate The Church”.
1. I am not Armenian either, but my typo is noted. However, I would add that arguing against a strictly Dortian view of Reformed theology does not automatically make one Arminian.
2. You admit that you cannot always distinguish the differences in genre and context. As such, you should be more careful using individual scriptures as proof-texts for your points. For example, the Bible also says, “There is no God.” If the descriptions of God in an individual psalm contradict what we have been taught by Jesus, then I would argue that the psalms are not a home-run for understanding God’s nature.
3. I am not sure how your response fits what I wrote. “pantwn anqrwpwn” simply has no Biblical basis in Greek for being translated as “all kinds of men” as you suggested earlier. Also, your rejection of philosophically sound alternatives out of hand because they do not fit your theology is telling about how I can expect this conversation to go. Translating scripture according to your theology (“it must mean”) rather than translating based on faithful Greek scholarship is a good way to come to poor theological conclusions. It is also a good way to back up vapid theology.
4. Just because Spurgeon said it, doesn’t mean anything. Redefining a word to suit your own narrative is the hieght of postmodern practice.
5. Quoting from the Westminster Confession of Faith does not really prove your argument either way, since as Christians, we look to scripture, not medieval or post medievel documents and people to authoritatively speak to us about God. Your comment insinuating that I believe something along the lines of “God is love and has a wonderful plan for you life” is setting up a straw man, as I would not say that that in any way resembles what I believe in a nutshell.
6. I am happy to remain here with you while you think for yourself and stop outsourcing your theology to others from previous generations. Long blocks of text by people who cannot engage with us any longer just make you look like you don’t have anything to say, it doesn’t make you look smart or right. Googling “how to defeat arminians in arguments” will give you all sorts of the same quotes you have been using, but it doesn’t mean that the person who uses google well knows that they are talking about.
Thanks Chad. I’m moving on.
Rick
“If the descriptions of God in an individual psalm contradict what we have been taught by Jesus, then I would argue that the psalms are not a home-run for understanding God’s nature.” — Chad, the whole of Scripture is inspired, not just the words of Jesus. Luke 4:3 is also inspired. We need it all to teach us about God’s nature.
“I am not sure how your response fits what I wrote. “pantwn anqrwpwn” simply has no Biblical basis in Greek for being translated as “all kinds of men” as you suggested earlier.” — Then Chad, come up with a better alternative/translation which is more philosophically satisfying so that we’re not stuck with the heresy that God is some wimpy lame creature that is governed by the wills of apostate sinners who can’t do what He wants to do. As I said, why would you find that more satisfying when I’ve already given you plenty of Scripture to show you that God does exactly as he pleases?
“Just because Spurgeon said it, doesn’t mean anything. Redefining a word to suit your own narrative is the hieght of postmodern practice.” — What are you talking about redefining for Chad? How have I redefined the word to suit my own narrative? Who has redefined the word Chad? The word sovereign means that God is the supreme ruler over all things. He is above, over, and beyond this world and all that is in it. The Bible clearly teaches that God knows all things. There are never any surprises for Him. There are no details He is unaware of. Carefully ponder the following verses as you are made aware that He knows everything because He is everywhere ( Jeremiah 23:24; Psalm 139; Hebrews 4:13), and He is a God of knowledge (1 Samuel 2:3; Psalm 147:5). He not only knows the thoughts and intents of the hearts of all men (Proverbs 15:11; Hebrews 4:12–13), but necessarily knows all the details of inanimate particulars as well (Psalm 147:4; Isaiah 40:26). Furthermore, He has known these details from all eternity (Isaiah 46:10; Acts 15:18). He does not “discover” the truth, and His knowledge of all things arises from within Himself, they are not imparted to Him by those things He created. God did not learn about the intimacies of who you are by first needing to observe you (Proverbs 8:22; Isaiah 40:13). By virtue of the fact that God has created everything that exists, He is the owner and final disposer of all that He has made. All that He created is His to do with as He chooses. He is under no obligation to men to move in any particular direction to please them. Regardless of how things might appear to us, God is controlling all things in undisturbed majesty. Even the sinful actions of men can only occur by His providence and permission and with the strength that He gives to them. All that comes to pass then must be, in some sense, in accordance with what He has eternally purposed and decreed.
“Just because Spurgeon said it, doesn’t mean anything. Redefining a word to suit your own narrative is the height of postmodern practice.” — You’re right. Continue being ignorant of his sermons or understanding his theology Chad.
