Posted on 08/21/2008 1:45:32 PM PDT by Gamecock
Imagine, if you will, that you are a missionary. You have taken the classes you will need to get around in this new country. You know the common language well enough. You understand the customs and are confidant you won’t make a scene your first day on the ground. There has been very little progress made in this locale, and that is why you were sent. It is your first missionary assignment, and you hope that God will use you to do great things among the people.
You are in a high place. The top of a building, or maybe a helicopter. You look down and see an ocean of humanity. From your classwork, you know that the crowd below you is not one that will be conducive to the gospel. Perhaps the country already has an established religion. Maybe atheism is the state sponsored religion. Either way, the reports show that less than one percent of the population is Christian. You’re still wet behind the ears and all of your ideas of building a church and waiting for the people to pack in to hear your masterfully orchestrated messages are beginning to fizzle.
What do you do? You despair of even making a dent for the gospel, let alone sparking a revival!
This is a makeshift scenario that has been met by many missionaries in the past. If you allow for the details of the setting to be adjusted, I would guess that most missionaries have faced a situation where there seems to be so much work to be done among a people who are so tuned out to the gospel that it seems pointless. That is where theology must come in. You must make a stand somewhere, and that stand can be made on your efforts or on the power of God to transform the sinner.
This is where Calvinism meets evangelism. Many have said that the two are at odds with one another, but that is not so. Calvinism will change the way you evangelize, but it will not keep you from reaching out to the lost. What it does do is affect our message, our methods and our motivations.
A Calvinist will not tell the unregenerate man that God loves him and has a wonderful plan for his life. It is not our place to give any man a false sense of security through a narcissistic message, no matter how well the lost man responds to such a message. If it is true that the heart is deceitful above all things, the Calvinist cannot, in good conscience, preach a gospel that speaks only to a deceitful heart. It is not our place to declare anyone righteous to any degree before God. That is the work of the Holy Spirit, who convicts men of their sin and who drives them to the cross. This work is accomplished through the word of God, empowered by the spirit of God.
Our methods can take on similar forms as the world around us, and that is often to our discredit. But consider this, you won’t find many Calvinist bumper stickers on the road today. That is because we have seen too many examples of flash advertising that cheapens the name of Christ and because we have no desire to boast of our salvation. “Try Jesus” one sticker reads, as if Jesus offered test drives. “Wise men still seek Him” is another. Funny, I thought we had it on apostolic authority that nobody seeks after God. “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” As if nothing is settled until you agree with what God said? The God of the Bible is replaced in the American psyche with an image of a detached Santa Claus, who really really really wants to give you a pony this Christmas. Assuming you’ve been good, of course.
Back up for a moment to the missionary example I gave earlier. A young missionary with high aspirations may wonder how he is supposed to reach all of these people. Why, they have supporters back home who expect results if their investment is to continue. You can look over the sea of faces and despair over how to go about winning this crowd to Christ or you can back up for a moment and remember that it is not your job to win anyone to Christ. Not a single person. When you go out into the field, your job is to preach the gospel to whoever will listen. That’s it. Sure, you may help in a hospital setting or some other pursuit, but your primary mission is to spread the gospel.
You will never know who is of the elect and who is not until God reveals them to you as new brothers and sisters in Christ, and you will rejoice all the more as a witness to a miracle no less incredible than the raising of Lazarus from the dead. And even if God grants you no converts, you can rest assured that God is using you to plant seeds. Another may come to water. But it is always God who gives the growth.
Calvinists are planters and waterers. We are not ones to try and take on the role of God by forcing growth where there is no growth. There are people who will accept the gospel and people who will reject the gospel. Whether the gospel is accepted or rejected, we strive for that gospel to be proclaimed in all of its truth. If we are to be messengers of the king, how can we be good and faithful servants if we do not proclaim the message we have been given?
Thank you for the suggestion. I have many books that I want to read that I do not seem to get around to reading. Lately I have come to the conclusion that it is much better to read and study the Bible itself rather than books about the Bible. I realize that God's Word is true and cannot be improved upon. The Holy Spirit is with me to lead me in understanding and prayer is the line of communication.
