Posted on 08/13/2003 6:04:31 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Introduction: the Anti-Predestinarian Syllogism
In debates between Reformation Protestants and Arminian neo-Protestants, it is common for Arminians to invoke a peculiar and logically-fallacious syllogism in an effort to deflect attention from the evidentiary insurmountability of the Biblical Case for Reformation Protestantism. This syllogism is constructed in the form of a classic ad hominem Guilt-by-Association argument, according to the following general Form:
Needless to say, it makes little impression upon the Arminian neo-Protestant that the Doctrines of Absolute Predestination were believed by Godly Christians for centuries before Calvin (i.e., 10th-15th Century Waldensian CredoBaptists, the 6th-9th Century Presbyters of Iona, the 4th-10th Century Ambrosian Catholics, Saint Augustine, the Apostles, Jesus Christ Himself, etc). What matters is the argumentative usefulness of being able to lay this charge to the particular account of John Calvin, and thus evade the theological defeat of the UnBiblical Arminian systematic heresy by re-framing the debate as a mud-throwing competition directed against one particular Reformer.
Now, before we proceed, we should observe: the Arminian neo-Protestant assertions against Calvin are not borne out by the Facts of History in the first place.
Uncomfortable Facts about Michael Servetus
Michael Servetus was:
In point of History, Michael Servetus was executed as a matter of State Punishment, as sentenced by the Civil Council of Geneva – which itself was controlled at the time by Calvin’s political enemies, the Libertines. In fact, as the Libertine Party itself rejected Calvin’s doctrine of Predestination, it is more historically accurate to say that Servetus was killed by the Anti-Predestinarian “protestants”, than to attribute the deed to Calvin (who at any rate pleaded for a more merciful execution “by the Sword”, rather than the slow burning-to-death on which the vicious Anti-Predestinarians insisted).
Be that as it may, however, it needs be asked – if it is appropriate for Arminian neo-Protestants to employ such a Syllogism against the Reformer John Calvin, is it not equally appropriate to measure by the same standard the heretical Schismatic who, perhaps more than any other single man, was fundamentally responsible for sundering the Godly unity of Reformation Protestantism into a thousand confused and competing sects – James Arminius? To that Question we now turn:
Arminius – his teachings on Politics, Religion, and the Sword of the State
All Authority under Heaven, concerning both Natural and Spiritual matters, is concentrated in the Absolute Power of the State
It is the sole and absolute duty of the State to enforce all Ten Commandments, and to enact all laws both civil and ecclesiastical, and to eradicate all Evil from society.
All Authority over the Christian Church is concentrated in the Absolute Power of the State
The Utter Subjection of all Human life, whether natural or spiritual, to the Dictates of the Absolute State should be “terrified and compelled” by the Power of the Sword:
Phew.... Thank God that America was founded primarily by convinced Calvinists, and not Arminians. Moving along, though, let us now apply the Arminian's Favorite Syllogism -- to Arminius himself.
Arminius at the Bar of the Arminian Syllogism:
Hmmmm. Howzabout that.
Take a breath and welcome to the world of the Nazarene
The Problem of the Absolute Foreknowledge of God
I think there are problems with how we tend to formulate the "foreknowledge" of God, especially when we define that foreknowledge in absolute categories and tie it to ultimate reality. Let’s use the four principles that Albert Outler distilled from John Wesley’s theological method to examine this issue, realizing that the first three were already well established aspects of doing theology in the Western Church.
1) From the perspective of Tradition: Throughout most of the history of the church, the "standard" position has been that God knew the future, that it was simply an unfolding of the divine plan. However, that view was rooted deeply in a certain world view built on certain philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality. The kinds of questions asked in the early church, especially following Augustine in the 4th and 5th centuries, were metaphysical ontological questions about ultimate reality. And those questions were rooted in the Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophies that saw God and human existence in absolute or idealistic terms. God was defined by asking logical questions, and reaching logical answers. Basically, a view of God was developed whereby God was defined in terms of what a god ought to be to be God. While the results may not be totally invalid, they are obviously limited, and a departure from Scripture and God’s own revelation about himself in human history.