“Quoting from the Westminster Confession of Faith does not really prove your argument either way, since as Christians, we look to scripture, not medieval or post medievel documents and people to authoritatively speak to us about God.” — Chad, you’ve ignored everything I’ve said about Scripture so far. In 1643, the English Parliament called upon “learned, godly and judicious Divines”, to meet at Westminster Abbey in order to provide advice on issues of worship, doctrine, government and discipline of the Church of England. Their meetings, over a period of five years, produced the confession of faith, as well as a Larger Catechism and a Shorter Catechism. For more than three centuries, various churches around the world have adopted the confession and the catechisms as their standards of doctrine, subordinate to the Bible.
“Long blocks of text by people who cannot engage with us any longer just make you look like you don’t have anything to say, it doesn’t make you look smart or right.” — Well you’ve really said a mouthful here Chad, and you probably don’t even realize it. It’s interesting that you think that reading guys like Spurgeon, Edwards, Pink etc. and really thinking through what they said and why they said it is equivalent to not engaging. Now that is Classic!
You said: “Then Chad, come up with a better alternative/translation which is more philosophically satisfying so that we’re not stuck with the heresy that God is some wimpy lame creature that is governed by the wills of apostate sinners who can’t do what He wants to do.” If you are unwilling to even entertain any interpretation that does not fit what you already believe, then we are at an impasse. You WILL not be swayed, and I remain unswayed by the strength of your arguments.
I should note that I am not Ignorant of Spurgeon, Edwards, the Reformed movement, WCF (or its background), the larger and shorter catechisms, the barmen declaration, the confession of 1967, the scots confession, etc… (although I admit to not reading Pink). That does not mean I want to read large block quotes from them in this context. If you can’t boil their ideas down into a paletable size for discussion, don’t use them.
You said, “The word sovereign means that God is the supreme ruler over all things.” This is categorically untrue. The definition of sovereign in the english language contains no reference to God. Please cite your source here.
Not sure if or why my response didn’t post so I’ll try again.
“If you are unwilling to even entertain any interpretation that does not fit what you already believe, then we are at an impasse. You WILL not be swayed, and I remain unswayed by the strength of your arguments.” — Chad how (for crying out loud) do you know whether or not I’ll be swayed by your arguments until you give them to me? I’d even be willing to entertain your argument if you were an Open Theist — but I first need to see what it is! Why don’t you just give me your argument and then I’ll tell you why it does or doesn’t work like I’ve been doing this entire thread.
” If you can’t boil their ideas down into a palatable size for discussion, don’t use them.” — Geez I didn’t know I’d need to get permission from you Chad on exactly what size of quote you’d be willing to consider as evidence of the position I’m espousing. Talk about bad reasoning for being unwilling to be swayed! ‘I might have been swayed but his quote from Spurgeon was beyond my word count limit.’
” You said, “The word sovereign means that God is the supreme ruler over all things.” This is categorically untrue. The definition of sovereign in the English language contains no reference to God. Please cite your source here.” — Chad, I give you the Biblical evidence to support the sovereignty of God, and then you say that you can’t buy it because the dictionary definition doesn’t use the word God in it’s definition? Surely I’m missing something in this conversation.
My reference: The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination — Lorraine Boettner, available on line. Do a ‘find’ search on sovereign. That’s what the whole book is about.
Twiliter59: No one is going to make headway on this discussion until, as Chad pointed out, we figure out a definition of Sovereignty, but also free will, ‘the elect,’ and any other relevant terms. Twiliter 59, you ought to know that Arminians believe in God’s complete and full Sovereignty over the events of the universe ( if you do not believe me, I recommend you start with the works of John Wesley, you can get all of his writings for fairly cheap through Christian Book Distributors; and if you’re still in disbelief, Roger Olson has written a nice introductory text on Arminian theology). So you positing Scripture showing God’s control over the wind, or the frogs out of the Nile, or even the hardening of Pharaohs heart, does not in anyway set Calvinism apart from Arminianism—both sides accept that. Until the definitions are established, any argument made by any side will cause angst… Name dropping doesn’t help either, suppose Lorraine Boettner’s definition of sovereignty is just completely wrong? Then what? The only helpful things your quotes does is tell me what you believe and what those particular individuals believe, but not what is actually the case—unless their definition is the case, but this hasn’t been proved nor demonstrated. Anyone can name drop…
OK kids … just trying to get the conversation going ….. here’s my take, what’s yours? What’s different about your take than mine? What is it about this definition that doesn’t suit everyone? What is it about this definition that isn’t Biblical enough?
