I’m not sure that a new topic is justified, but I simply couldn’t find an existing thread that seemed to fit this great article that I wanted to share.
This well written piece by Tim Challies, touches upon aspects of the Wesleyan -v- Whitefield controversy. Tim addresses numerous facets of the Arminian/Calvinist issue in a faithful and well written way that I believe deserves our attention and consideration.
Also deserving of your time is a reader’s comment (#5) to Tim’s article that tells a very interesting story about a young Anglican Minister by the name of Charles Simeon and his interaction with the venerable Charles Wesley. As the author of this comment states about Pastor Simeon:
“May the Lord grant us a double portion of his spirit today.”
Based upon what I have now read of the exchange; may that same prayer be said and applied to this forum and its participants!
Thanks so much for posting this article. This is so rich. This article is related to the one I posted regarding a “Pharisee and a Calvinist”, but this article illustrates the other side of the coin.
Here is John Wesley calling the doctrine of Predestination “Blasphemy”
Thus manifestly does this doctrine tend to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation, by making it contradict itself; by giving such an interpretation of some texts, as flatly contradicts all the other texts, and indeed the whole scope and tenor of Scripture;—an abundant proof that it is not of God. But neither is this all: For, Seventhly, it is a doctrine full of blasphemy; of such blasphemy as I should dread to mention, but that the honour of our gracious God, and the cause of his truth, will not suffer me to be silent. In the cause of God, then, and from a sincere concern for the glory of his great name, I will mention a few of the horrible blasphemies contained in this horrible doctrine. But first, I must warn every one of you that hears, as ye will answer it at the great day, not to charge me (as some have done) with blaspheming, because I mention the blasphemy of others. And the more you are grieve with them that do thus blaspheme, see that ye “confirm your love towards them: the more, and that your heart’s desire, and continual prayer to God, be, ”Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do!”
1. This premised, let it be observed, that this doctrine represents our blessed Lord, “Jesus Christ the righteous,” “the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth,” as an hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity. For it cannot be denied, that he everywhere speaks as if he was willing that all men should be saved. Therefore, to say he was not willing that all men should be saved, is to represent him as a mere hypocrite and dissembler. It cannot be denied that the gracious words which came out of his mouth are full of invitations to all sinners. To say, then, he did not intend to save all sinners, is to represent him as a gross deceiver of the people. You cannot deny that he says, “Come unto me, all ye that are weary and heavy laden.” If, then, you say he calls those that cannot come; those whom he knows to be unable to come; those whom he can make able to come, but will not; how is it possible to describe greater insincerity? You represent him as mocking his helpless creatures, by offering what he never intends to give. You describe him as saying one thing, and meaning another; as pretending the love which his had not. Him, in “whose mouth was no guile,” you make full of deceit, void of common sincerity;—then especially, when, drawing nigh the city, He wept over it, and said, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together,—and ye would not;” EthelEsa—kai ouk EthelEsate. Now, if you say, they would, but he would not, you represent him (which who could hear?) as weeping crocodiles’ tears; weeping over the prey which himself had doomed to destruction!
2. Such blasphemy this, as one would think might make the ears of a Christian to tingle! But there is yet more behind; for just as it honours the Son, so doth this doctrine honour the Father. It destroys all his attributes at once: It overturns both his justice, mercy, and truth; yea, it represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust. More false; because the devil, liar as he is, hath never said, “He willeth all men to be saved:” More unjust; because the devil cannot, if he would, be guilty of such injustice as you ascribe to God, when you say that God condemned millions of souls to everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, for continuing in sin, which, for want of that grace he will not give them, they cannot avoid: And more cruel; because that unhappy spirit “seeketh rest and findeth none;” so that his own restless misery is a kind of temptation to him to tempt others. But God resteth in his high and holy place; so that to suppose him, of his own mere motion, of his pure will and pleasure, happy as he is, to doom his creatures, whether they will or no, to endless misery, is to impute such cruelty to him as we cannot impute even to the great enemy of God and man. It is to represent the high God (he that hath ears to hear let him hear!) as more cruel, false, and unjust than the devil!