I think this became a circular argument, because then it was assumed that God was exactly like we had logically described Him to be, and then that "nature" or "essence" of God was used to construct ideas about His work in the world. The "omni-" doctrines that arose from this were all logically consistent, and reinforced one another (omni mean all, so that God is all knowing, all powerful, etc.). Since the questions that were being asked were about ultimates (what is the all?), the definition of God was given in terms of those ultimates. He was omni-everything, that is, the absolute and ultimate of any category about which one could think or speak.
I simply do not think these formulations are at all adequate, simply because they are our definition of what we want in a God or what a god by our definition should be, which does not necessarily define God very adequately. They are far too limiting, at the very point that they claim to be all encompassing! In other words, God does not have to be what we say he is, no matter how "big" or "omni-" we try to make what we say.
The same thing can be said for other categories, like "perfect" or "infinite" or "immutable" that we impose on God as if we really knew that they were adequate, or even accurate. It is just that those are the "biggest" terms we can come up with in order to answer the questions about ultimate reality and absolute existence.
The idea of the "perfection" of God is one of those Platonic philosophical categories that we have tended to accept as absolutely necessary. It is our definition of what God must be. That very idea, when played out logically, has created some very difficult problems of its own, primarily in relating a "perfect" being to the existence of evil in creation (see The English Term Perfect and The Problem of Natural "Evil"). Plato’s idea of perfection was the idea of perfection (thus, idealism), because nothing in physical existence could conform to the idea. Thus, all of physical existence was imperfect and corrupt, which, of course, led to the development of a radical metaphysical dualism. While on one level, that may be satisfying intellectually to our sense of order, it does not necessarily tell us anything about God.
God may or may not be "perfect" or "infinite" in whatever way we want to define that. We do not know. How would we, being less than the ideal or the perfection or, as Plato called it, "the beingness" or pure existence, understand the ideal, the perfect? How can we define perfection unless we are ourselves perfect? How can we who are finite define the infinite, except to say that it is beyond us? Do we just define it as what we are not? Interesting, that this is exactly how the Bible talks about God; He is other than humanity! However, the biblical term for this is "Holy" (cf. Hos 11:9), not "perfect" or "infinite." 2) From the perspective of reason: One way that we have tried to maintain the logical coherence of the omni-doctrines is by retreating to paradox. This simply asserts that the apparently contradictory logical conclusions that we have reached about God, that he is perfect yet the creator of an obviously evil world, or that He is all powerful and good yet horrible things happen, or that He knows everything that will happen yet does not cause events to occur, are really somehow consistent on a level beyond what we can understand logically. But, if it is a valid observation that while truths about God may not be totally logical, they will not be illogical, we have problems at this point.
Paradox may well be an option here. But if we do not resort to paradox, the logic of the omni-doctrines will not stand. The biggest problem for the foreknowledge of God is the relation of foreknowledge to human freedom. If God knows that something will happen, then it will happen. That is, if God knows the event to be a historical reality, then that event must occur; it is predestined. If it does not occur than God did not know.
If God knows that when I leave the house for Wednesday evening Bible study, that at exactly 5:58 PM CDT (running late, as usual!), at the intersection of NW 42nd and MacArthur, a car will run the red light, strike my car as I turn onto MacArthur, and I will be killed, then it will occur. I have no choice in the matter. No matter what I do, it will happen. It may appear that I chose, but that event is determined to occur regardless of what I decide. I will only choose the courses of action that will allow that event to happen. It doesn’t matter that I never drive to church through that intersection, or that I usually go an hour later, or that I actually decided to get around on time for a change. My freedom is dissolved into God’s foreknowledge. Human freedom is only the illusion of freedom.
Some want to respond at this point that simply because God knows something does not mean either that it must occur or that he caused it to happen. Usually the example is given from human experience in which knowledge is not related to causality. However neither of these perspectives will stand.
There is a great deal of difference between a human being "knowing" and God "knowing." Our knowing is influenced and conditioned by a myriad of factors, not all of which we are even aware or understand if we are aware of them. So our perceptions, even of ourselves, let alone others, or the world, or God are always limited and flawed. That’s why Paul can say that we see through a glass darkly. However, God’s "knowing" about Himself, and about His creation is not hindered by those things, so that what he knows is an accurate and complete knowledge of whatever is the object of that knowledge (which I’m not sure we can totally define).