A while back I was reading an article from Central ????(education) something or other that was titled ... ‘Death to the commentaries or commentators’. It got me thinking about how much credence we give to commentaries; expecting learned, truthful comments from non-deceitful teachers, etc.
I have read many of Surgeon's old writings and other greats of his time. Very prolific. Anyway I love the immediacy of his style that was the style then. I am a supporter of’The Truth for Life’ ministry, and they send out a book of the month, usually from writers of 100 years ago or more, a few current writers. I do attempt to keep up with most of them.
Thank you for your kind words.
“Fare ye well”. Acts 15f
“Fare ye well”. Acts 15f =
Acts 15:26f
Actually it's a very relevant question.
The premise that many of you seem to be operating from is that all men are brought to the point where their will is momentarily free of the slavery to sin that they are born with so that they may make a decision for or against Jesus Christ. It is a very valid question then to ask why some choose to believe in Him unto salvation while others reject Him, particularly when the sinfulness of fallen man's heart is supposedly not in play.
I submit that it was the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit upon your heart, quickening it to faith, that led you to respond in faith to the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Can we please clarify one point before this goes any further?
The Reformed Christian believes he is numbered among the elect only by inference. We do not claim to have objective knowledge of our own election, let alone anyone else's. Such knowledge is purely subjective based upon the following simple logical process:
Premise 1: I know I am saved Premise 2: All who are saved are numbered among the elect Conclusion: Therefore, I know I am numbered among the elect
It would be every bit as fitting for you as a non-Calvinist to believe you too are numbered among the elect (assuming of course that you do believe God efficaciously preserves His adopted children in their faith unto full and final salvation). Such conclusion is by no means exclusive to Calvinists.
I just want to clear that up because I've seen it all to often used in an insulting manner towards the Reformed, and comparing it to the perspective of the Pharisees is simply not accurate. They made their claims based on the objective fact of their biological lineage, whereas we hold our view based on a logical conclusion drawn from the subjective evidence of our own salvation.
We are admonished in Scripture to seek such subjective assurance of our salvation and election. It makes little sense to ridicule those who do so :)
That's because I believe in Scripture while the calvinists here seem to want to re-write it and interpret it according to their own whims. Scripture teaches that the grace that allows us to make salvific decisions has appeared to all men.
Some ignore it, and some don't.
While I do not deny God's sovereignty, power, and omniscience, I do believe that He has also voluntarily limited Himself with regards to our will. He has left the decision to be with Him for eternity, or to be without Him for eternity, up to us. That is why we evangelize.
He is omniscient. He already knows who will and who will not make that decision. However, the responsibility for that decision will be ours in every way. There is no predestination, but is is foreknowledge. He didn't create us in order to destroy us, but to allow us to make the ultimate decision. Some will succeed. Most will fail. He knows that, but He does not force our decision one way or the other.
Can you present us with the specific Scripture(s) which teach that the grace required to nullify the effects of original sin is applied to every individual without exception?
I see many Scriptures that speak of the command to repent. I see many Scriptures that present the clear conditions one is required to meet for salvation. But I do not see any Scriptures that state what you are claiming.
While I do not deny God's sovereignty, power, and omniscience, I do believe that He has also voluntarily limited Himself with regards to our will.
In what way, and more importantly to what extent? To the extent that He will not clearly show Himself to some men in a manner that was perfectly fit for others such as Paul (Acts 9:3-5)? To the extent that He will ostensibly allow men to prevent those who otherwise would believe from doing so, effectively blockading the gates to the Kingdom (Matt 23:13)?
He has left the decision to be with Him for eternity, or to be without Him for eternity, up to us. That is why we evangelize.
Why then does He willfully withhold from some the means He knows would lead to their repentance (Luke 8:10,10:13,10:21)?
He is omniscient. He already knows who will and who will not make that decision. However, the responsibility for that decision will be ours in every way. There is no predestination, but is is foreknowledge.