3. This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree of predestination! And here I fix my foot. On this I join issue with every assertor of it. You represent God as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust. But you say you will prove it by scripture. Hold! What will you prove by Scripture? That God is worse than the devil? It cannot be. Whatever that Scripture proves, it never proved this; whatever its true meaning be. This cannot be its true meaning. Do you ask, “What is its true meaning then?” If I say, “ I know not,” you have gained nothing; for there are many scriptures the true sense whereof neither you nor I shall know till death is swallowed up in victory. But this I know, better it were to say it had no sense, than to say it had such a sense as this. It cannot mean, whatever it mean besides, that the God of truth is a liar. Let it mean what it will, it cannot mean that the Judge of all the world is unjust. No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works; that is, whatever it prove beside, no scripture can prove predestination.
4. This is the blasphemy for which (however I love the persons who assert it) I abhor the doctrine of predestination, a doctrine, upon the supposition of which, if one could possibly suppose it for a moment, (call it election, reprobation, or what you please, for all comes to the same thing) one might say to our adversary, the devil, “Thou fool, why dost thou roar about any longer? Thy lying in wait for souls is as needless and useless as our preaching. Hearest thou not, that God hath taken thy work out of thy hands; and that he doeth it much more effectually? Thou, with all thy principalities and powers, canst only so assault that we may resist thee; but He can irresistibly destroy both body and soul in hell! Thou canst only entice; but his unchangeable decrees, to leave thousands of souls in death, compels them to continue in sin, till they drop into everlasting burnings. Thou temptest; He forceth us to be damned; for we cannot resist his will. Thou fool, why goest thou about any longer, seeking whom thou mayest devour? Hearest thou not that God is the devouring lion, the destroyer of souls, the murderer of men? Moloch caused only children to pass though the fire: and that fire was soon quenched; or, the corruptible body being consumed, its torment was at an end; but God, thou are told, by his eternal decree, fixed before they had done good or evil, causes, not only children of a span long, but the parents also, to pass through the fire of hell, the ‘fire which never shall be quenched; and the body which is cast thereinto, being now incorruptible and immortal, will be ever consuming and never consumed, but ‘the smoke of their torment,’ because it is God’s good pleasure, ‘ascendeth up for ever and ever.’ “
5. O how would the enemy of God and man rejoice to hear these things were so! How would he cry aloud and spare not! How would he lift up his voice and say, “To your tents, O Israel! Flee from the face of this God, or ye shall utterly perish! But whither will ye flee? Into heaven? He is there, Down to hell? He is there also. Ye cannot flee from an omnipresent, almighty tyrant. And whether ye flee or stay, I call heaven, his throne, and earth, his footstool, to witness against you, ye shall perish, ye shall die eternally. Sing, O hell, and rejoice, ye that are under the earth! For God, even the mighty God, hath spoken, and devoted to death thousands of souls, form the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof! Here, O death, is they sting! They shall not, cannot escape; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. Here, O grave is thy victory. Nations yet unborn, or ever they have done good or evil are doomed never to see the light of life, but thou shalt gnaw upon them for ever and ever! Let all those morning stars sing together, who fell with Lucifer, son of the morning! Let all the sons of hell shout for joy! For the decree is past, and who shall disannul it?”
6. Yea, the decree is past; and so it was before the foundation of the world. But what decree? Even this: “I will set before the sons of men ‘life and death, blessing, cursing.’ And the soul that chooseth life shall live, as the soul that chooseth death shall die.” This decree whereby “whom God did foreknow, he did predestinate,” was indeed from everlasting; this, whereby all who suffer Christ to make them alive are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God,” now standeth fast, even as the moon, and as the faithful witnesses in heaven; and when heaven and earth shall pass away, yet this shall not pass away; for it is as unchangeable and eternal as is the being of God that gave it. This decree yields the strongest encouragement to abound in all good works and in all holiness; and it is a well-spring of joy, of happiness also, to our great and endless comfort. This is worthy of God; it is every way consistent with all the perfections of his nature. It gives us the noblest view both of his justice, mercy, and truth. To this agrees the whole scope of the Christian Revelation, as well as all the parts thereof. To this Moses and all the Prophets bear witness, and our blessed Lord and all his Apostles. Thus Moses, in the name of his Lord: “I call heaven and earth to record against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may live.” Thus Ezekiel: “choose life, that thou and thy seed may live;” Thus Ezekiel: (To cite one Prophet for all) “The soul that sinneth, it shall die: The son shall not bear” eternally, “the iniquity of the father. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” (18:20) Thus our blessed Lord: “If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.” (John 7:37) Thus his great Apostle, St. Paul: (Acts 17:30) “God commandeth all men everywhere to repent;—“all men everywhere;” every man in every place, without any exception either of place or person. Thus St. James: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.” (James 1:5) Thus St. Peter: (2 Pet. 3:9) “The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” And thus St. John: “ If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father; and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:1, 2)
7. O hear ye this, ye that forget God! Ye cannot charge your death upon him! “‘Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?’ saith the Lord God.” (Ezek. 18:23ff.) “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions where by ye have transgressed,—for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God. Wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.” “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked.—Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” (Ezekiel 33:11)
-----------
Wow! John Wesley is saying that the Calvinist God is worse than the devil. Strong and very ungracious words.