Relating this to causality is not the answer. Yet it doesn’t really matter whether we introduce the idea of causality into the equation or not. The point is that because of God’s complete (but not necessarily absolute) knowledge, if indeed He "knows" something, then that’s the way it is, whether or not He directly caused it to be that way. If God "knows" a future event, that event must occur, whether or not He directly caused it. It is still predestined, even though we might think from our perspective we were exercising our freedom to choose (a classical argument from determinists and predestinationists). Our freedom is still only an illusion of freedom. And if that event must occur, and not just be a possibility, then either God was indeed the cause of the event, which results in theistic predestination, or God is not the cause of the event, which results in a form of naturalism (historical positivism) or at best deism, which is a theistic naturalism.
That is part of the difficulty with the whole idea of foreknowledge; God is locked into a system over which He does not have the freedom to act. My understanding of the sovereignty of God says that He does have that freedom. And perhaps an exercise of that sovereignty is that he has chosen to give up absolute sovereignty for the sake of human freedom and soteriological sovereignty (relating to salvation and relationship with humanity) .
While the doctrine of predestination is not a necessary outgrowth of the absolute foreknowledge of God, it must have it in place to work. That is, there cannot be eternal and absolute decrees of God unless he has absolute foreknowledge. So, the classical articulation of "foreknowledge," especially as it is related to the concepts of the decrees and predestination, interferes with and indeed precludes the concept of authentic human freedom. Unless, of course, we resort to paradox and try to maintain logically incompatible ideas by this method.
One irony here that is interesting. While these doctrines have their origin in logical formulation, today when there is a difficulty in getting the omni-doctrines to fit with modern ways of thinking or with Scripture, we usually resort to paradox to explain how they can work. That is, we say that we cannot really understand how God can know the future and human beings still have any genuine freedom. The doctrines that came into existence as logical descriptions of God are thereby touted as non-logical assertions, which is inherently illogical.
One assertion at this point is often that, since God is infinite, he exists outside of our time and space. Because of that, he can see the past and the future all at once; in other words, there is no time for God since he exists in the eternal "now" apart from any restrictions of time and space. This begins moving into areas that range far beyond what we can really discuss here. But this objection continues to illustrate how thoroughly the metaphysical categories have permeated our thinking about God. All of this assertion is built on logical inferences about the nature of ultimate reality based on the assumption that the Greek philosophical models represent ontological reality (the way things really are). Just some reflections here for further thought.
The past and the future are not the same thing, unless we invoke a theory of time in which space and time are the same thing (this gets complex very quickly). There are such theories, which are the basis for many of the older science fiction stories about time travel. But they are also rooted in older philosophical ideas about the fixed and immutable nature of reality, ideas which are currently being challenged not only by new philosophical paradigms (existential and process philosophy), but also from new perspectives in science (quantum mechanics, genetic indeterminism, and the idea of random event).
It is interesting that most science fiction now focuses on travel to parallel or alternate realities (e.g. the television programs Sliders or Seven Days) more than it does on time travel (e.g. H. G. Wells’ The Time Machine). That’s because the older theories about the unity of space and time are no longer acceptable in light of newer scientific theories and thinking. The newer perspectives all emphasize the contingency of the future based on various variables. Theologically, one of those variables is human decision, as well as God’s interaction with that decision.
As far as we know from our viewpoint, the past no longer exists, but it is "real" because it has existed in a way that the future is not real simply because it does not yet exist. We cannot affect the past, but we can affect the future; the past is a closed book, while the future is still contingent upon the present.
Stephen’s King’s story The Langoliers is a modern expression of this perspective. It is based on a theory of time in which neither the past nor the future actually exist. The past exists only in memory and the future exists only in possibility. This has interesting implications for how we talk about what God knows. Why do we need to affirm that God knows that which does not yet exist? From this perspective, we could say that God knows the possibilities of the future, but that human beings create the future by their decisions. That is part of human freedom that God has granted to us. That suggests a much more incarnational model for God than earlier models built on metaphysical ontology have allowed. In all of this, we must recall that the only way that we know anything about God is what He has revealed to us within the constraints of finite time and space (unless, of course, one is a proponent of natural theology, which I am not). All of God’s relation to humanity has been incarnational. One of our major difficulties that lies behind all of our "omni-" doctrines is that we have mistakenly assumed that the Incarnation was a single act of God in history, rather than understanding the Incarnation to be revelatory of God Himself. That is, Incarnation is not just something God did in Christ, but is how he has chosen to relate to His creation, of which the Incarnation is the best example. In fact, creation itself is an incarnational act, in that God by creating chose to enter into finite time and space. The fundamental faith affirmation of the OT is that God reveals Himself in human history, in finite time and space. That is why we cannot know God beyond that incarnational dimension, except by speculation.
