The theology of Andrew Fuller, as set out in his greatest work, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, is centrally located between those Calvinists who see sinners as walking corpses—no more able to believe than a dead body is able to raise itself from the dead—and those of the other side who see sinners as fully enabled by God’s grace to choose (their will being the determining factor). To Fuller, men are able to believe, but will nonetheless remain unwilling until God does a supernatural work of grace to reverse their unwillingness. Regeneration only causes a man to do what he otherwise could have and should have done but refused. This puts the feet of the universal gospel offer on much more Biblical ground, and removes much of the repugnance of the Calvinist doctrine. The gospel is to be preached to all men because all men do have the ability—and the warrant—to embrace it; and that gospel would save any who do—even the unelect if they would but be willing.
What then of inability? Fuller explains, “It is common, both in Scripture and in conversation, to speak of a person who is under the influence of an evil bias of heart, as unable to do that which is inconsistent with it.” As an example, Fuller offers Gen. 37:4, in which it is said that Joseph’s brothers “could not speak peaceably” to Joseph. It is universally understood that such an inability was not meant in the literal, natural sense of being absolutely unable—like a mute man being unable to speak anything, but only in the figurative, moral sense of being unable to find it within their hearts to speak peaceably to him. And it is just as universally understood that the former meaning provides an excuse while the latter does not.
That is Fuller’s view in a nutshell, when it comes to the inability of sinners to believe in Christ or do what is right: they cannot find the willingness in their heart, but the ability—in the natural sense of that word—remains just the same, so that they are left without excuse. They are unable to believe, in the moral sense of that word, just as Joseph’s brothers were unable to speak peaceably to him. This is what Fuller understands in the Bible’s descriptions of sinners as unable to come to Christ. And it fully resolves the seeming tension with the Bible’s description of sinners as unwilling to come to Christ, as well as the “Divine censure” that attends such an unwillingness.
To Fuller, one is excused only when one is absolutely unable, such as a physically blind man being excused from reading Scripture. This is inability in its natural sense, and presupposes an absoluteness that could not be overcome no matter how much the man might be willing. Therefore, a man who is not physically blind but refuses to see due to the wickedness of his heart is without excuse, since his inability to see is in the moral sense of the word, which presupposes that a natural ability remains by which he could see if he really wanted to. Natural inability presupposes an absolute inability; while moral inability presupposes a remaining natural ability.
Although Fuller saw the inability of sinners in this figurative, moral sense, such that sinners are naturally able to believe simply by choosing to do so, he was also committed to the Calvinist understanding that no man will believe apart from God’s supernatural work of grace. The unwillingness in men’s hearts will remain until God changes it. God offers salvation to all who hear the gospel, with a full warrant to believe and be saved; but sinners will refuse to exercise their natural ability to believe until persuaded through God’s work of grace. In each case, it is God alone who chooses whether to persuade a man and bring him to faith or leave him in his sinful aversion. And He uses the preaching of the gospel in that persuasion. “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, certain that God is appealing through us. We plead on Christ’s behalf, ‘Be reconciled to God!'”
[For an in-depth engagement of these matters, see “Fuller & Inability: A Centrist Response to Tom Nettles.”]
Ken Hamrick,
You said,
“In each case, it is God alone who chooses whether to persuade a man and bring him to faith or leave him in his sinful aversion.”
In other words, God alone chooses some for salvation and some for a lost eternity in Hell.
This gets down to a basic difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists.
Many of us still believe in a real free will of man.
Herschel H. Hobbs,
SBC president and Chairman of the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message, said,
“God knows beforehand who will receive or reject Christ. But He wills that all should come to repentance and life (2 Peter 3:9). Yet a man is free to choose, being held responsible for his choices.”
Herschel Hobbs also said,
“It is difficult to improve on an old Negro preacher’s explanation of election with respect to salvation. God voted for you. The devil voted against you. It is a tie vote. And you must cast the deciding vote.”
Or, as
Adrian Rogers,
another past SBC president said,
“There are some who…say that God has chosen some before they are born to go the Hell and others He has chosen to go to Heaven – and there’s absolutely nothing they can do about it. I don’t accept this for a moment…”
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2011/08/adrian-rogers-on-predestination.html
David R. Brumbelow
“God voted for you. The devil voted against you. It is a tie vote. And you must cast the deciding vote.”