Yes, he may be a bit harsh, but you see, like Calvinists and anti-SDAs, he is very passionate when he feels the word of God is being blasphemed and speaks accordingly. His language in #s 4, 5 (though waxing quite poetically) cannot be argued against in regards to Calvinism and eternal torment. I agree with Wesley and call this blasphemy to the core.
On another note...How have you been Stan? I haven’t been here awhile.
I am the Lord, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
I equip you, though you do not know me,
that people may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other.
I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the Lord, who does all these things.
“Shower, O heavens, from above,
and let the clouds rain down righteousness;
let the earth open, that salvation and righteousness may bear fruit;
let the earth cause them both to sprout;
I the Lord have created it.
“Woe to him who strives with him who formed him,
a pot among earthen pots!
Does the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’
or ‘Your work has no handles’?
Woe to him who says to a father, ‘What are you begetting?’
or to a woman, ‘With what are you in labor?’” Isaiah 45:5-10
The opposition to Calvinism is rooted in a defective view of sin and man’s plight before a holy God. In the Institutes, Calvin did a good job in arguing that our knowledge of ourselves and our knowledge of God as Creator (through the law of nature, apart from special revelation) are going hand in hand. Our view of sin is informed by our view of God’s holiness and the two are interrelated. What we think about our sin and our condemnation will make us either rejoice in God’s unconditional election and redemption accomplished or will make us abhor it as being a blasphemy. To the degree that we realize and recognize the hideous and awful nature of sin and our bondage to it, to the same degree unconditional election will be seen as the only and reasonable solution to man’s wicked and desperate state. Instead of being a testimony about a wicked God, election is the good news of a God who saves the wicked.
No wonder in the Canons of Dort, the official document that condemned Arminianism and formulated the famous TULIP, the five points of Calvinism, the first paragraph brings the proper perspective of our sin and God’s mercy. I’ll quote from these articles because they are illuminating in stating correctly the perspective of Calvinism.
God’s Right to Condemn All People
Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin. As the apostle says: “The whole world is liable to the condemnation of God” (Rom. 3:19), “All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), and “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).
The reality is that if God would have no intervention, apart from any involvement of him or of Satan, the man already had sealed his fate through Adam’s sin.
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation
For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men,
For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners Romans 5:12-19 (quoted selectively)
So, before any external action, sinful man is doomed. His fate is just, he cannot request mercy. Mercy by definition is undeserved favor. Man deserves from the start the opposite. If God had left him in this state he would do no wrong, no injustice.
In this context, election is seen properly as a manifestation of God’s grace and an extension of his love not an unjust and arbitrary limitation of his love. The Arminians and all forms of beliefs in different kinds of free will starts with a philosophical assumption that “Everybody deserves a chance to be saved” and Calvinists are the bad guys who are denying people’s inborn rights to believe and be saved. But grace that is deserved is no longer grace, is no longer free grace, which is an oxymoron.
What happens in the opposite of election, reprobation? God does not restrict the entrance of heaven to the people who are already in a lost situation. From Canons of Dort, again:
to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.
God is not the author of sin because he leaves people in their sins. They are the authors of their own sins, they had brought God’s condemnation on them, not because of something God did but because of something they did. They sinned, not God. And for God to let them in such situation, not showing mercy on them does not make them any injustice, they receive what they deserve at the judgment. Grace is undeserved treatment. If God is unjust in not giving them the opposite of what they deserve (grace instead of condemnation), what is not just is called just and the other way around. Any objective standard of justice is lost if God is unjust in not giving others the opposite of what they deserve, namely grace.
