Ive started this topic for the purposes of discussing, in a Godly manner, this debate.
Ground rules.
1. Everything posted here must be for the Glorification of God. non edifying remarks will be deleted post-haste.
2. The bible is the ultimate authority to be used.
3. Anyone wishing to dialogue here must come with an open mind in order to find the Truth in this matter and not merely to argue their side. Any other reason for posting here is rooted in pride.
4. There is only one Truth so either the followers of Arminias are right or the followers of Calvin are right, or they are both wrong. The law of non-contradiction proves that both sides cannot be correct.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
66 comments:
I believe that the root of the entire conflict arises from a misunderstanding of the nature of Gods authority.
The General Calvinist view on Gods sovereignty places the responsibility for salvation squarely on Gods shoulders. with the view that man is incappable of saving himself, (true) and that God himself chooses who will be saved. (false)
My basis for saying the second part is false is because when God gave man authority over the earth and every living thing on it (Gen. 1:28) he delegated his own authority over the earth into the hands of man. Much like a king hands over responsibility of parts of his kingdom to a senechal or trusted advisor. What God gives no man can take away. This is the root of human free will. While man is completely incappable of coming to salvation by his own power, God has offered that salvation freely to all men who believe that Jesus is the Christ and the only begotten son of God. Thus through Gods free act of grace all men are now able to choose to be saved or to choose to be damned.
Hi Aaron,
This could be fun although I'll state right from the outset that I will not interact with Barb on this topic. It has always been a fruitless waste of time and I simply won't go through it again.
That said, I'd enjoy discussing it with you.
Since we both agree that Scripture is our supreme authority, why don't you pick a text (seemingly pro-Calvinism or pro-Arminian) and we can discuss it. This approach may help us avoid rabbit trails.
This is the root of human free will.
I can't say I've ever thought of it quite like this but I don't necessarily disagree with you here. For the time being, at least, I'll grant that God delegating His authority over the earth to man is a sign of free will. But I would rather say that free will is a communicable attribute that we enjoy because we bear God's image.
I'm confused, though, as to why our having free will would be your basis for saying that God does not choose who will be saved.
I'm ready when you are to move on to discussion of a particular text of your choice. Any one you'd like.
It sounds like you are granting that human beings have free will? If this is the case then I will proceed.
In Gen. 2 15-17
The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
Gen 3:6
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
Clearly here Adam had the free choice to eat the fruit or not eat the fruit. He chose poorly.
1 Tim. 2:1-4
1I 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.
Here it is clear that it is Gods will that all men would be saved. If this is Gods will then there must be somehing getting in the way of Gods will being accomplished. The only thing that would do this is something else which God desires which is greater than his will for our salvation.
I propose that this thing is that God desires that we ask him for salvation out of reciprical love.
Thus,
Matt. 7:7-12
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Clearly here Adam had the free choice to eat the fruit or not eat the fruit. He chose poorly.
Poorly, indeed. You and I are on the same page. Three cheers for unity.
Now I see you've gone to the Arminian big guns with the passage from I Timothy 2. That suits me just fine, since this is surely one of their most famous "proof-texts".
I would make two points here. The first is that God's will is complex. This is not surprising as all of our wills are complex. How much more should God's be? Would you recognize any difference between a sovereign, effective will and a more emotional wishing type of will?
Secondly, the context is very important. This is a crucial, albeit simple, hermeneutical principle. I don’t want to take for granted that you agree with me here so let me ask you: do you agree that context is important, particularly when dealing with letters that were meant to be read and absorbed in a single sitting?
Chapter two begins with Paul urging Timothy to pray for all people. Then he amplifies what he means by “all people.”
1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,
1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.
“All people” in this context seems to mean “all types of people, particularly those in high places”. It doesn’t mean every single person, everywhere who ever lived.
Some people would refute what I’m saying by protesting that I just added to the words of Scripture. OK, I see the point – the Scripture doesn’t say “all types of people”; it says “all people.”
I know but Paul uses the phrase in verse one, defines it in verse two and then uses the same phrase again in verse four. I’m not playing games with the words of Scripture here. I’m being fair with them and simply insisting that when looking for proof texts we at least read a few verses before and after the “silver bullet” verse.
Thats a real stretch on the interpretation. I completely agree that context is very important. I will assume for a moment that your use/define/use is valid. you are saying that Paul here is defining the term all people to mean kings and those in positions of authority, and that means that in verse four when he says God wants all people to be saved he means God wants all kings and those in positions of authority to be saved?
Here is the way I think this verse is best interpreted.
We should pray for all people, not just for people we like or those with obvious needs but also those who are rulers or in high positions. We should do this so that we can live peacefully and quitly in the holiness that is ours in Christ. This pleases our father in heaven who loves all men and wants everyone to be saved and to know the truth thru his spirit.
How can you say my interpretation is a stretch if you grant the use/define/use principle?
The real stretch is to understand the context (which you do), understand Paul's use of everyone (which you've granted) and then take the second everyone to mean every person who ever lived. That to me is a stretch.