And everybody said AMEN! (or should have)
In the red hot fires of revival, God is still in the election business … whosoever will may come. God raise up evangelists! God send revival!
“God voted for you. The devil voted against you. It is a tie vote. And you must cast the deciding vote.”
Please help me see how this isn’t dualism?
I’d be interested in that answer as well, Mike.
This is not dualism because:
God created the world out of nothing.
God and the devil are not of equal power and the devil will be ultimately defeated and cast into the Lake of Fire.
God is almighty.
Evil is always deficient.
Satan is evil.
A choice to receive Jesus Christ is supreme to a choice rejecting Him.
Man can have a true free will because God made him that way.
Scripture never says if a man exercises his God given free will and rejects God, that God has failed.
Just assuming, but I assume Dr. Hobbs would agree with these statements.
How does man not having a true free will and God arbitrarily sending some men to Heaven and some to Hell differ from fatalism or man being a puppet on a string?
David R. Brumbelow
David,
Thanks for the response. But, I’m still not tracking with you. You’ve clearly articulated that you aren’t a dualist (which I suspected) but I’m not seeing how that quote isn’t dualistic. It’s pitting God vs. Satan in a battle for the heart of a sinner. And the keys for the decision are given to the sinner. God and Satan having an equal vote sounds like dualism to me.
As far as the bait in your final question…I’ll let some other fish nibble on that one. I’m not here to debate…just curious as to how you would explain that not being dualism.
I would also ask the Calvinists why the devil is so laboriously engaged in preventing what can never happen anyway?
Ken: Why did Satan tempt Jesus knowing it was futile. The answer is the same.
Debbie,
The devil tempted Jesus because it was not impossible for Him to sin. It was absolutely certain that Jesus would not sin, but it was a matter of certainty and not necessity. Otherwise, it would have been no real temptation at all.
The devil tempted Jesus because it was not impossible for Him to sin.
We would most certainly disagree on this statement. According to scripture, and the fact that Christ was 100% God as well as 100% human, I maintain that Christ could not sin.
It was no real temptation Ken.
Debbie,
If the temptations of our Lord were pseudo temptations, how do we interpret Hebrews 4: 14-16?
How do we have complete confidence that when we come to the throne of grace we may find mercy if we do not have a High Priest who been completely victorious over all things of which we have suffered complete defeat?
And if they were fake temptations why would His humanness have any relevance for us? This sounds like one of the trickster gods the pagans worshipped. What would have been the point?
This thinking seems to tie right into the popular teaching that we cannot grow in Holiness. That it is not necessary.
CB
Well stated
I didn’t use the word pseudo or fake CB. Good grief. Please argue with what I have said. I am very orthodox.
You guys really need to read. This makes me crazy.
Jesus is God 100%. Those temptations were not temptations. Christ could easily resist. Satan did it anyway. Just like he does a lot today knowing he will be defeated by the Godhead. Plain enough here?
Think a little bit DL, Lydia, CB.
Wow—that’s a new one for me. Jesus’ temptations were “easy?” Then the righteousness He earned in our place was cheap. And in fact, He did not stand in our place, since our place is one of failure in the place of temptations that were not easy, while His victory was over temptations that were easy.
Perhaps we have an excuse, since ours are not easy temptations. If Jesus had been faced with the same level of difficulty in temptation as we are, then would He have sinned too?
Debbie,
Your comment was:
“It was no real temptation Ken.”
My question was in regard to the word “real.” For it is obvious to any one who holds a high view of Scripture that temptations occurred from even the casual reading of the Gospels.
I used the word “pseudo” because that would describe the diametric opposite of “real.”
Therefore, I would contend that I did “argue”/interact with what you have stated in your comment.
Now, as to the question I did ask you, I will change it to better interact with what you have stated and I hope you will give me an answer.
If the temptations of our Lord were not real temptations, how do we interpret Hebrews 4: 14-16?
Oh brother CB.
Ok CB….I guess I will have to spell it out for you. I shouldn’t…..
It was a real temptation, that Jesus easily passed on. Silly assumptions take away from any serious discussion and totally take away from what Ken said. I haven’t got a whole lot of tolerance for silliness CB. None actually.