If we could ever come to conceptualize God as incarnational, and history as the arena in which an incarnational God reveals Himself to us, it would help us address a lot of the logical problems we have created for ourselves. We have tried to distance God from His own creation by placing Him in some abstracted way outside and apart from that creation. Yet, if we conceptualize an incarnational God, then we can go one step further and conceptualize an incarnational model for history. We would find, I think, that the Bible makes a lot more sense, and far more readily, than it does when we try to impose other philosophical models upon it, as we have tended to do through most of Christian history. 3) From the perspective of Scripture: Invariably, of course, this is going to lead to a discussion of the nature of prophecy. And here is where people tend to get passionate when we start "messing with the Bible." The fact is, this whole scenario is also tied up with circular reasoning related to Scripture. The omni-doctrines were not developed from Scripture, but from logic. Yet, they have become near absolute statements of fact in approaching the interpretation of Scripture. The logical positions are assumed to be true, then assumed to be in Scripture, and then Scripture is interpreted through the lens of these doctrines. This is especially true in talking about Old Testament prophecy, which we commonly assume to be prediction of the future governed by the omni-doctrines, especially God’s foreknowledge usually reduced to a subcategory of omniscience (all-knowing).
Bingo
It is the serpent with a different name
Common grace , the grace a benevolent God sheds on all his creation without regard to their "worth". It makes it possible to live a peaceable life on this sinful planet
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Efficacious Grace ..that grace which God sends to convert us. It is always effective in completing the work it was sent to do.
Act 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
Act 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Act 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
.
Augustine is the father of the Roman Catholic church.
[sigh] What is wrong with these statements, given the following (also a quote from you)?
First, it would not matter what any Church Father said about anything, only what the Scripture says.
You keep sticking your foot in your mouth, because you dance all around. When it suits your purpose, nothing but scripture is authoritative. When that doesn't work, you trot out quotes from others and present them as authoritative. You can't have it both ways. OP gave you a whole list of scriptures, and you demanded commentary from others. Yet 6 posts earlier, you declare that it doesn't matter what any Church Father says, only what scripture says. Make up your mind, and take a stand on one or the other!
I understand efficacious grace to be the grace which God affords to convert us. If efficacious grace is always effective in converting us, then God is unjust because He failed to provide sufficient efficacious grace to prevent Satan from sinning. However God isn't unjust and there is nothing to suggest we have been afforded more grace than the fallen angels over time.
The difference lies in free will. If we fail to accept his grace then we already stand condemned.
I just scanned this quickly, and my first impression was that this guy is arguing for God as Abraxas, the god who is both good and evil. That concept has bothered me ever since I first learned of it, oddly enough, before I was saved. Abraxas was the title of Santana's 2nd album. I was a fan of Santana until I learned what Abraxas meant. (Must have been my upbringing in the EUB church, before they abandoned the Gospel and merged with the methodists in the United Methodist Church.) Ever since, I find it hard to listen to Santana's music, even Carlos as a solo artist.
It seems to me that the Middle Knowledge position fails to take into account a basic rule of logic: The law of non-contradiction. Simply put, If God foresees an action taking place, it cannot follow then that the action does not take place. How can God Foresee something that does not happen? An action cannot both take place and not take place. A thing cannot both be and not be.
From the Myth of Free Will, by Walter Chantry
No one denies that man has a will—that is, a faculty of choosing what he wishes to say, do, and think. But have you ever reflected on the pitiful weakness of your will? Though you have the ability to make a decision, you do not have the power to carry out your purpose. Will may devise a course of action, but will has no power to execute its intention.The will of man is his power to choose between alternatives. Your will does decide your actions from a number of options. You have the faculty to direct your own thoughts, words, and deeds. Your decisions are not formed by an outside force but from within yourself. No man is compelled to act contrary to his will, nor forced to say what he does not wish. Your will guides your actions.
Yet this does not mean that the power to decide is free from all influence. You make choices based on your understanding, your feelings, your likes and dislikes, and your appetites. In other words, your will is not free from yourself! Your choices are determined by your own basic character. The will is not independent of your nature but the slave of it. Your choices do not shape your character, but your character guides your choices. The will is quite partial to what you know, feel, love, and desire. You always choose on the basis of your disposition, according to the condition of your heart.