Also, do you agree at all that we (and God) can have different kinds of will? For instance, I will that my children receive a Christian education and I wish that they would get along well together and not hit each other. In the case of the Christian education I'm guaranteeing, as their father, that they will be raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord whereas in the second case I am wishing they would get along.
Will you allow God this type of leniency?
I absolutely affirm that God has at least two types of will.
I was only granting your definition in order to show how wrong it was. Or at the very least that you improperly used it. In actuality I do not think your use/define/use is the proper method here but instead I have offered the alternate translation I posted.
Furthermore if you are saying that the phrase 'God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth'
is really only applying to a select group and not all men, you are implicitly saying that there are certain men whom God does not want to be saved and come to a knowledge of truth.
I do not understand how you can possibly come to the conclusion that the word 'all people' means all types of people. To me this sounds like eisegesis.
Don't know if I'll have much to say on the passage here in timothy, but I'll say these two wills seem pretty reasonoble. The problem though is your example doesn't reflect the problematic claim you are making with regard to the passage. Your "soverign" will does not conflict with what you wish. You aren't somehow by your act or omission of action guaranteeing that your children will argue.
I'd like to highlight a verse that I think is a huge problem for theological determinists.
1 cor 10:13 No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.
So if a Christian sins, was there really a way out of the temptation to avoid that sin? The problem is, if only that which is ordained by God happens and a sin by a christian was thus ordained, was there a way for that christian to avoid that sin?
Seems to me that if "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;" (westminster confession) then there was no way for a Christian who sinned to have avoided that sin which God freely and unchangeably ordained to pass. So if theological determinism is true as traditional Calvinists have it, then God is not faithful in the way that 1 cor 10:13 describes.
Well, if it's a stretch, it's a stretch made by almost commentator. I believe this is the plain understanding of many, many people - even those who aren't particularly Calvinistic.
Let me put it another way. Say I had this to say:
Everyone needs to stop playing politics with this financial crisis. McCain's little "I'm off to Washington to save the country" ploy was ridiculous and Obama is just looking for any opportunity to link Bush policies to McCain. It is getting old. I wish everyone would just state their position and move on.
Listener number one says, "Yeah, I'd really like to hear a simple statement from both the McCain and Obama campaigns on the financial crisis."
Listener number two says, "Who cares what every voter in America thinks about the financial crisis. I'd just like to hear from the candidates."
Which listener is making the stretch?
This is all secondary, anyway. We agree that God could use Paul to communicate more than one type of will. The main thing I'd emphasize is that God is not pleased when men fail to be saved. He takes no pleasure in it. This is the most plain understanding of the text in light of other passages. I don't want to drag us off topic, though, before we've finished discussing this text.
Well, if it's a stretch, it's a stretch made by almost commentator. I believe this is the plain understanding of many, many people - even those who aren't particularly Calvinistic.
An appeal to undefined masses of supposed supporters does little for your position. A large number of people believe that there is no God, that doesnt make them right. But I digress.
I think your little dialogue is not reflective of what Paul is saying. Here is another example of the way I read it in similar context to yours.
"President Bush is going to stimulate the economy by giving $100 dollars to everyone. The homeless and unemployed. He wants to do this because it gives him Joy."
According to your translation everyone here means the homeless and unemployed.
My translation is that he is giving money to all americans even those who dont contribute.
The main thing I'd emphasize is that God is not pleased when men fail to be saved.
Good, if this is how you read the verse then I think we are agreed on its interpretation.
Now I think it would be time for you to answer the inverse question.
What makes you think that mans free will does not apply to salvation?
Man's free will does apply to salvation.
By the way, my appeal to those who have gone before us does support my position. I could name them, if you wish, but I assumed that would be a waste of time.
I'm not appealing to gross pagans, I'm appealing to the fathers in the faith. That should mean something to you.
Well, it's nice to be getting along swimmingly. We seem to agree that Paul is recommending we pray for everyone - including people of all classes and positions - because God is not wishing to send people to hell. Furthermore, one thing we haven't yet mentioned is that this is a great text to show that God listens to, and works through, our prayers. It's really a great verse that I wish wasn't pulled out of context to be used as a proof-text.
Shall I pick the next passage to look into?
Man's free will does apply to salvation.
Now Im confused. Either we do not define free will in the same way or I am completely misunderstanding TULIP.
Please proceed with whatever verse you want to discuss next.
if this is a conversation between you matt and CA, that's fine with me, I can butt out. But that has not yet been suggested. I have no need to discuss the issues here, but the problem with 1st corinthians 10:13 remains. I would think that if you ignore it, it's because there is nothing a calvinist can say to this verse and the conflicts it creates with theological determinism.
Also, given some of your comments, I wonder if you agree or disagree with this statement by the Westminster Confession:
3:7. "The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice."
Twice you've indicated God does not want men to rebel and face damnation. Just curious then if you disagree with the calvinistic tradition to the other extent.
Rob,
I can't speak for Aaron but I don't mind if you join in the conversation.
I didn't address the passage you brought up because we were in the middle of discussing a different passage altogether.
And yes, I agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith in this area.
More later... too tired right now.
fair enough then.
Now Im confused. Either we do not define free will in the same way or I am completely misunderstanding TULIP.
Probably both. But let's move on...