Since I am usually pretty quick to disagree with Debbie, it’s only fair to express when I am in agreement. The doctrine that Debbie is referring to is really nothing new, it is referred to as the impeccability of Christ. You don’t have to be a Calvinist to hold to this doctrine, I’m not a Calvinist and I believe that it was not possible for Christ to sin.
While I do believe that it’s possible and appropriate to glean from the temptation narrative ways to fight temptation, I do not believe that is its primary intention. The point of the temptation narrative is to present Christ as the Lamb of God without spot or blemish, fully qualified to be sacrificed for our sins.
Debbie
You told me to think. I tell you to exegete. What you “think” is hardly important, not to mention most often wrong. Exegete, exegete, exegete. You cannot “think” your way around the plain truth of Hebrews 4:14-16. Sorry, you are wrong. Admit it before you did this hole any deeper. To quote a friend of mine on voices “good grief” 🙂
John Wylie,
It is highly probable that a great majority of the readers of SBC Voices know “The doctrine that Debbie is referring to is really nothing new . . .” with the exception of a specific few.
Actually, what Debbie is referring to here is not a specific doctrine, but rather a debated issue within a specific doctrine; the sinlessness of Christ. The debate revolves around whether Christ, the God-Man, was, during His tenure on earth, peccable or impeccable.
In other words, the real debate among serious, conservative scholars has mostly been about whether Christ could sin, not about whether or not the human experiences, temptations, and trials of Christ were real. To declare the human experiences, temptations, and trials of Christ were not real smacks of flirtation with gnosticism dating back as far as the early second century.
Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology gives us some light on this worthy of thought here:
It is objected to the doctrine of Christ’s impeccability that it is inconsistent with His temptability. A person who cannot sin, it is said, cannot be tempted to sin. That is not correct; any more than it would be correct to say that because an army cannot be conquered, it cannot be attacked. Temptability depends on the constitutional suseptability, while impeccability depends on the will. . . The temptations were very strong, but if the self-determination of His holy will was stronger than they, then they could not induce Him to sin, and He would be impeccable. And yet plainly He would be temptable.”
Shedd went on to state, “Consequently, Christ while having a peccable human nature in His constitution, was an impeccable Person. Impeccability characterizes the God-Man as a totality, while peccability is a property of His humanity.”
It is my opinion that Jesus could not sin as the God-Man and, in His humanity, He did not sin although His human experiences, temptations, and trials as the God-Man were absolutely real and in all actually, far more intense than any human of mere flesh and blood has ever experienced. Ever.
Debbie,
Based upon the fact that you stated, “It was no real temptation Ken,” how was it “silly” that I ask you:
“If the temptations of our Lord were not real temptations, how do we interpret Hebrews 4: 14-16?”
It seems that in context of the dialogue, being presented here, that would not be a “silly” question, but rather an obvious one.
So, How do you interpret Hebrews 4:14-16?
Personally, I see here a divine paradox. We approach this with a finite mind and a great inability to comprehend the thoughts of God. While we are certainly in His image it does not follow that we are in His capabilities. Within our dimensions we are limited in our understanding and cannot comprehend the fact that there are those things we cannot fit comfortably in those dimensions. Again our arrogance cannot readily accept this.
My point: If one takes a high view of Scripture does this really matter? Does it not seem strange that those things that do matter in our understanding of salvation and the essence of the Great Commission are relatively straightforward and simple.
Can you see how the issue is one and the same between the possibility of Christ sinning and the possibility of sinners to believe? As attractive as it is to want to reinforce the good ideas of the depravity of man, the sovereignty of God and the impeccability of Christ, going to the extreme of necessity is going beyond the Biblical truth of mere absolute certainty. Certainty does not preclude alternative possibilities, but necessity does. Certainty preserves men’s freedom, the sinner’s culpability for not selecting the better choice, and it preserves the true nature of Christ’s victory over temptation.