In the final instance the entire debate is around grace. What is grace, if it is deserved or not, if man has a right to a chance to be saved, if man’s condemnation is just or not. If people got their sin and plight wrong, if they don’t realize and refuse to admit their sinful state, the nature of their sin, God’s holiness and their right condemnation, they will hate election, reprobation and all that the notion of “free grace” means. We may only hope that God may visit them, many of whom are true Christians, and bring them to a proper understanding of their sin, God’s holiness and his Amazing Grace. Using an expression of Michael Horton, there is a great need to put “Amazing” back into “Grace.”
Yes, he may be a bit harsh, but you see, like Calvinists and anti-SDAs, he is very passionate when he feels the word of God is being blasphemed and speaks accordingly. His language in #s 4, 5 (though waxing quite poetically) cannot be argued against in regards to Calvinism and eternal torment. I agree with Wesley and call this blasphemy to the core.
On another note...How have you been Stan? I haven’t been here awhile.
Hi Guibox,
I am doing fine. Good to hear from you again. Please read Gabriel’s excellent posts above and let us know what you think.
Our view of sin is informed by our view of God’s holiness and the two are interrelated. What we think about our sin and our condemnation will make us either rejoice in God’s unconditional election and redemption accomplished or will make us abhor it as being a blasphemy. To the degree that we realize and recognize the hideous and awful nature of sin and our bondage to it, to the same degree unconditional election will be seen as the only and reasonable solution to man’s wicked and desperate state. Instead of being a testimony about a wicked God, election is the good news of a God who saves the wicked.
I disagree that one must believe in election to fully justify or fathom God’s hatred towards sin. I believe that many Arminianists do not shirk from giving God full vindication in his vindictiveness towards sin and sinners.
GABRIEL PROKSCH - 28 March 2010 02:16 AM
The reality is that if God would have no intervention, apart from any involvement of him or of Satan, the man already had sealed his fate through Adam’s sin. So, before any external action, sinful man is doomed. His fate is just, he cannot request mercy. Mercy by definition is undeserved favor. Man deserves from the start the opposite....God is not the author of sin because he leaves people in their sins. They are the authors of their own sins, they had brought God’s condemnation on them, not because of something God did but because of something they did. They sinned, not God. And for God to let them in such situation, not showing mercy on them does not make them any injustice, they receive what they deserve at the judgment.
Gabriel
I can agree to that...to a certain degree. This is why I respect Stan’s position regarding Calvinism and annihilation. Man sinned and brought death on himself. God is fully just to let things be and let all of us suffer the consequences of sin, but He stepped in. That is grace. Even if He chose to save a few, the fact is is that all would have died anyway due to sin. Eternal torment changes that whole equation in my opinion.
Nonetheless, even though one can’t blame God for injustice or not showing mercy, it doesn’t add comfort to fully thinking, cogitant, feeling beings knowing that some of them will be condemned to hell no matter what they believe. I can’t blame people for thinking Calvinism’s God is not fair and that God is arbitrary who can do what He wants regardless of His creation’s thoughts and feelings. “You really don’t matter in what happens to you. You are pawns and even if you don’t really understand, that’s the way it goes. Some are saved, some will be sent to hell.”
To respect a sovereign God like that? To acknowledge His supremacy and ultimate control? Sure. I and many others can do that. I suppose it is His right and as God’s loyal subjects, it is our duty to respect and acknowledge that God can do what He wants. But to fully love a God like that? To enjoy the fellowship of a ‘distant’ God who can use us as He sees fit, even to torment us for eternity simply because “He is God and He can do what He wants with us”?
No, I can’t say I blame people for not loving a God like that or being able to devote oneself to Him.
Nonetheless, even though one can’t blame God for injustice or not showing mercy, it doesn’t add comfort to fully thinking, cogitant, feeling beings knowing that some of them will be condemned to hell no matter what they believe.