The error here is in assuming that man does not bear responsibility for his sinfulness. That is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the insistence that all man be provided the opportunity of salvation. God's justice does not demand second chances. Unless you can proclaim that all sin prior to the application of God's prevenient grace to a person is not the responsibility of the person and is not grounds for God's wrath and condemnation, you simply cannot maintain that the condemnation of the reprobate, passed over with respect to God's grace, is in any way in conflict with His justice.
He didn't create us in order to destroy us, but to allow us to make the ultimate decision. Some will succeed. Most will fail. He knows that, but He does not force our decision one way or the other.
Again, I find nowhere in Scripture the principle that the reason He created us was to "allow us to make the ultimate decision." Moreover, why create those whom He already knows would reject Him unless their condemnation was also according to His good will and purpose?
One more point. I fail to see how God's justice is incompatible with His graciously and efficaciously bringing about a choice in some, yet is compatible forcing all to make a choice when they from the womb are at enmity with Him and reject Him. Unless again their sinfulness to that point isn't really just grounds in and of itself for their condemnation. Is this your position?
I know I've hit you with numerous questions all at once, but these are the questions your position begs right from the start. :)
Can you present us with the specific Scripture(s) which teach that the grace required to nullify the effects of original sin is applied to every individual without exception?
Titus 2:11-16
In what way, and more importantly to what extent? To the extent that He will not clearly show Himself to some men in a manner that was perfectly fit for others such as Paul (Acts 9:3-5)? To the extent that He will ostensibly allow men to prevent those who otherwise would believe from doing so, effectively blockading the gates to the Kingdom (Matt 23:13)?
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to ask here. Can you clarify?
Why then does He willfully withhold from some the means He knows would lead to their repentance (Luke 8:10,10:13,10:21)?
He does what is sufficient for that person. He doesn't get in your face and DEMANDS acknowledgment from everyone. He wants faith from us. He wants trust.
The error here is in assuming that man does not bear responsibility for his sinfulness. That is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the insistence that all man be provided the opportunity of salvation.
I don't follow this logic at all.
Every man bears total responsibility for his sin. That is why every man must be granted the opportunity to turn from it. The way I understand calvinism is that if God intended to create some men merely to destroy them, then they have no responsibility at all. They are, in fact, conforming totally to God's will and have no sin. They are merely puppets in His creation.
I disagree that this teaches that prevenient grace (that required to free the will from slavery to sin) is applied to all men individually and without exception. No doubt you knew this one was coming. The Greek pas very rarely means 'all' individually. There are plenty of examples of this principle which I'm sure you've been presented with (I can provide them if you wish). Moreover, the context lends itself to the "all types" understanding as it gives instructions for older men, older women, younger men, younger women, and servants. The point is that the grace of salvation extends to men and women of every age ans station of life, and thus all are to respond in like manner.
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to ask here. Can you clarify?
Sure! You said that God chose to "limit himself with regards to our will." I asked in what way He limits Himself and more importantly to what extent He does so. I then cited examples from Scripture of Him clearly and directly revealing Himself to some men (like Paul) while obviously not doing so to others, and ostensibly allowing men to prevent those who would otherwise have entered His Kingdom from doing so (apparently without either the will or the ability to stop them). I'm trying to understand to what extent you believe God has limited Himself when it comes to the will of man, because it would seem to leave Him with very little resembling sovereignty.
He does what is sufficient for that person. He doesn't get in your face and DEMANDS acknowledgment from everyone. He wants faith from us. He wants trust.
He sure got in Paul's face. He sure doesn't ask nicely for everyone's repentance (Acts 17:30). And in the case of the men of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom, He sure doesn't do what He knows would be sufficient to bring about their repentance.
I don't follow this logic at all.
Every man bears total responsibility for his sin. That is why every man must be granted the opportunity to turn from it.
Now THAT is logic that I don't follow. On what basis do you claim that every man MUST be granted the opportunity to turn from it? If all men bear total responsibility for their sins, and God would be wholly justified in condemning them for their sins, then how on earth can you claim that He MUST grant them the opportunity to turn from it? If God MUST give them the opportunity of salvation, then salvation is not of grace but itself of justice, and that in turn puts God's justice at odds with itself. Moreover, if all men MUST be provided the opportunity to repent and be saved, then there was nothing gracious or voluntary about the Cross...Jesus was compelled by justice to go to the Cross since it was the only way salvation could be provided in a material sense.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see any grounds...certainly not in Scripture...for the claim that God MUST provide the opportunity of repentance and salvation to the objects of His just wrath.