Debbie: I have been a believer in Sovereign Grace for more than 50 years, coming the view in 1962-63 when faced by the depravity of very upset church members who had been infuriated by a minister who had betrayed them. The experience pushed me to a close examination of the meaning of the word can in Jn.6:44.65 which our predecessors defined in, “no man can,” as impotence, meaning no power and no ability, clearly stated in the Sandy Creek as well as the Philadelphia Confessions of Faith. Now as the matter of our Lord’s temptations by Satan: they were aimed at His humanity. Long ago a Traditionalist professor I had gave a great definition of the whole affair. Jesus was God and not able to sin. He was man and able to sin. As the God-man He was able not to sin. Debbie, even the Arminians and the Traditionalists can get that right. To say Jesus could not be tempted is take a gnostic view of our Savior. If in all our afflictions, He was afflicted, it follows that in our temptations, He was tempted and yet did not sin which made his fidelity even more honoring to the Father as well as His own Deity. Being tempted is no sin; giving into it is. I think, if you will examine the writings of the Sovereign Grace theologians, you will find that they accept the reality of the temptation. And besides even they can make mistakes. Much as I like Pink’s writings, his chapter on reprobation in his The Sovereignty of God involves a quote from John Bunyan’s sermon on the same subject which is taken out of context. Later, from what I gather, the chapter was taken out of the Banner of Truth edition, because either Ian Murray or Pink himself realized that there had been a mistake. Also concerning the temptations of Jesus you might want to read Arthur Pink’s work on the subject.
CB,
Thank you brother for your very thought provoking post. I think in the end when we understand that temptation, testing, and trial are all pretty much the same thing it bring clarity to the subject. Was our Lord tested? Was He tried? Of course He was and He demonstrated not only that He didn’t sin, but that He could not sin.
Attacking an unconquerable army is an exercise in futility. The Devil had no chance in enticing Jesus to sin. The main purpose the temptation serve was to show us Jesus was sinless.
So, John Wylie,
Would you agree that the temptations that Christ was subjected to throughout His earthly ministry were, in fact, “real” and of a greater magnitude (nothing easy about it) than any you, Debbie, I, or anyone else has ever faced, yet He was completely and with total legitimacy sinless before, during, and after the encounter, for it was impossible for Him to be otherwise, for He was/is the God-Man?
So, John Wylie,
Would you agree that the temptations that Christ was subjected to throughout His earthly ministry were, in fact, “real” and of a greater magnitude (nothing easy about it) than any you, Debbie, I, or anyone else has ever faced, yet He was completely and with total legitimacy sinless before, during, and after the encounter, for it was impossible for Him to be otherwise, for He was/is the God-Man?
That is what I am trying to say, took a shortcut when saying it. This is exactly what I believe.
I am sure in my taking shortcuts I am to blame for the “misunderstanding” (cough.) For the record Hebrews 4:14-16 is my another favorite of mine and I understand it the same as you do.
Rumors and such I abhor.
This just keeps getting worse and worse.
DL: When I say think, I am saying think about what I am really saying, and not the false accusations you, CB and Lydia are making against me. Good grief. Typical Southern Baptists.
“Please help me see how this isn’t dualism?”
Because in dualism, man has no real volition.
Dualism can have several meanings, but I think as was used in the posts above they are talking about the concept that the world is ruled by two equal and antagonistic forces — good and evil, God and Satan, etc.
Here is the sad outworking of this phrase on the equal votes of God and satan. One preacher said in a sermon:
“You hold the answer to your soul’s spiritual relationship to God. A person testified in a church service. He told how he was reconciled to God. It goes something like this.
“I don’t know much about theology, but I can tell you one thing. I looked on my right hand and God seemed to be pleading with me. Then I looked on my left hand, and there seemed to be Satan, ready to destroy me. The battle was on. God was FOR me, and the devil was AGAINST me. The battle was tied–one to one. Who was going to win?”
“THEN I CAST THE DECIDING VOTE! I chose God; it was now God and me. Now it was two votes against Satan’s one vote. I won the spiritual battle for my soul. I was now reconciled, and God and I were friends.”
Not good.
Yep, conveys the idea that God cannot defeat Satan without us. That God’s victory over sin and death is Up to us.
The idea of creating a visual of a tug-of-war between God and Satan over the souls of man – culminating with a human being declaring the winner (between God and satan) is so wrought with bad theology that I truly can’t believe any serious student of the Scriptures would ascribe to it.