See you, apart from election and regeneration, nobody can truly believe because they are unable, incapable of belief. If God let them in their sinful state, they will remain as they are, in rebellion against God. It follows that their condemnation is just. That’s one point we made repeatedly on this forum, still it’s a wonder that people miss it and think that Calvinism teaches that God will condemn people to hell “no matter what they believe” like some condemned people truly believed and God said “You’re not on my list”
See you, apart from election and regeneration, nobody can truly believe because they are unable, incapable of belief. If God let them in their sinful state, they will remain as they are, in rebellion against God. It follows that their condemnation is just. That’s one point we made repeatedly on this forum, still it’s a wonder that people miss it and think that Calvinism teaches that God will condemn people to hell “no matter what they believe” like some condemned people truly believed and God said “You’re not on my list”
Gabriel
What rebellion? Rebellion by who we are? If that is the case my point still stands. If people are inherently evil it is not their fault, it’s Adam’s. Some people are good people morally but just don’t believe in God. God is the author of all that is good including our moral consciences. God makes us in His image, imparts the concept of right or wrong to the worst sinner, but then says they are not the ones He will regenerate? They apparently never get that chance to have their inherent evil overcome as God refuses to move them to repentance.
If someone is not going to be saved because they hate God and refuse to allow Him in their lives, well, God can leave them to their own devices. They had their chance but chose to remain rebellious. To have them be rebellious by nature, not give them the chance to choose God, and then still hold them accountable for rebellious acts of sin due to a nature they had no option or chance to overcome?
Yeah, I’d say that is a little unfair.
At least if we left it up to foreknowledge, we could say, “Yes, God allows them to face judgment because He knew that they would choose to stay in rebellion’. That is much different then, ‘God chose those people to be lost’.
My point that we operate with different definitions of sins stands also.
guibox - 29 March 2010 04:14 AM
Some people are good people morally but just don’t believe in God.
My definition of morality, at least according to the great two commandments on which all the law and prophets hang, includes belief in God. David, while confessing a sin he committed on the horizontal level (adultery with a woman and murder of her husband) expressed that sin first of all in the vertical level “Against you and only you I sinned”. His moral failure had both a vertical and horizontal elements. I wonder why are we having this discussion because after all, adventists are masters in remembering others that if somebody breaks one commandment, in this commandment he breaks all of them.
guibox - 29 March 2010 04:14 AM
God is the author of all that is good including our moral consciences. God makes us in His image, imparts the concept of right or wrong to the worst sinner, but then says they are not the ones He will regenerate?
The moral conscience and the concept of right or wrong are God’s general revelation to sinners that makes them accountable to Him and without excuse (see Romans 1 and 2 for this thesis). However when it comes to his eternal purposes, He presents Himself as the potter who has the right to use his vessels according to his purposes, either to display his grace and mercy (for the elect) which is seen in their regeneration, faith in Christ and sanctification, or to display his justice in wrath toward those sinners who in spite of their conscience telling them what is good or bad they still choose to do what is evil.
guibox - 29 March 2010 04:14 AM
They apparently never get that chance to have their inherent evil overcome as God refuses to move them to repentance.
It seems to me that you are still speaking in the language of inherent rights: God must give everybody a second “chance”, everybody deserves a second chance. In my previous post I mentioned this assumption which is in conflict with the nature of grace itself. It’s undeserved, if a sinner deserves a second chance, and, for example, God denies him this chance, it results that God is in debt to that sinner and unjust because He refuses to give the sinner the chances he is entitled. Or, as Paul said, who had given to God something in order to put God under the debt to return him back? God doesn’t owe anybody anything, even to an unfallen creation. Much more to sinners who are deserving his wrath.
guibox - 29 March 2010 04:14 AM
If someone is not going to be saved because they hate God and refuse to allow Him in their lives, well, God can leave them to their own devices. They had their chance but chose to remain rebellious. To have them be rebellious by nature, not give them the chance to choose God, and then still hold them accountable for rebellious acts of sin due to a nature they had no option or chance to overcome?
Yeah, I’d say that is a little unfair.
Basically you are saying that apart from them having a chance, God is unjust in condemning them because they are unable to choose for him due to their nature.
I left for the end what I think is the assumption that lies at the basis of our disagreement.
guibox - 29 March 2010 04:14 AM
What rebellion? Rebellion by who we are? If that is the case my point still stands. If people are inherently evil it is not their fault, it’s Adam’s.