It is just for this reason that your will is not free to do good. Your will is the servant of your heart, and your heart is evil. "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5). "No one does good, not even one" (Rom. 3:12). No power forces man to sin contrary to his will, but the descendants of Adam are so evil that they always choose the evil.
Your decisions are molded by your understanding, and the Bible says of all men, "Their senseless minds are darkened" (Rom. 1:21). Man can only be righteous when he desires to have fellowship with God, but, "No one seeks for God" (Rom. 3:11). Your appetites crave sin, and thus you cannot choose Good. To choose good is contrary human nature. If you chose to obey God, it would be the result of external compulsion. But you are free to choose, and hence your choice is enslaved to your own evil nature.
If fresh meat and tossed salad were placed before a hungry lion, he would choose the flesh. This is because his nature dictates the selection. It is just so with man. The will of man is free from outside force but not from the bias of human nature. That bias is against God. Man's powers of decision are free to choose whatever the human heart dictates; therefore there is no possibility of a man choosing to please God without a prior work of divine grace.
What most people mean by free will is the idea that man is by nature neutral and therefore able to choose either good or evil. This simply is not true. The human will and the whole of human nature is bent to only evil continually. Jeremiah asked, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil" (Jer. 13:23). It is impossible. It is contrary to nature. Thus do men desperately need the supernatural transformation of their natures, else their wills are enslaved to choosing evil.
In spite of the great praise that is given to "free will," we have seen that man's will is not free to choose a course contrary to God's purposes nor free to act contrary to his own moral nature. Your will does not determine the events of your life nor the circumstances of it. Ethical choices are not formed by a neutral mind but always dictated by your personality.
Nevertheless many assert that the human will makes the ultimate choice of spiritual life or spiritual death. Here the will is altogether free to choose eternal life offered in Jesus Christ or to reject it. It is said that God will give a new heart to all who choose by the power of their own free will to receive Jesus Christ.
There can be no question that receiving Jesus Christ is an act of the human will. It is often called "faith." But how do men come to willingly receive the Lord? It is usually answered, "Out of the power of their own free will." But how can that be? Jesus is a prophet. To receive him means to believe all that he says. In John 8:41-45 Jesus made it clear that you were born of Satan. This evil father hates the truth and imparted the same bias into your heart by nature. Hence said Jesus, "Because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me." How does the human will jump out of man to choose to believe what the human mind hates and denies?
To receive Jesus further means to embrace him as a priest—that is, to employ and depend on him to sue out peace with God by sacrifice and intercession. Paul tells us that the mind with which we were born is hostile to God (Rom. 8:7). How can the will escape the influence of human nature which was born with a violent enmity to God? It would be insane for the will to choose peace when every bone and drop of blood cries out for rebellion.
Then too, receiving Jesus means to welcome him as a king. It means choosing to obey his every command, to confess his right of rule, and to worship before his throne. But the human mind, emotions, and desires all cry out, "We will not have this man to reign over us" (Luke 19:14). If my whole being hates his truth, hates his rule, and hates peace with God, how can my will be responsible for receiving Jesus? How can such a sinner have faith?
It is not man's will but God's grace that must be thanked for giving a sinner a new heart. Unless God changes the heart, creates a new spirit of peace, truthfulness, and submission, man will not choose to receive Jesus Christ and eternal life in Him. A new heart must be given before a man will believe, or else the human will is hopelessly enslaved to evil human nature—even in the matter of conversion. Jesus said, "Marvel not that I said to you, you must be born again" (John 3:7). Unless you are, you will never see his kingdom.
Read John 1:12 & 13. It says that those who believe on Jesus have been "born, not of the will of man, but of God." As your will is not responsible for your coming into this world, it is not responsible for the new birth. It is your Creator who must be thanked for your life, and if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation (II Cor. 5:17). Who ever chose to be created? When Lazarus rose from the dead, he chose to answer the call of Christ, but he did not choose to come to life. So Paul said in Ephesians 2:4 & 5, "When we were dead in sins God has quickened us with Christ (by grace you are saved)." Faith is the first act of a will made new by the Holy Spirit. Receiving Christ is an act of man just as breathing is, but God must first give life.