“Yep, conveys the idea that God cannot defeat Satan without us. That God’s victory over sin and death is Up to us. ”
The victory has already been won. The question is; do we believe it and live as if that is the case.
David,
You said, “Many of us still believe in a real free will of man.” I would argue that many assume a definition of free will that they cannot prove is correct, to wit, that my will is not free if God has determined my destiny—even if I have not been coerced in any way. God is certainly capable of determining all things without coercing any man’s decision, so that all paths are freely chosen. If you want to say that a man would not have free will if that were true, then I challenge you to prove it.
A. W. Tozer said it well:
Tozer was well said. Good quote.
One writer said,
“As the old saying goes, “God casts a vote for you. Satan casts a vote against you. You hold the tie-breaking vote.” The emphasis is on the “you.” God has done his part, you are now the master of your faith and the captain of your soul.
However, this is problematic for me for some substantial reasons. Most importantly, I don’t think Scripture teaches this. I believe that we all have cast our vote against God. Hence, we have already exercised our “free will,” submitted our ballot, and checked the box next to “I stand with Adam; I hate God.” Satan has no vote for anyone. He only casts a ballot for himself.”
I think his perspective is closer to correct on that old saying.
“I think his perspective is closer to correct on that old saying.”
Me too, Les!
Les,
One thing that they do have right is that men go to hell because they willfully reject God, and not because they could not comprehend the truth.
Ken,
That is right, they go to hell because they KNEW that there is right and wrong [The LAW of God whether they called it that or not] and they chose to do wrong.
Many die and go to hell never hearing the Gospel much less comprehending it as truth, while other hear it and never get it as truth.
mike
“Herschel H. Hobbs, SBC president and Chairman of the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message, said, “God knows beforehand who will receive or reject Christ. But He wills that all should come to repentance and life (2 Peter 3:9). Yet a man is free to choose, being held responsible for his choices.”
So, God’s foreknowledge is not settled – but is dependent on the “votes” of man?
Ken,
This is a good post on Fuller. You said, “They are unable to believe, in the moral sense of that word…” and “…he was also committed to the Calvinist understanding that no man will believe apart from God’s supernatural work of grace.”
I agree. Owen put it this way,
““To say that we are able by our own efforts to think good thoughts or give God spiritual obedience before we are spiritually regenerate is to overthrow the gospel and the faith of the universal church in all ages.”
Thanks, Les. But agreeing with only 1 part of Fuller’s 2-part understanding of inability is not quite agreeing. Would Owen or you agree that the inability, strictly speaking, is nothing more than unwillingness—that men are, strictly speaking, able to give God a spiritual obedience in this matter of surrendering to the truth in repentant faith and “cordially embracing all that God reveals?” The emphasis is Biblical: unbelief is of rebellion, and is not a mere failure to mentally assent. Unbelief is grounded on rebellion, and not the reverse. Inability to believe is not like blind Bartemeus, who wanted ever so much to see but could not, but rather, it is like the deafness of those who stoned Stephen who stopped their ears. Had they wanted to, they could have listened. Sinners hate the same Light to which they are said to be blind—their blindness is due to their hatred of it, and not the kind that provides an excuse, as if they couldn’t see if they wanted to.
Ken,
When you say “standard Calvinism” what do you mean?
For me, I’ve always identified more as a Fuller/Newton type of Calvinist than a High Calvinist. But I think that Calvin himself (and even the WCF) was closer to Fuller.
But more than anything I think Fuller is closer to the Bible. And so that’s where I’m hoping to be. So to answer your question I like what Fuller said, and it was certainly an improvement over the High (at times Hyper) Calvinism of his day, but I’m not sure that most Calvinists of today would disagree with Fuller.
Mike,
As an example, Fuller held to regeneration prior to faith. But unlike standard Calvinists, Fuller held that such regeneration only caused a man to do what he could have and should have done anyway, even without being regenerated. Standard Calvinists hold that men are spiritually dead to the point of being like walking corpses who could not believe without such regeneration any more than a real corpse could raise itself from the dead. But Fuller stated [Andrew Fuller, “The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation,” The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, (Harrisonburg: Sprinkle, 1988), vol. II, p. 386]:
I think what I’m trying to ask is “who” do you mean by standard Calvinists?