They sinned “in Adam” (Romans 5:12)
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
The central idea is that people don’t die because they sinned like Adam, but “in Adam”, through a representative. It’s a single sin that brings death, condemnation, Adam’s sin, still the reason death springs is “because all sinned”. Because refers to the cause. If Adam had sinned as an individual, his condemnation would be restricted to himself. But his sin was as a covenantal head, as a representative of his posterity and his posterity sinned in him. Consequently its their fault also. A good example is the way in which the author of Hebrews argues in chapter 7 about the melchizedekian priesthood as being superior to the levitical priesthood. He argues that Levi paid tithe to Melchizedek, even if Levi was not yet born and Abraham actually paid the tithe to Melchizedek. The point is that Levi paid the tithe through a representative, through Abraham who functioned as a covenantal head for all his posterity. What was true about Abraham was counted as true for his son and all posterity. The same with Adam and his sin. One step further, we have the second Adam, Christ, and his posterity, the believers.
Here is the match: Adam’s sin was imputed to us, our sins are imputed to Christ and his righteousness is imputed to us. This is basic covenant theology and if the link is at some point broken, it all goes down. If we are not guilty of Adam’s sin, it becomes impossible to be righteous in Christ. Imputation becomes impossible. The argument about having a second chance is based on the assumption that somehow Adam’s fault is his only, we just happened to be born with a nature for which we can’t be blamed, we are not condemned for what Adam did, this is all his fault, we are victims. And because victimization involves innocent people, victims have somehow an inherent right to be rescued, or at least, to be given a chance in order to have something to say in their case, to overcome their status as victims. It is assumed that once they have this chance they are no longer victims, only then their condemnation is just, until then, it’s not their fault. It becomes their fault when they are confronted with the alternative and are given the opportunity, the motivations and the means to choose this alternative.
Well, all this scheme is inherently coherent, and a lot of people, due to philosophical reasons adhere to it. No wonder that the liberals denied original sin and consider it an insult for human reason. Denial of justification by faith alone, imputation of Christ’s merits, denial of the nature of grace and the nature of atonement, all fit well in this scheme. It starts with a different definition of sin and from this point of view, calvinism is heretical. Calvinism, in this view, is insulting because it gives answers to a problem that it’s a fiction, original sin, insulting human concepts of what is reasonable just. Consistency, as I wrote, will lead to a rejection of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as well, because as nobody can be counted guilty of somebody else’s sin (Adam), Christ’s can’t be counted guilty for somebody else sin/s (ours, Adam’s and our own peculiar sins included), and we can’t be counted righteous for somebody else perfect obedience (Christ’s). Ideas have consequences.
or to display his justice in wrath toward those sinners who in spite of their conscience telling them what is good or bad they still choose to do what is evil.
Hold on here. You are speaking in redundancies. ‘in spite of their conscience telling them what is good or bad’? What good is a conscience if it cannot move them to repentance? Why do they choose to do what is evil, and can they choose NOT to do evil? Can they not choose to do good? Why not? If it is God who must get them to the place before they can choose to do good, then God is responsible for allowing them to revel in evil. If they have no choice, their damnation is really not their fault. Adam and God must take responsibility for it. How can they be blamed for not listening to their conscience when they are not drawn by God to be regenerated?
If you’re cool with that aspect of sovereignty, all the more power to you. I can’t blame anyone who has a problem with it.
… If you’re cool with that aspect of sovereignty, all the more power to you. I can’t blame anyone who has a problem with it.
Yes, certainly, from my sinful “human” perspective I can also see the apparent unfairness to which you refer. However, the words of our Lord are clear and without error:
”No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:44 (NIV)
Dear Guibox,
The word “elect” appears 11 times (in the context of God choosing whom he will save) in the NIV version of the Holy Bible; it’s also found 11 times in the TNIV; ~13 times in the KJV; 8 times in the NASB version.
The meaning, and the context of the word “elect” is clear in all of these verses of Holy Scripture. Respectfully, how do you reconcile this with your denial of God’s sovereign right to choose who He will save and who He will not?
or to display his justice in wrath toward those sinners who in spite of their conscience telling them what is good or bad they still choose to do what is evil. What good is a conscience if it cannot move them to repentance?
Hold on here. You are speaking in redundancies. ‘in spite of their conscience telling them what is good or bad’?What good is a conscience if it cannot move them to repentance?