I would like to discuss the results of Adam's sin but I cannot resist turning, first, to one of the greatest scriptural defenses of Calvinism. It is II Peter Chapter 3 and, in it, this verse is contained:
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
I love this passage. It is such an encouragement to us. We need to discuss the entire, chapter, though, not just verse 9.
Do you have any opening comments or shall I launch right in?
Go ahead.
I have a feeling this will be a long post, so bear with me. Also, please, please read the entire chapter (at least verses one through thirteen) before continuing...
2Pe 3:1
Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder),
2Pe 3:2
that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us,[fn1] the apostles of the Lord and Savior,
2Pe 3:3
knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4
and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."
Peter begins by addressing the readers as beloved. This is important - he's writing to believers.
Peter then goes on to warn that people will rise up who try to tell the believers that Christ is not coming back. The scoffers will try to tell people that everything continues, year after year, the same as always and Christ is not coming back.
2Pe 3:5
For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
2Pe 3:6
by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
2Pe 3:7
But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Peter then points out that the scoffers aren't even being honest with themselves because they know that God destroyed the world by flood and so things haven't always continued, year after year, without God coming in judgment.
Just as God preserved the wicked world until the time was right (until the flood) so now He is preserving the wicked until the time is right to send Christ and judge the world with fire.
2Pe 3:8
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Not a difficult verse here. I don't think you need my running commentary.
2Pe 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
Peter, after reminding the beloved that our relation to time is different than God's, tells them that God is not late in fulfilling His promise. We must ask the obvious question: What promise? The answer is in verse four: the promise of Christ's coming. God is not late in delivering on His promise to send Christ back.
This is crucially important because the Arminian argument rests, in part, on the promise being the gospel message of salvation. Now, Christ's return is part of the gospel but the particular promise Peter is referring to is Christ's return. I can't see any way around this because the promise is spelled out in verse four.
Peter says that God, rather than being late in fulfilling His promise, is longsuffering toward us. Who is the us? Peter and the beloved. The believers he is writing to.
God is not willing that any should perish. The word any is another pronoun. What is the antecedent? The antecedent is clearly us. And, again, us is Peter and the beloved. God is not willing that any of the beloved should perish before coming to repentance. In other words, God is waiting to send Christ back in judgment until all of His people have repented and been saved.
2Pe 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
2Pe 3:11
Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
2Pe 3:12
looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?
2Pe 3:13
Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
Peter here seems to be saying to be on guard, though, because it could happen at any time. We don't know when all the elect will have been saved so we must be ready. We look to new heavens and new earth (again the promise is mentioned here) because we know that God's promise will be fulfilled.
So that's my take on the passage. Arminians like to zoom in on verse nine without looking at the context of it. Then when you look at the context, even briefly, the whole thing makes perfect sense.
The two important questions are:
1. What promise is Peter referring to in verse 9?
2. What is the antecedent of any in verse 9?
The answers to these questions, I believe, is indisputable. Only an extremely narrow look at the verse can lead you to any other conclusion.
So I truly believe that II Peter 3:9 is a slam dunk for Calvinistic theology. It's saying that all of God's elect will be saved before Christ returns.
God is not willing that any should perish. The word any is another pronoun. What is the antecedent? The antecedent is clearly us. And, again, us is Peter and the beloved. God is not willing that any of the beloved should perish before coming to repentance. In other words, God is waiting to send Christ back in judgment until all of His people have repented and been saved.
I thought we had already agreed prior to this that God has both sovereign and hopeful will. However here you seem to be interpreting the word willing to be sovereign. Why? Especially when the wording here is so similar to what Paul says in Timothy where you wanted to translate it as hopeful will. It is quite possible that Peter is even qouting 1 Timothy here as he references pauls letters a few sentences later.
So I truly believe that II Peter 3:9 is a slam dunk for Calvinistic theology. It's saying that all of God's elect will be saved before Christ returns.
Wow. This is one of the most blatant examples of eisegesis I have ever seen. It takes a prior assumption of Calvinism before you could possibly interpret this scripture this way.
However you may not be too far off depending on how you define the term. The elect.
Wow. This is one of the most blatant examples of eisegesis I have ever seen. It takes a prior assumption of Calvinism before you could possibly interpret this scripture this way.
Aaron, you are going to have to interact a little bit with what I wrote instead of just shouting, "Wow."
Did you actually read any of what I wrote? Because you only shouted at my summary statement and said nothing about the explanation.
Your point about sovereign vs. wishful will doesn't really matter here. The questions is: Who's Peter talking about. No eisegesis; just basic grammar.
God is not willing that any should perish. The word any is another pronoun. What is the antecedent? The antecedent is clearly us. And, again, us is Peter and the beloved. God is not willing that any of the beloved should perish before coming to repentance. In other words, God is waiting to send Christ back in judgment until all of His people have repented and been saved.
On the contrary. the first part of the sentence is the answer to why christ has not come back yet. He is being patient with us. And why is he being patient? because...not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
He allows us to remain in the fallen world because he want to rescue as many sinners as possible which is why we have been given the great commision.