The way I understand calvinism is that if God intended to create some men merely to destroy them, then they have no responsibility at all. They are, in fact, conforming totally to God's will and have no sin. They are merely puppets in His creation.
Ahh, ok. This is helpful because it gives me the opportunity to correct a misunderstanding.
Conformity to God's will and responsibility on the part of man are not contradictory concepts. Two simple examples are Joseph's brothers and the authors of Scripture. Joseph's brothers were quite clearly held responsible for their actions, yet it was also quite clearly according to God's will that they committed them. Likewise, we know that God did not dictate the Scriptures to the authors (except obviously where clearly stated), but rather that they are truly the words of the authors themselves, reflecting their styles and abilities. Yet we also know that God efficaciously ensured through divine inspiration that their words were perfectly and wholly true, to the extent that they are regarded as the very Word of God. Another example would be God and Pharaoh, but I'll expound upon that point in a moment.
Another thing you must understand about the Reformed position is that God's election occurs within the context of the fall and man's sinfulness. God's decree to elect someone is a gracious decree to show unmerited favor upon them by freeing them from bondage to sin and quickening them to faith in Him that He might redeem them wholly unto Himself. There is no particular characteristic or action which leads God to do this for any...it is purely His good will and pleasure to do so. Likewise, His decree of reprobation upon another is a just decree to show merited wrath upon them by passing over them and leaving them to their sinfulness. He may in turn harden them to the extent that He withholds His restraining work from them to varying degrees. It is in precisely this way that He hardened Pharaoh's heart, which He clearly states as His action according to His purpose (Ex 4:22), yet it is also made clear that Pharaoh hardened his heart.
If need be I can explain further the Reformed view on this, but it bear repeating that conformity to God's will and responsibility on the part of man are complementary, not contradictory.
Thanks for taking the time to respond!
xJones: “LOL! Preach the gospel unto all the world, even though you have to put up with all those vulgar unelected that think they’re saved according to the gospel.”
It is interesting that you post this statement. It reminds me very much of the parable of the sower: Mark 4:3-8. There are obviously many of those folks in various stages of “followers” that never quite make it to the harvest - at least as far as Jesus saw it. Do you think Jesus knew amongst the throngs who had “ears to hear” and who did not (I suspect He did)? It never seemed to keep Him from preaching the Gospel.
Mar 4:3 “Listen! A sower went out to sow.
Mar 4:4 And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it.
Mar 4:5 Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil.
Mar 4:6 And when the sun rose, it was scorched, and since it had no root, it withered away.
Mar 4:7 Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain.
Mar 4:8 And other seeds fell into good soil and produced grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.”
Agreed. As a Calvinist I would disagree with any of my fellow Calvinists who would claim anything other than that the Gospel be withheld from no man. It is not for us to say or decide who is saved and who is not.
OK, we'll have to agree to disagree. I doubt either one of us will persuade the other. :)
You said that God chose to "limit himself with regards to our will." I asked in what way He limits Himself and more importantly to what extent He does so.
OK, I think I see where you're coming from. When I say that He is voluntarily limiting Himself WRT our will, I mean He's not pulling our strings like we are a puppet. We are individuals free to make our choices. It is part of what makes us "in His image." As God, He obviously has the power to make us do, say, think, and act the way He wants. He refrains from that so we can make the free choice of loving and worshiping Him by our own decision. That makes the love, fellowship, and worship much more meaningful.
He sure got in Paul's face. He sure doesn't ask nicely for everyone's repentance (Acts 17:30). And in the case of the men of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom, He sure doesn't do what He knows would be sufficient to bring about their repentance.
He did get in Paul's face. I don't recall another NT instance of that ever happening, though, do you? God doesn't do the same thing twice in the same way. Look at Jesus' miracles--He cured several people of blindness, but never the same way twice. He raised at least two people from the dead--but not in the same way.
He's not a tame Lion....He doesn't do what you think He ought to.