No wonder Martin Luther wrote a book entitled The Bondage of The Will which he considered one of his most important treatises. The will is in the chains of an evil human nature. You who extol the free will as a great force are clinging to a root of pride. Man, as fallen in sin, is utterly helpless and hopeless. The will of man offers no hope. It was the will choosing the forbidden fruit that brought us into misery. The powerful grace of God alone offers deliverance.
Preventing Satan (Lucifer) from sinning wasn't God's Plan. God created Lucifer knowing that he would sin because it was necessary to God's Plan. Chew on that a while....
The "something" according to Arminianism is the heresy of Neonominism.
ARMINIAN TEACHING CONCERNING THE DEATH OF CHRISTAccording to the Arminians, the Lord God after the fall into sin established a set of conditions that man had to fulfil in order to be saved. These conditions, they said, were obedience to the laws of the Old Testament. Only through obedience to God's laws could one receive eternal life. But, said the Arminians, the Lord realised that this condition was too demanding of man; God realised He had set a threshold out of man's reach. So God found Himself 'in a corner', so to speak, for God demands justice. Man fell into sin, and God would not let man go unpunished. Since God insists on justice, justice had to be obtained. Yet man could not obtain it. So, not only was man stuck, but God also.
So God sent His only Son to earth for sin. That is: Christ came not to pay for sins, but came rather to satisfy the justice of God so that God could start again with man. If Christ could satisfy the demands of the old conditions (obey the law), then God's justice would be satisfied, and God could set new conditions for man to meet in order to be saved. Christ was successful in satisfying the justice of God, Christ's death made it possible for God to do away with the Old Testament set of conditions, and so God was free to start afresh with a set of conditions. The new condition God chose was faith. So we today need faith in order to be saved. Faith is not an unmanageable threshold for us, for fallen man is not dead in sin, but sick (see Chapter 3). Sick people are still able to believe.
According to the Arminians, then, Christ's death was not a payment for our sins. Christ's death only made it possible for God to lower considerably the threshold of His demands on man. Now that God has set a manageable threshold (faith), it is for us to do the rest if we wish salvation: we need to believe. It will be evident that with this structure, the God of the New Testament shows considerably more mercy than the God of the Old Testament.
The fathers(Synod of Dort) summarised this teaching of the Arminians in Chapter 2 under the heading 'Rejection of Errors,' as can be found in the Book of Praise, p. 548. There we read that according to the Arminians the purpose of Christ's death was "that He should acquire for the Father the mere right to establish once more with man such a covenant as He might please ..." (Rejection of Errors, no. 2). In other words, Christ died so that the Father may have opportunity to set up a new set of conditions for man. Again, Christ "acquired for the Father only the authority or the perfect will to deal again with man, and to prescribe new conditions as He might desire" (Rejection of Errors, no. 3). Here again one finds the same thought that Christ satisfied the old set of conditions so that God, no longer bound by them, could set up a new set of conditions. This new set of conditions "consists in the fact that God has revoked the demand of perfect obedience of the law and regards faith as such and the obedience of faith, though imperfect, as the perfect obedience of the law" (Rejection of Errors, no. 4).
During the early decades of the 1600s, the Arminian teaching concerning the death of Christ was being taught from the pulpit of the churches. We can appreciate that this teaching caused much unrest among the faithful. The fathers at the Synod of Dort, therefore, concerned as they were about what the people were hearing in the pew about the purpose of Christ's death, saw a need to set straight the heresy of the Arminians. Chapter two of the Canons of Dort is therefore the result of the efforts of the fathers to put in writing the scriptural truths concerning the death of Christ and the redemption of man.
In trying to articulate my understanding of God as the first and only cause of all things known and unknown, I continually return to the moment when I first realized the hair I was splitting was my own (and numbered by God.)
"Just because God knows all does not mean that God wills all," I insisted, echoing the familiar refrain of the reluctant fence-sitter.
A wise and righteous friend looked at me and said the words that changed my life:
"If God knows the future, it is already past. Our tomorrow is God's yesterday. We should not fear nor rebuke this truth, but rejoice in our awareness of God's firm and steady hand in His creation. He has not forsaken us. It is all happening as God intends."
FWIW, once the light bulb goes on, there's no going back. All the semi's and middles and partials fade away into pseudo-intellectualism.