We are presently in a similar situation to Abraham. Though he had the promise of God to recieve the whole land of Caanan for his decendents he had to have faith in Gods promise for his eyes would never see it for the Lord said "In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure." Thus God delayed his fullfillment of his promise to Abraham and conversely his punishment for the Caananites because he still had hopes for some of them because their sins had not yet reached full measure.
Please define if you would what you mean by the elect.
Here is how I define it:
The elect are all those who beleive in the name of Jesus Christ and repent of their sins. The sign of the elect is that they have circumcised their hearts and membership in the elect is not predestined in any way. Much like the first covenenant was available to any Jew or gentile who took the outward sign of circumcision.
The elect are all those who beleive in the name of Jesus Christ and repent of their sins.
If I may expand on an implication of this this description of CA's, if this is thoroughly Biblical, and I believe it is, then the Calvinistic view of election is ruled out given that there is this mistaken idea that there are unbelievers who are elect. Only believers are elect. So why do I say Calvinism leads to the notion that there are elect unbelievers? Because so many of the elect in the Calvinistic view have not yet become believers even though in virtue of their election, they are destined to believe.
The view doesn't gel with John chapter 3 where it is said that the unbelievers are already condemned (thus they need to repent).
As for the verse in question in Peter, For the time, (and I have actually felt this way for a long time) I don't know that the Calvinistic interpretation of this specific passage will not work. But it certainly isn't necessary. Why? because though you, Matt, say that the preceding pronoun of "us" must limit whom the "any" is about, it just isn't necessary. There's no reason to deny that the reason that God is patient with us, the believers, the elect because God is not willing that ANY one in general should perish. Whether the range of any should be restricted is as far as I can tell, arbitrary. That God is patient with us is based on the general principal that God is patient with everyone.
On the contrary. the first part of the sentence is the answer to why christ has not come back yet. He is being patient with us. And why is he being patient? because...not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
Aaron, you are still not dealing with the heart of my argument. I agree with your paragraph above but you are avoiding the second of my two questions.
Peter has explicitly stated who the any is. I granted that my limiting the all people from I Tim 2 was an inference on my part. But here the antecedent is plainly obvious.
Rob, I'm glad we agree to the extent we do. I also understand your point that what I'm saying wouldn't necessarily need to be the case. But it is the plain meaning of the text. For you to expand the "any" beyond its antecedent "us" would require some other basis. No doubt the basis for it, in your thinking, comes from other texts. That's fine. We use scripture to interpret scripture. But it's not the plain meaning of this text on its own.
Back to Aaron... I won't let you off the hook on this one until you deal with the antecedent. If your calculus teacher told your class, "I'm putting off the Unit 3 exam because you guys can't yet perform simple integrations and I'm not willing to fail half the class." would you understand him to be speaking of anyone outside the four walls of that classroom (class-skipping slackers not withstanding)? No, of course not.
This gets back to my hatred for proof-texting. It's important to understand the theme of the entire chapter but most Christians today are unwilling to even read the entirety of verse 9.
And Rob... you would, apparently, say that the professor could very well be speaking about the entire University and not just this particular class. I say that could possibly be the case but you would surely need some other evidence to rest upon. And the point of this entire chapter is to assure the Christians that God's promise is still certain even if it's taking longer than they expected.
The only way around what I'm saying is to import a ton of Arminian baggage into this chapter.
Matt,
Please define what you mean when you say 'the elect'
Back to Aaron... I won't let you off the hook on this one until you deal with the antecedent. If your calculus teacher told your class, "I'm putting off the Unit 3 exam because you guys can't yet perform simple integrations and I'm not willing to fail half the class." would you understand him to be speaking of anyone outside the four walls of that classroom (class-skipping slackers not withstanding)? No, of course not.
I appologize for my sloppiness. I knew your interpretation was wrong so I didnt bother to check your grammatical assertions. I will rectify that now.
pronoun
From this definition the words anyone and everyone are indefinate pronouns which refer to general categories of people or things. English example: Anyone can do that
indefinate pronouns do not have antecedants as they refer to broad categories of people. however the word which you are calling an antecedent is in fact a pronoun itself. its antecedent is the group being adressed (i.e. believers)
From the Larger Catechism...
Question 64: What is the invisible church?
Answer: The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head.
I knew your interpretation was wrong.
Don't be a smartass.
Indefinite pronouns are still limited by the objects they are referring to.
So if your calculus professor made the statement I gave you would take him to mean everyone, everywhere?
I just looked up indefinite pronouns to be sure. I was right: indefinite pronouns still have references.
But we really don't need to be experts on the fine points of grammar. It's plainly clear.
I'm starting to wonder if you're being purposefully obtuse. Really, Aaron. What about the calculus class professor. I gave you a directly comparable example. You cannot possibly take the professor to mean all people, everywhere.
If it's any consolation, you can give in on this point to me without surrendering your Arminianism. I haven't even begun to defend Calvinism, I'm just snatching up your proof-texts.
He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
anyone and everyone here clearly cannot refer to beleivers here because believers have already come to repentence. unless of course you presuppose predestination, in which case you are begging the question.
As for the calculus professor analogy. It is suspect and I dont think it correlates with the sense of word usage as in the disputed passage.