The word sovereign means that God is the supreme ruler over all things. He is above, over, and beyond this world and all that is in it. The Bible clearly teaches that God knows all things. There are never any surprises for Him. There are no details He is unaware of. Carefully ponder the following verses as you are made aware that He knows everything because He is everywhere ( Jeremiah 23:24; Psalm 139; Hebrews 4:13), and He is a God of knowledge (1 Samuel 2:3; Psalm 147:5). He not only knows the thoughts and intents of the hearts of all men (Proverbs 15:11; Hebrews 4:12–13), but necessarily knows all the details of inanimate particulars as well (Psalm 147:4; Isaiah 40:26). Furthermore, He has known these details from all eternity (Isaiah 46:10; Acts 15:18). He does not “discover” the truth, and His knowledge of all things arises from within Himself, they are not imparted to Him by those things He created. God did not learn about the intimacies of who you are by first needing to observe you (Proverbs 8:22; Isaiah 40:13). By virtue of the fact that God has created everything that exists, He is the owner and final disposer of all that He has made. All that He created is His to do with as He chooses. He is under no obligation to men to move in any particular direction to please them. Regardless of how things might appear to us, God is controlling all things in undisturbed majesty. Even the sinful actions of men can only occur by His providence and permission and with the strength that He gives to them. All that comes to pass then must be, in some sense, in accordance with what He has eternally purposed and decreed.
Barobin — Wesley himself was not Arminian, he was very close to Calvinism. Modern Wesleyanism is very close to Arminianism. Wesley displaces predestination with prevenient grace which enables a person to respond when God’s saving grace comes. Wesley also denied irresistible grace, which is essentially the Arminian position that grace is resistible. Anyone who denies irresistible grace believes that the human fallen will is capable of resisting the omnipotent will of God, and their will chooses whether or not they are saved, not God’s will. So for you to say that Arminians believe in God’s complete sovereignty is not correct. If God is completely sovereign, His will is accomplished in spite of the fallen human nature.
Again, while Wesley agrees with Luther and Calvin and contemporary Wesleyans on many matters, he differs on some from both: Wesley’s position is: Because of the extent of original sin, human beings are completely dependent upon God for the work of salvation – in conviction, repentance, and faith. A person can not be saved at any moment the person chooses, but only in those moments in which grace is being offered capable of creating saving faith. The only part a person plays in the work of salvation is to place *themselves in the means of grace* and then when that grace that can create saving faith comes choose to cooperate with it. This is the Arminian position.
Twiliter59: Here is your definition of Sovereignty —“The word sovereign means that God is the supreme ruler over all things. He is above, over, and beyond this world and all that is in it. The Bible clearly teaches that God knows all things. There are never any surprises for Him. There are no details He is unaware of.” —-This statement is accepted by Arminians—which are not open theists. The differences between Arminians and Calvinists are going to be how God exercises that rule—or the character of that rule. Let me ask you this twiliter59, does God perform evil? Because if he is sovereign in the sense you mean, God is the cause of evil and calamity….or rather, does he just permit it as you say?
P.S. I am actually an Arminian—don’t tell Brian or Chad this, but they probably are as well—because the “Baptist in-between Calvinism and Arminianism” is actually Arminianism, as there is no in-between. 😉
Well Open Theism is Extreme Arminianism. Hyper Arminian if you will. Arminians do not believe that God is the supreme ruler over the human will though do they. He does not will they become elect, they do. When they will it, he elects them. That is not ‘supreme ruler.’ For the hyper Arminian — because man’s will is free, God does not know what the sinner will freely do.
The clay has no claims on the potter. The laws that God imposes upon men do not apply to the divine nature. 2 Chronicles 18:20-22 — God is not responsible for the sin he causes. Prov. 16:4; Isaiah 45:7, etc.
Gee do think there are any Calvinists that don’t know they’re Calvinist?
Twiliter59: It isn’t that they don’t “know” they’re Arminians, it has more to do with the development of a particular theological position. I don’t want to speak for Brian or Chad on this, but non-Reformed Baptists developed a line of theology that attempted to give God control and man freedom, and everything posited in this development is agreed upon by Arminians. Arminians like Roger Olson accept pretty much everything found in this development; which is likely a response towards a “humanistic-Arminianism” that developed in the 1800s. This more humanistic form is what you see in most lay-Arminians, where it sounds pretty much like Semi-Pelagianism. However, that isn’t what Arminianism is if we follow the line of thought from Jacobus Arminius, Wesley, etc.. Thus, your approach to this discussion is combating this more populist-humanistic form that developed much later and isn’t true Arminianism. As far as your remark about Open Theism, again, that isn’t Arminianism or a “hyper-Arminianism”… Arminians believe God sees the future and is control, rather than an ” educated guess.” Besides, no one here claims open theism, that I’ve seen, and thus bringing up open theism is a red herring.