As far as Tyre, Sidon, Sodom, et al, my question is "how do you know?" Sure they fell, and turned away from Him--that doesn't mean He didn't do what was sufficient. That is the curse(?) of free will. You can't *make* someone with free will choose the way you think they ought to go. It's another example of Him limiting Himself to respect our decisions--thus getting in return real love from those who did (and do) listen to Him.
Now THAT is logic that I don't follow. On what basis do you claim that every man MUST be granted the opportunity to turn from it?
If one is to be totally responsible for his sin, one must have the opportunity to not commit (or to be forgiven) of that sin. There must be a way out for responsibility to work. If there is no way to turn from it, and you are stuck in it, then you have no free will, you were created to follow a specific path, and you have no responsibility for that decision. Example--I'm driving a car down a road. Who has the responsibility for where it goes or what it may or may not hit? The car? or the driver? The car is merely doing what the driver tells it to do. No one holds the car itself accountable for its actions--because it has no free will. It was created to perform a certain task, and it was the driver who is responsible.
I'm not a car--I'm the driver. I'm a driver who has learned how to driver, and what the best practices for driving a vehicle are. Likewise, I've learned how to live my life properly, the best way to take care of myself, and what my instructor (God) has said is the best path to follow.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see any grounds...certainly not in Scripture...for the claim that God MUST provide the opportunity of repentance and salvation to the objects of His just wrath.
I view it from a slightly different angle. Don't hate the sinner--hate the sin. His wrath will be poured out over the world, but I see the story of Revelation as God warning us over and over, stronger and stronger, that He is coming and for man to repent. He doesn't want us to be the "objects" of His wrath. His wrath is more fully aimed at Lucifer. Those who choose him over God will be included of course, but He wants as many as possible to turn from evil. Again--you can't force decisions upon unwilling wills, so He won't just "wave his hand" and save everyone.
Conformity to God's will and responsibility on the part of man are not contradictory concepts. Two simple examples are Joseph's brothers and the authors of Scripture. Joseph's brothers were quite clearly held responsible for their actions, yet it was also quite clearly according to God's will that they committed them.
Here I must also disagree. What was meant for evil, God *used* for good. His ability to use any situation for good goes way above competency. Just because something evil happened, doesn't mean it was God's will that it should happen. However, He can use that situation to make something good come from it.
There is no particular characteristic or action which leads God to do this for any...it is purely His good will and pleasure to do so.
This is a big problem with me. This is a very roundabout and wordy way of saying that God is capricious and arbitrary. He has a reason for *everything* He does. He is not arbitrary. The next statement I've heard is that "we just don't know why He picks one and not another, but He's not arbitrary." That basically loses the debate right there. You have a hypothesis, but no reasoning for it, other than the "mysteries of God."
God gave us all we needed to know about salvation in His Word. If He was merely arbitrary about His choices as to who would be saved, and who would not be saved, why do we have Scripture? He'd merely direct the elect to do righteous things, and the reprobate to not do righteous things. Then He could kill all the reprobates like a kid killing ants with a magnifying glass. Set up the dominoes to push them down.
What's the point?
BTW--I appreciate the courteous tone. Some of the others I've exchanged posts with in the past have been less than courteous. After all--I'm reprobate because I believe in free will, so they don't have to be nice. If my tone becomes offensive to you, let me know and I'll double check my meaning. I'm not trying to attack you personally, and this post was written over the course of a couple hours while I work on other things. :)
The main point I was attempting to make (admittedly poorly) is that Christ knew who the “vulgar unelected” were and yet he taught the Truth. The Calvinist, having not the vision of Jesus, is encouraged to preach to all (even the “vulgar unelected”) with equal fervor.
I think the original poster missed the understanding that our limited vision cannot even discern the “vulgar unelected” and hence cannot adopt this attitude. And secondarily they missed that many who put on the cloak of “believism” simply cast it aside when the storms subside (the fruitless seed).
ShadowAce: “Example—I’m driving a car down a road. Who has the responsibility for where it goes or what it may or may not hit? The car? or the driver? The car is merely doing what the driver tells it to do. No one holds the car itself accountable for its actions—because it has no free will. It was created to perform a certain task, and it was the driver who is responsible.”