Let me ask you this question Matt. Are you willing to change your position on calvinism if you are shown to be wrong on the subject?
Of course. You're asking that before I've even begun to defend Calvinism.
It seems like an arrogant question at this stage in the game.
You've, so far, not demonstrated any ability to follow the argument.
You are really grasping at straws. Peter specifically references believers and yet you say he cannot possibly mean what he says.
Furthermore, if God was putting off sending Christ back because He wants every person who ever lived to repent and believe, then He's digging Himself a deeper hole every minute. As long as there are more unbelievers than believers, He's getting further and further behind all the time. If, on the other hand, He's waiting until all those appointed to eternal life to repent, then He's getting closer and closer every minute.
You are really grasping at straws. Peter specifically references believers and yet you say he cannot possibly mean what he says.
No I am saying he cannot possibly mean what you are saying he says.
Furthermore, if God was putting off sending Christ back because He wants every person who ever lived to repent and believe, then He's digging Himself a deeper hole every minute. As long as there are more unbelievers than believers, He's getting further and further behind all the time. If, on the other hand, He's waiting until all those appointed to eternal life to repent, then He's getting closer and closer every minute.
You talk about grasping straws and then you proceed to build a strawman. I didnt say God is waiting for every person to repent and believe. I said he was waiting for the time when there was no longer a possibility that anyone would turn in repentence. Go back again and read the entire context of what I said.
At this point in the debate you have called me a smartass, obtuse, and arrogent. I dont really see this conversation bearing any good fruit so I think it is best that we agree to disagree unless you will agree to stop with the derogatory comments and debate in a respectable manner.
So if you make a smartass comment I shouldn't call you a smartass?
Your skin seems to be very thin. Do you read much? If you've read any of the theological debates through history you would understand that what I've said is nothing. I think you're being a baby.
Don't forget that in the thread over at Barb's blog I also said you argued like a girl (or something to that effect).
So feel free to take your ball and go home, if you'd like.
I would prefer to continue the discussion, though.
I didnt say God is waiting for every person to repent and believe.
How is this a strawman? Did you not say that God wanted every person to repent and believe?
Your skin seems to be very thin. Do you read much? If you've read any of the theological debates through history you would understand that what I've said is nothing. I think you're being a baby.
It is not that I have thin skin. It is that I expect a debate between two christians to uphold a standard of holiness.
1 Peter 2:1-3
Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.
James 4:11-12
Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?
As children of the living God let us edify the name of Christ our saviour and strive towards Holiness in all we say and do.
How is this a strawman? Did you not say that God wanted every person to repent and believe?
Havent we already established that God can sovereignly will something and hopefully will something?
It is that I expect a debate between two christians to uphold a standard of holiness.
I think you've confused holiness with ear tickling. I won't tickle your ears.
I just skimmed through everything I have written and I stand by all of it. So if that bothers you then I guess we're done.
I'm going to comment on just a few things here, mainly what was said to me, but in respect to the blog host, I don't know that I intend to sustain a conversation here further without what I think are very reasonable concessions in terms of requested civility on behalf of CA.
I also understand your point that what I'm saying wouldn't necessarily need to be the case. But it is the plain meaning of the text. For you to expand the "any" beyond its antecedent "us" would require some other basis. No doubt the basis for it, in your thinking, comes from other texts. That's fine. We use scripture to interpret scripture. But it's not the plain meaning of this text on its own.
I think the plain meaning of the text is important to consider, but I just don't think it's a show stopper. For one, I have no reason to think that the plain meaning of the text is guaranteed to be the correct meaning.
Secondly, I absolutely do not believe that the plain reading is solidly anchored in the objective. What's plain to you isn't plain to me. After all, if you continue reading, you'll read a verse that suggests that we can hasten the day of the Lord, and the plain meaning of that text, plain as day to me, is that the day of the Lord, the fullfillment of God's promise could happen sooner than planned suggesting an openness of the future and ruling out theological determinism (though, I'm not committed to that understanding, but if I must hold to the plain meaning of the text, then that's what I gotta hold).
As I see it, there is nothing that determines from the text that "anyone" is circumscribed by the the elect and there's no reason to think that the reason God is patient with "us" (which is "you" in some texts, not that the difference is important in the context of this debate) is because the "us" is included in the broader group to which the "any" refers. And is there anything in the immeadiate context that confirms this would lend strenth to this? I would say the fact that we are hearing of the day of the Lord and creation and so on indicates that Peter is indeed thinking in global terms.
Of course, if you are right matt, this is not a slam dunk for Calvinism as you have suggested. At best (from your perspective) it means that this verse cannot be used in favor of Arminianism though it works well with patterns of thought that Calvinists believe are present in scripture.
The translators of the NET bible hold the opinion that neither the Calvinists nor the Arminians are exactly right on this.