Wait, I’m Baptist? First, I learned I was an Arminian. Now I am learning I am a Baptist. 🙂
Brian: Sorry I didn’t mean to lump you in both..I was going off of your first statements regarding God’s Sovereignty and man’s responsibility, which any Arminian would love and agree with! As far as the Baptist statement, I took a year of theology from a Baptist university (its name will remain secret out of embarrassment), which believed it was positing an ‘in-between position Arminianism and Calvinism.’ I’ve also seen this in other Baptist works like ‘Whosoever Will,’ and Norman Geisler’s lousy treatment in, ‘Chosen But Free.’ What frequently happens is a denial of both positions to reach a “common ground,” or “in-between,” but in reality what ends up happening is a restating of Arminian theology, with maybe insignificant differences.
After reading the, well, heated comments of twiliter59 I had stumbled across a Catholic webpage (don’t worry twiliter, I’m not Catholic, well… I don’t think I am; but who knows you might be able to tell me otherwise) whose second rule of what not to do in online debates seems to perfectly relate to your behaviour. I thought you might find it useful/challenging to reflect upon:
“Argue as a means of venting emotion…our natural reaction is to get angry. Indulge that. Try to forget any Christian goal of defending or expounding the Faith. That will only get in the way of fun. Instead, be determined to show how stupid your opponent is, and punish their ignorance and prejudice with counter-abuse. To be scrupulously gentle and reverent at all times is just far too hard. Of course it could be that, even if someone does not remember your arguments, they may remember what a model of virtue and decency you were in arguing, which might be a good witness that may help them later on – but such considerations should not get in the way of a good bout of rock throwing.”
barobin
It’s OK. I don’t care either way. These labels are functional. As I said, Scripture seems to allow for both extremes. We can spend our time trying to reconcile every passage to fit our framework, but I find that too tedious. It leads to a dead end. At the end of the day we know God must be involved in salvation, we know people are called to respond, and the tension presented in the narratives of Scripture is by far closer to reality that our deductions and systematizations. If our theologizing helps us think about it, fine, but no one theological paradigm can monopolize God.
Brian: I agree with your statement whole heartily! We should always be humbled in our ‘doing theology,’ and aware that we could be wrong. We should always be reforming, always scrutinizing our own theological positions. Our libraries should be filled with works of Calvinist, Arminian, Catholic, Orthodox, and anything in between—and not to ‘know the enemy,’ but to embrace the truth and beauty found in other traditions. Because the Scripture displays both extremes is why I am compelled to Arminianism. I prefer the tension and mystery to exist in how God can be sovereign and all knowing, yet man must respond freely, then in the alternative position.
And Barobin, you know that man responds freely with which Scriptural references please?
Brian — what a relief to see that you at least know that God must be *involved* in salvation.
Erland — I’m not actually angry. More like frustrated. I continued to try to get these guys to respond to quotes and Scripture regarding their points of view, which none were apparently able to do. But one thing is for sure — they know Calvinism is wrong.
Thanks for the excursion gents. Nice of you to notice that it was just me though and not your buds.
And Erland the post was five ways to loose the arguments with atheists, from a catholic perspective. Engaging seminary grads who can’t articulate their theological positions is not quite apropos.
I can not weigh in, with any significance, on either side of a theological debate in the company of such theological learning, but I do know that the attitude conveyed in his comments make twiliter59 seem belligerent, mean spirited, and haughty. He may be right, I don’t know, but even if he is, I wouldn’t want to be exposed to him very long, as he seems to provoke anger instead of creating a desire to hear more of what he has to say, or more importantly, a desire to love and embrace this sovereign God. This, of course, is only my opinion (I hope I’m wrong about his attitude), and not intended as a judgement, as only God can judge. It just seems unfortunate (probably not the best word choice, given the discussion) that someone who appears to have so much knowledge and training in God’s Word, and is possibly in a position to lead others to Christ, would not have discovered a way to be more engaging, and less unpleasant and condescending. Or maybe he has, but a sovereign God won’t allow him to be that way. But I doubt it.
I agree with those who have advised me to end this “conversation” because one participant is poisoning the well. I apologize to my readers for allowing this to continue, so I have decided to block “Twiliter59” from commenting at this blog. I will be closing the comments to this post now.