I think the issue of free will is a real sticking point in this debate. There seems to be some definition of free will by the Arminian crowd in which human volition is violated when God chooses His elect.
Your description of the driver versus the car is an interesting illustration and I will try to use your same illustration to show the error in your free will argument. The driver of the car can choose to drive on the road, stop and go at will, and obey traffic rules. Or the driver can choose to drive on the sidewalk and run traffic lights or speed excessively. But a driver cannot drive the car to the moon or drive through the core of the earth nor to the depths of the sea - to be honest, most drivers don’t even have an inkling to do such things. But if the driver truly had Armenian “free will” he could do all these things!
The fact remains that all people on earth are constrained by their environments, their desires, and their humanity - all things created by God. People still have free will to follow their desires but these desires are a product of their sinful natures - their nature to make themselves God. These people CANNOT choose God until these fundamental desires and (free) wills are changed.
So how is our desire turned to God? How do we come to submit our lives and heart to the one true Creator of the universe (and all that is in it)? Is it something within us or something that only God can manage? Or is it as the good Arminian would purport - that this is the ONLY part of our lives that God avoids in order to turn this over to our “free will”. Seems odd that God would keep out of the only truly important decision of our lives...
Interesting extension of the illustration. I can understand your point, though I do not agree with it.
God (according to my belief) does not keep out of this decision. He is influencing us, not sitting on the sidelines.
These people CANNOT choose God until these fundamental desires and (free) wills are changed.
Again, I think we disagree on the meaning of Titus 2:11-16. As a result of this disagreement, we'll never see eye to eye on this issue.
When you say "free choice" what do you mean? Free from what? As v_a said, the central point of difficulty here seems to be the concept of freedom of the will. In your view, what must the will be free from?
He did get in Paul's face. I don't recall another NT instance of that ever happening, though, do you? God doesn't do the same thing twice in the same way. Look at Jesus' miracles--He cured several people of blindness, but never the same way twice. He raised at least two people from the dead--but not in the same way.
Yes, but is the fact that we have such diverse examples a product of some self-limitation on His part, or merely because of the relatively limited number of specific examples we are provided with? While the specific details are different, God's appearance before men to elicit the response of faith is not limited to Paul.
As far as Tyre, Sidon, Sodom, et al, my question is "how do you know?" Sure they fell, and turned away from Him--that doesn't mean He didn't do what was sufficient. That is the curse(?) of free will. You can't *make* someone with free will choose the way you think they ought to go. It's another example of Him limiting Himself to respect our decisions--thus getting in return real love from those who did (and do) listen to Him.
How do I know? Because Jesus clearly and explicitly stated it. "If they had seen they miracles you see, then they would have repented." It doesn't get more explicit than that! :)
If one is to be totally responsible for his sin, one must have the opportunity to not commit (or to be forgiven) of that sin.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree adamantly with this statement based on the "or to be forgiven" clause. What you are essentially saying is that God was compelled by His justice to send Christ to the Cross to provide the means of forgiveness, otherwise men would not be accountable for their sins resulting from their fallen nature. The Cross of Christ then becomes an act of obligatory justice, not grace. I simply cannot reconcile that notion with Scripture.
As far as your analogy of the car and driver, I don't believe it to be properly applicable because there is nothing in the analogy to account for the reality of original sin and the bondage of the will to sin. Again, the issue of freedom of the will, particularly with respect to original sin, clearly seems to be at the "heart" of our disagreement.
I view it from a slightly different angle. Don't hate the sinner--hate the sin.
I can't read the first fifty Psalms in particular and still say "He hates the sin but not the sinner" with a straight face. You can't have the responsibility you were repeatedly defending and then have the justice be focused on the action and not the one who commits it. God hates sinners with a righteous wrath. It is not an evil hatred, it is a just hatred...but a hatred nonetheless.
Again--you can't force decisions upon unwilling wills, so He won't just "wave his hand" and save everyone.
You have to look at why the "unwilling wills" are unwilling in the first place. That is the core issue.