He does not wish for any to perish. This verse has been a battleground between Arminians and Calvinists. The former argue that God wants all people to be saved, but either through inability or restriction of his own sovereignty does not interfere with peoples’ wills. Some of the latter argue that the “any” here means “any of you” and that all the elect will repent before the return of Christ, because this is God’s will. Both of these positions have problems. The “any” in this context means “any of you.” (This can be seen by the dependent participle which gives the reason why the Lord is patient “toward you.”) There are hints throughout this letter that the readership may be mixed, including both true believers and others who are “sitting on the fence” as it were. But to make the equation of this readership with the elect is unlikely. This would seem to require, in its historical context, that all of these readers would be saved. But not all who attend church know the Lord or will know the Lord. Simon the Magician, whom Peter had confronted in Acts 8, is a case in point. This is evident in contemporary churches when a pastor addresses the congregation as “brothers, sisters, saints, etc.,” yet concludes the message with an evangelistic appeal. When an apostle or pastor addresses a group as “Christian” he does not necessarily think that every individual in the congregation is truly a Christian. Thus, the literary context seems to be against the Arminian view, while the historical context seems to be against (one representation of) the Calvinist view. The answer to this conundrum is found in the term “wish” (a participle in Greek from the verb boulomai). It often represents a mere wish, or one’s desiderative will, rather than one’s resolve. Unless God’s will is viewed on the two planes of his desiderative and decretive will (what he desires and what he decrees), hopeless confusion will result. The scriptures amply illustrate both that God sometimes decrees things that he does not desire and desires things that he does not decree. It is not that his will can be thwarted, nor that he has limited his sovereignty. But the mystery of God’s dealings with humanity is best seen if this tension is preserved. Otherwise, either God will be perceived as good but impotent or as a sovereign taskmaster. Here the idea that God does not wish for any to perish speaks only of God's desiderative will, without comment on his decretive will.
Of course, these translators in making this claim are going beyond linguistics and are discussing a theology, some of which may be more at home with theological determinism.
Of course, I am skeptical of their reasoning on the linguistics idea that the "toward you" leads us to the limitation as you have described simply because the understanding that I described simply seems too possible be ruled out by linguistics that I am not convinced are as rigid as even the translators believe them to be. But again, I'll highlight their claim that even if the linguistics fits your picture, the historical context potentially undermines what that is worth to the Calvinist.
If I may make a comment that I hope helps…
The participants in this debate have limited the scope so dramatically that we are arguing (ever more vehemently) about one verse in one translation in one language that isn’t the original. Small mistakes can then have big implications.
If we look at the whole of Bible and view God’s interactions with men, we have the potential to come closer to the truth on this subject.
In both the Old and New Testament, we are consistently reading stories of action. People sin. People repent. People love God. God declares people righteous and unrighteous. Good and evil. For their actions.
God consistently behaves towards men as if their actions, beliefs, and allegiances mattered. There are a few prominent exceptions (Pharaoh and Saul) but in most cases it seems like people have Free Will. This is the plain reading of scripture that is so beloved in these debates.
Now there certainly are verses that lean towards a Calvinist vision, but they must be interpreted in the light of the rest of scripture. And our own flawed human understanding.
It is on this ground that Arminianism seems to be the most likely truth, but not 100% conclusive.
I would enjoy hearing a Calvinist defense that took the totality of scripture into account. I haven’t ever heard that kind of defense.
Austin,
It's nice to see you here. I (and at one time, Aaron) was planning to eventually get to that type of defense. I hope we still can.
It seemed best, to my mind, to concentrate on one text at a time for as long as possible. These conversations seem to devolve into rapid-fire proof-texts battles if you don't try to stick to one thing at a time.
Of course, I could be wrong on my approach to the debate. I've never really done it this way but I thought it would be worth a try.
Rob,
Your NET Bible excerpt was helpful. Thanks for posting it.
Of course, I agree with their linguistic argument. That's what I've been trying to say.
I also agree with them that there would be unbelieving readers of Peter just as there are unbelieving participants in Sunday morning worship. However, the words are not addressed to them.
Let me return to the fictional university professor. He knows that his lecture may be taped and that the tape could be replayed in the company of non-students. Would he qualify his words during the lecture so as to avoid confusion: "Ladies and gentlemen who are currently enrolled in Calc305...?" Of course not.
We will have to agree to disagree about how important the plain meaning of a text is. It is one of my foundational hermeneutical principles. The Reformers considered it vitally important, as well. It is known as the perspicuity of Scripture and it was one of the most important reformational ideas. That along with Sola Scriptura.
So I go with the plain meaning of scripture unless there is solid evidence against it from other scriptures.
I'm sure I overstated my case when I claimed this was a slam dunk for Calvinism. I never meant to imply that this verse proves a Calvinistic framework. I just rejoice in it being plucked from Arminian hands as a theological trump card.
Well, I guess the whole thing is in the hands of our host, Aaron.
I would again remind everyone that holiness doesn't always warm your heart. Scripture contains harsh words and sarcasm.
It's always easier to erect our own standards of holiness rather than adhere to God's. When you're making your own rules you tend to come up with ones you can keep.
What I've said here is not even particularly harsh. I think aversion to it is a reflection of submission to the spirit of the age which says we all need to be syrupy sweet to each other. This syrupy sweetness is not actual love, at all.
So, Aaron... it's your blog. You decide if you want to continue.
Well, I guess the whole thing is in the hands of our host, Aaron.