All that remains is a crystal-clear, humbling appreciation of God's enormity.
As Joe Banks said in JOE VS. THE VOLCANO when he was about to die, adrift in the ocean: "Thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG you were."
We all forget.
For Arminians, it's Christ as "Contingency Plan A."
Wonder what "Plan B" would've looked like?
Now
Clement of Alexandria: "The soul cannot rise nor fly, nor be lifted up above the things that are on high, without special grace."
also
Through faith the elect of God are saved. The generation of those who seek God is the elect nation, not the place, but the congregation of the elect, which I call the Church. If every person had known the truth, they would have leaped into the way, and there would have been no election...You are those who are choosen from among men and as those who are predestined from among men, and in His own time called, faithfull, and elect, those who before the foundation of the world are known intimately by God unto faith; that is, are appointed by him to faith, grow beyond babyhood."
Clement of Rome: "Creator, guard intact unto the end of the number that hath been numbered in Thine elect throughout the whole world, through Your beloved Son Jesus Christ....For You choose us through Him for a peculiar people."
Cyprian: "This is therefoe the predestination which we faithfully and humbly preach."
And most important:God:
Deut 10:14-15 Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth and all that is in it; yet the Lord has set His heart in love upon your fathers and chose their descendents after them, you above all peoples, as at this day.
Psa 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom He has chosen as His heritage.
Psa 65:4 Blessed is he whom thou dost choose and bring near, to dwell in thy courts! We shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, thy holy temple!
Psa 106:5 ...that I may see the prosperity of thy chosen ones, that I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation, that I may glorify with thy heritage.
Hag 2:23 "On that day, says the Lord of Hosts, I will take you, oh Zerubbabel my servant, the son or Shealtiel, says the Lord, and make you like a signet ring; for I have chosen you says the Lord of Hosts."
Matt 11:27 "....no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone whom the Son chooses to reveal Him."
Matt 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
Matt 24:22,24,31 And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened....For false Christ's and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect....and He will send out His angels with a loud trumpet call , and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Luke 18:7 And will not God vindicate His elect, who cry to Him day and night?
Rom 8:28-30 We know that everything God works for good with those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the first born among many brethren. And those whom He predestined he also called; and those whom He called He also justified; and those whom He Justified He also glorified.
Rom 8:33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?
Rom 11:28 As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
Col 3:12 Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness,......
1 Thess 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords to godliness......
1 Pet 1:1-2 To the exiles of the dispersion....chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with His blood.....
1 Pet 2:8-9 .....for they stumble because they disobey the Word, as they were destined to do. But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of Him who called you out of darkness and into His marvelous light.
Rev 17:14 "They will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with Him are called and chosen and faithful."
And do not forget about Plan C,D,E....infinity. Because God only plans based upon potentialities He has to always be ready for a new contingent plan. When God gets "caught in a corner" He has to incorporate a new plan. (According to Arminianism) There goes immutability....
If God foreknows the eternal fate of every man before creation then , the fact he fails to apply enough grace for him to believe predestines the man to hell.
It is a distinction without a difference
So true. Once you walk in the light , you look back at the shadows and wonder why you stayed there so long .
I think it it Jean and Wrigley that commented that the converts to calvinism are often the most vocal..tis true, cause you want to drag everyone into the light with you .
I am the most blessed of woman do you know that ?
An endless loop of inconsistencies.
If God wanted all men saved, all men would be saved.
If God foreknows the fate of everyone, God gives each man the amount of grace He wills.
If God knows the future according to His holy will, there is no future but what God wills.
God doesn't "change His mind." God needs no "contingency plans." God doesn't "second-guess Himself." God cannot be "surprised" by man.
And xzins's empathetic concern that God must permit Himself the option of "intervening" in man's life, via prayer or retribution or divine will, is simply defining the debate from our human perspective.
If it exists within the mind of God, it is already written in the heavens. We pray so that we hear our prayers and are comforted by this connection to God.
But God knows our prayers before we utter the words.
Yep..I believe that it is God that forms the prayer in our heart and gives us the desire to pray it. That prayer was foreknown by God from before the foundation of the world. It is a part of His plan
We give Honor to God as Sovereign over all things when we pray, It is honor and praise to the God of creation
Psa 141:2 Let my prayer be set forth before thee [as] incense; [and] the lifting up of my hands [as] the evening sacrifice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.