Here I must also disagree. What was meant for evil, God *used* for good. His ability to use any situation for good goes way above competency. Just because something evil happened, doesn't mean it was God's will that it should happen. However, He can use that situation to make something good come from it.
It doesn't say, "You meant it for evil, but God used it for good." It says, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." The exact same Hebrew word is used for both. Given God's perfect foreknowledge and sovereignty, there is simply no way that evil can occur except by His will. That doesn't mean that the evil originates anywhere other than in the heart of the individual, but it is only by God's ordination that that evil can produce sin. He simply cannot be helpless to let evil happen and merely resigned to looking for ways to use it to His advantage.
This is a big problem with me. This is a very roundabout and wordy way of saying that God is capricious and arbitrary. He has a reason for *everything* He does. He is not arbitrary. The next statement I've heard is that "we just don't know why He picks one and not another, but He's not arbitrary." That basically loses the debate right there. You have a hypothesis, but no reasoning for it, other than the "mysteries of God."
This is a frequent argument, and one I would like to address head on. First of all, while there certainly is opportunity to use the "mysteries of God" as a cop-out to compensate for a lack of any real substantive proof, appealing to the mysteries of God is in and of itself a valid position. Let's face it, God was by no means exhaustive in His revelation and quite clearly left many question unanswered. There are things which we simply cannot fully comprehend given the finity of our knowledge and the finity of His revelation. That said, there needs to be some reasonable justification for drawing up to that point.
The issue I have with the notion that it is "arbitrary" or "capricious" is that both words have connotative definitions which allude to tyranny or malice. That is in direct contradiction to the stated position that it is according to His good will and pleasure. I believe Scripture does lead us to that conclusion...that it is according to His good will and pleasure. To seek for criteria beyond that is to indeed probe the mysteries of God not revealed to us. The question though is whether the fact that it is according to His good will and pleasure should be sufficient enough reason for us, and I maintain that it is. God certainly seems to think it should be (Ex 33:19,Rom 9:15). So I have no problem agreeing with you that God has a reason for doing everything He does, and in this case His reason in general terms is His own good purpose. That He is not more specific than that in His revelation does not mean that that general reason is somehow void.
God gave us all we needed to know about salvation in His Word. If He was merely arbitrary about His choices as to who would be saved, and who would not be saved, why do we have Scripture? He'd merely direct the elect to do righteous things, and the reprobate to not do righteous things. Then He could kill all the reprobates like a kid killing ants with a magnifying glass. Set up the dominoes to push them down. What's the point?
I'm not sure I follow the logic in this conclusion. Notwithstanding the fact that I disagree with the notion that He would be arbitrary in the sense you imply, it doesn't follow that Scripture is pointless because God accomplishes His will through various instrumental means. As a Calvinist I often get asked what the point is in evangelism, and my response is simply that that is the means God has ordained for bringing the elect to faith. Election in and of itself saves nobody. It is the formal cause of our salvation, but it is the work of Christ that is the material means of our salvation and it is faith in response to the revelation of God that is the instrumental means of our salvation. The rationale you provide is the same as those who insist that there must be alien life simply on the basis that the entirety of the universe would be a waste if it weren't true. The fact of the matter is that a universe of such expanse still serves a purpose in glorifying the God who made it all at the mere speaking of His Word(Ps 19:1).
BTW--I appreciate the courteous tone. Some of the others I've exchanged posts with in the past have been less than courteous. After all--I'm reprobate because I believe in free will, so they don't have to be nice. If my tone becomes offensive to you, let me know and I'll double check my meaning. I'm not trying to attack you personally, and this post was written over the course of a couple hours while I work on other things. :)
Well, any here who say you're reprobate solely on the basis of believing in "free will" as you do are treading on dangerous ground. That said, you and I have "fresh legs" with respect to our conversation, mainly because I haven't been engaging in this type of debate (especially here) for quite awhile. Give me enough time and I'm sure I'll offend you somehow, though it is certainly not my intent. :)
There does seem to be a tendency to take personal offense at spirited disagreement around here, as though to argue adamantly against one's position is to call into question their pedigree and human dignity.
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.