I would again remind everyone that holiness doesn't always warm your heart. Scripture contains harsh words and sarcasm.
It's always easier to erect our own standards of holiness rather than adhere to God's. When you're making your own rules you tend to come up with ones you can keep.
What I've said here is not even particularly harsh. I think aversion to it is a reflection of submission to the spirit of the age which says we all need to be syrupy sweet to each other. This syrupy sweetness is not actual love, at all.
Here is what scripture says:
1Peter 4:15-16
"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."
I am willing to keep the conversation going but I demand some modicum of civility here.
If what I've been saying (and the way I've been saying it) doesn't pass your standard for a "modicum of civility" then I guess we're done.
My conscience is clear according to the I peter passage you cited and I would emphasize again that I think you're being a baby.
Just to remind everyone...
Aaron is objecting to:
1. Being called a smartass after making a smartass comment. I really don't think that's a big deal.
2. Being called obtuse. Well, not even that, exactly. I wondered aloud if he was being purposely obtuse. I don't think Aaron is actually obtuse. I was starting to suspect he was purposely dodging my point.
3. Being told that he asked an arrogant question. Again, I didn't judge him to be arrogant. I simply said that it seemed arrogant to ask someone if he was willing to give up before the debate even got going.
This is less than civil? Please. Thin skin, to say the least.
Matt,
If we cannot agree on the way we should act in brotherly love towards one another, a fundemental of our belief system, then how could we possibly come to any agreement on a subject such as calvinism.
You say your concience is clear regarding the passage I cited from 1Peter. The only thing I can say is that your concience must be seared. If you think calling someone obtuse, arrogant, and a baby is gentle and respectful all I can do is pray for you that your eyes would be opened to your own anger and disrespect, and that the love of the father would be made more evident in your speach.
One thing I thought I'd comment on here:
"It is known as the perspicuity of Scripture and it was one of the most important reformational ideas."
The reformation took many steps forward, and at the same time, took some backward. The tradition is absolutely essential but it also must be weighed and judged carefully in the role much of it plays in faith and theology.
I'll stop here short for the reason I already discussed and of course, as is the problem with my life right now, time is short.
See here matt, you want to enlighten us with your Calvinistic understanding of scripture and we want to discuss these issues as well. The personal comments add nothing to the discussion, nothing to our understanding and only serve as an obstruction to the discussion. I've taken part in heated debates some of which I should not have even bothered with and I have more appreciation for those who can engage the mind in a challenging way without the kind of malice and impatience that is involved in the personal judgments. So what if Aaron isn't thinking the way you'd like him to. There's no reason that your criticism has to be peppered with insult. Spell out the problem and be done with it and if you are correct and if you have done well, so what if people don't listen to you today. People continue to think on these things over time and the Holy Spirit has his own timing.
You're capable of this. You did it when you asked Aaron to do more than shout wow. It was a challenge to think more on what was said. Insults, rarely do that and I don't see any evidence that you've provided the rare exception.
Calling Aaron arogant for example just because he wanted to know if you'd change your mind if you were shown scripturally otherwise was simply odd. It's a reasonable question to which not everyone would say yes. I wouldn't have said yes. I don't think scripture is true no matter what it says, I think it is true given the specific content it has that matches truth about the world and we should especially hold that scripture is true as far as it is consistent and non-contradictory in the intentions for which it was written.
The question wasn't arrogant. And in the spirit of the scriptural prohibition of judement when the judge is guilty of the same thing, no one here is razzing you for what very well looks like a pretentious claim that you haven't yet begun to defend Calvinism.
Actually, though you've said it seemed arrogant, it doesn't seem that way either. You're letting your subjective judgement bring the tone of the conversation down. You'd rather we respect your right to insult then continue a conversation explaining the merits, scriptural and otherwise of Calvinism. Your approach here isn't bearing fruit.
Aaron is absolutely right here. How we treat each other is more fundamental to the requirements of faith than our adherence to these issues.
I think one of problems here is with the format. I frequently sound harsher than I really am in email because I use body language and inflection to ameliorate the harshness. I know that and take extra care to not offend. :)
In my limited experience on this debate, I tend to a divergence of motivation between the two parties.
Arminians tend to see this as a theological disagreement.
Calvinists tend to see this as confronting Heresy.
That creates very different emotional responses and styles of argument.
Maybe I am wrong in that. If so, okay.
Also, Matt...
It appears that you two strongly disagree over what style of debate you want to have. And what Christian debate is.
I would recommend that both parties keep anything personal offlimits and assume that each party is asking questions in good faith. i.e. No personal comments and no saying things like 'wow! your argument sucks.'
If you can both agree to and follow those guidelines, dialogue can occur. If not, you probably shouldn't be having this debate now.
A friend and I had a Creation/Evolution debate that lasted YEARS. Both sides thought the other was beyond foolish in their position, but the relationship was more important than 'destroying the other guy.'
That might be an place to start.
Rob,
Maybe the Aaron's question wasn't arrogant. It seemed arrogant to me in the context it was asked. Sort of like asking, "Are you ready to give up, yet?"
Remember, though, I said it seemed like an arrogant question. That's fundamentally different than accusing Aaron of being arrogant. The former is a sort of warning to be on guard against cockiness whereas the latter is a real character judgment.