Exactly for what I told you, keep people responsible for their sins.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20
The argument of apostle Paul in the first 3 chapters of Romans builds the argument that both jew and gentile, one category having the knowledge of the law in written form (jews), the other having the knowledge of the law in their conscience (gentiles) were incapable to live up to their own accepted standards, consequently the law shuts the mouths of everybody, condemns everybody. Whatever role their consciences may play, it certainly have no power to bring them to repentance, only to condemn them
guibox - 29 March 2010 08:01 AM
Why do they choose to do what is evil, and can they choose NOT to do evil? Can they not choose to do good? Why not?
Because they are spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1,5), slaves to their sins, bent inward to their egos.
guibox - 29 March 2010 08:01 AM
If it is God who must get them to the place before they can choose to do good, then God is responsible for allowing them to revel in evil.
God is responsible for allowing them to revel in evil, true. But this is something different for God being responsible for their evil. The source of their sin is in them, not outside, consequently they cannot blame anything or anybody outside themselves for their sins.
guibox - 29 March 2010 08:01 AM
If they have no choice, their damnation is really not their fault.
They have a choice in the sense that they are not coerced externally in any way. They are free to be what they are. And because they are sinful, because, as Paul said, “nothing good dwells in me” (Romans 7:14), they are “sold under sin” (Romans 7:14), they act according to their nature. The blame should be put where it is, not outside. Even Paul said that “So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me” (Romans 7:17), nevertheless this could not excuse himself “it’s not my fault”, because in him was the cause of sin.
guibox - 29 March 2010 08:01 AM
Adam and God must take responsibility for it. How can they be blamed for not listening to their conscience when they are not drawn by God to be regenerated?
If you’re cool with that aspect of sovereignty, all the more power to you. I can’t blame anyone who has a problem with it.
A good dose of grasping the doctrine of original sin as it is found in Romans 5 (verse 12 in particular and the development of its thesis afterward) will deal pretty well with this “problem.”
God is responsible for allowing them to revel in evil, true. But this is something different for God being responsible for their evil. The source of their sin is in them, not outside, consequently they cannot blame anything or anybody outside themselves for their sins.
Not really. Sin’s by commission are only a result of Adam’s sin by imputation. If they are not fully responsible for Adam’s sin but must bear it’s load and consequences, and cannot repent or ‘do good’ if they are not called and regenerated, then outward sins of disobedience are merely a reflection of the state they have inherited. If they cannot have the choice of doing good, then ultimately, they cannot really be fairly held accountable. It’s like punishing a leopard for having spots and a schizophrenic for hearing voices.
GABRIEL PROKSCH - 29 March 2010 10:25 AM
Even Paul said that “So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me” (Romans 7:17), nevertheless this could not excuse himself “it’s not my fault”, because in him was the cause of sin.
Yes, but Paul is speaking on the other side of salvation here. He could now recognize good and evil and make a conscious choice to avoid it. This is different for the ‘totally depraved’ individual who apparently cannot recognize good and evil and cannot choose good.
Not really. Sin’s by commission are only a result of Adam’s sin by imputation. If they are not fully responsible for Adam’s sin but must bear it’s load and consequences, and cannot repent or ‘do good’ if they are not called and regenerated, then outward sins of disobedience are merely a reflection of the state they have inherited. If they cannot have the choice of doing good, then ultimately, they cannot really be fairly held accountable. It’s like punishing a leopard for having spots and a schizophrenic for hearing voices.
This is a nice theory Guibox. Now, if only God’s Word backed your theory up…
What you’re espousing here is basically a Pelagian view of the nature of man. Nothing new under the sun. True Arminians, by the way, don’t deny the doctrine of original sin inherited from Adam. Adventists, some of whom claim to be Arminian but are not, deny this doctrine. Under your definition of what is fair, true Arminians are just as bad off as Calvinists.
It is one thing to state a priori what you think is fair or not fair. It is quite another to prove that God thinks the same way you do.
To respect a sovereign God like that? To acknowledge His supremacy and ultimate control? Sure. I and many others can do that. I suppose it is His right and as God’s loyal subjects, it is our duty to respect and acknowledge that God can do what He wants. But to fully love a God like that? To enjoy the fellowship of a ‘distant’ God who can use us as He sees fit, even to torment us for eternity simply because “He is God and He can do what He wants with us”?
No, I can’t say I blame people for not loving a God like that or being able to devote oneself to Him.
In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10)