So, the whole thing is going to boil down to that? A simple statement by a fellow believer taken in the worst possible light followed by a bunch of whining.
I really, really hate the holier-than-thou tone of this whole thing. This idea that if I don't speak syrupy sweet words that I'm dragging things down and being un-Christian.
It's really immature and effeminate. Have you guys ever read the writings of our fathers in the faith? Anything by Martin Luther? Any of the letters between Whitefield and Wesley? Aaron would call every last one of them unloving and mean.
It seemed arrogant to me in the context it was asked. Sort of like asking, "Are you ready to give up, yet?"
Don't know why you'd take it that way. "would you change your view if you are proven wrong". Nothing about that implies that such has been done or that it necessarily will be done. Again, this is your subjective reaction.
I really, really hate the holier-than-thou tone of this whole thing. This idea that if I don't speak syrupy sweet words that I'm dragging things down and being un-Christian.
objecting to insult is hardly a holier than thou attitude.
To stick to the issues and avoid insult hardly qualifies as "syrupy and sweet".
It's really immature and effeminate. Have you guys ever read the writings of our fathers in the faith?
Yeah, some of them can be grating. I've read some rather racist remarks from tertullian for example that were not in line with a missionaries heart for the forigner (Ironically, he was quoted by someone who was defending his right to be rude as a Christian). And there are two things to keep in mind about the church fathers. 1) they are fallen imperfect humans who do not provide role models for Christians in everything they do. Should we pray to Marry because some of them might've? 2) We aren't them and I wouldn't presume that any legitimate usage of harsh language or apparently insulting dialogues indicated that I knew how to mimic that manner in balance with Christian integrity or that I could or should be liberal with it.
Furthermore, I think it's better to model our thoughts after the best thinking of the church fathers than any mannerisms some of them may have when that becomes an obstruction and a source of unnecessary and fruitless strife.
I don't know why you'd want to imply that courtesy and masculinity are at odds.
It's really immature and effeminate. Have you guys ever read the writings of our fathers in the faith? Anything by Martin Luther? Any of the letters between Whitefield and Wesley? Aaron would call every last one of them unloving and mean.
Do the insults never stop with you? immature and effeminate?
Why should we take the example of Martin Luther in his debate style. Do you know one thing that will forever be the result of Luthers actions? He divided the church!! Instead of reforming the church he divided it because he was unable to get through to the cardinals and bishops the error of their ways. And why was he unsuccesful since God has foreordained one catholic church? Probably because he used harsh language and criticism where thought provoking and insightful dialogue could have instead been used.
I think it should be noted that Matt is right that the people of God don't always molly coddle those whom they speak to and there is a time and place for biting diatribes. The prophets had hard words for the rebelious, idolatrous and uncompassionate Israelites, Jesus said hard things against the Pharasees for their superficial and counterfit religiosity and Paul virtually said he thought the Judaizers ought to go further in their circumcision all the way to castration. The thing is, whatever has been objectionable on Aaron's part to matt in this dialogue, it doesn't really fit any of those patterns. It's not enough to point out that leaders in the faith were sometimes "mean" therefore our discussions amongst Christians on doctrines should be so characterized.
(I deleted my comment above for proofreading purposes)
What everybody here seems to be missing is that I haven't been mean or cruel or anything else.
I'm not justifying the use of "OT prophet-like diatribes" at all.
Again, what you guys are objecting to is:
1. The word smartass, which was really just a sarcastic rejoinder to a sarcastic comment Aaron made.
2. My suggesting that the tone of a question was arrogant. Maybe it wasn't and I was wrong but, come on, it was nothing to whine about.
3. My suggesting that failure to recognize a point may have been purposeful obfuscation.
So I'm not trying to justify the use of harsh language at all. I'm jumping up and down on my couch wondering what the world has come to when the above three things are seen as so harsh that my conscience must be seared.
I don't really feal that everything what you said was particularly harsh or cruel. But insulting to a degree and rude, yes. I just don't find it conducive to serious discussion. The comment on arrogance wasn't particularly bad, it was just an obvious example questionable judgment that seemed to be a pattern.
"'Everything is permissible for me'—but not everything is beneficial."
1. The word smartass, which was really just a sarcastic rejoinder to a sarcastic comment Aaron made.
I didn't think Aaron's comment was sarcastic. Seemed to me it was confident at best and overconfident at worst.
So why not refrain from the personal comments and get back to the discussion?
Think of this, even if you did no wrong, it wouldn't hurt any case you'd make for Calvinism to say "hey, I don't understand that I said anything truely objectionable but I apologize if I have unnecessarily offended Aaron and would like to get back to the discussion."
Whatever thinking errors you felt you saw, if they're there, there are better ways to bring light to them and even if you fail at that, your current method doesn't work either. You can reason perfectly, but you can't force someone to see things the way you do on your time.
If an outside observer, say somebody who does not raise the Bible up as much more than a narrative of people seeking to find the meaning of life, looks at the 60+ comments here, that observer might have to chuckle just a bit.
Chances are, he laughs out of a lack of understanding.
Post a Comment