Ken,
Until I better understand Fuller (whom I’ve admittedly not read much) I will withhold agreement. So I am stepping back until I understand his position better.
That said, in an effort to understand his position better, you said, “Fuller held that such regeneration only caused a man to do what he could have and should have done anyway, even without being regenerated.”
WCF and I have been speaking about spiritual things. And regeneration is a spiritual matter. if Fullr is saying that man has a natural ability to obey the gospel demand, then I disagree with Fuller. I agree with Fuller that man in his natural state have “love of darkness rather than light.” But that arises from a corrupt and fallen heart and will not, indeed cannot in the natural state, obey the gospel demand. There must be a supernatural action upon man (regeneration).
But maybe I am missing Fuller.
Les,
Fuller agrees with you as to the certainty, but he would not agree with the necessity. If by “cannot in the natural state, obey the gospel demand” you mean to say that the sinner absolutely will not under any conditions do so—that the condition of his heart is such that there is absolutely no desire for God (and the good) within him, so that there is nothing within him to motivate him to take such an action—then Fuller would agree (and so do I). The problem is that the words for “cannot” and “unable” and other such words, tend to convey the kind of obstacle that defeats all resistance, as if the sinner could not no matter how much he might want to. We speak of the bondage of sin, but the fact is that the kind of bondage is not that which the will is powerless to overcome, but rather, it is purely the bondage of never wanting anything else. This is where I think it is important to distinguish between the necessity of Calvinism and the certainty of Fuller and of Scripture. Absolute certainty seems like necessity, but it is a mistake to confuse the two. If a sinner’s inability were of necessity, then he could not come to Christ no matter how much he might try to believe. Mere certainty, however, leaves alternative possibilities intact, and leaves the sinner blameworthy for not taking the better path. For more detail and depth, see the link at the bottom of the opening article above.
Ken, first help me out here. Can you pull the Fuller 2 part understanding of inability into 2 bullet points?
And, on this, “that men are, strictly speaking, able to give God a spiritual obedience in this matter of surrendering to the truth in repentant faith and “cordially embracing all that God reveals?”
Where is this “cordially embracing all that God reveals?” taken from. I don’t see it in your original piece.
Thanks
Two bullet points on inability? Isn’t the opening article concise enough? Hmmm…. Let’s see if I can get the HTML right.
“It is common, both in Scripture and in conversation, to speak of a person who is under the influence of an evil bias of heart, as unable to do that which is inconsistent with it.” As an example, Fuller offers Gen. 37:4, in which it is said that Joseph’s brothers “could not speak peaceably” to Joseph. It is universally understood that such an inability was not meant in the literal, natural sense of being absolutely unable—like a mute man being unable to speak anything, but only in the figurative, moral sense of being unable to find it within their hearts to speak peaceably to him. And it is just as universally understood that the former meaning provides an excuse while the latter does not.
Sinners cannot find the willingness in their heart, but the ability—in the natural sense of that word—remains just the same, so that they are left without excuse. They are unable to believe, in the moral sense of that word, just as Joseph’s brothers were unable to speak peaceably to him.
Ken,
While it is true that Joseph’s brothers were not willing to speak peaceably to him and the Bible uses the words “could not”, it is a fallacy to assume that instance proves that whenever the Bible uses “can’t” or its equivalent it must mean “won’t”.
As that case applies to salvation we see that Joseph’s brothers knew how to speak peaceably –they weren’t ignorant of how to act right. In the world, we see people reforming themselves and changing their ways so as to act right towards others all the time. We give men sensitivity courses to learn how to treat women in the workplace. Same with other types of training. People can learn also though experience, as did these brothers of Joseph, did they not?
They changed their tune about Joseph without any mention of God moving in their heart. So that idea is not equivalent with a hatred of God. The Joseph case speaks about worldly passions and the nature of natural man. It doesn’t speak about men who are ignorant of the truth of the Gospel. And of a God they are blind to, and a savior in whom they see no form of beauty or anything desirable in.
You could also say that when presented by a lesser [a younger brother] who arouses wrong passions in them, they are in the wrong and sin against him, but when confronted by their greater [a younger brother who has power and authority and also food they need] they humbly bow before him.
Thus when and if they are confronted by the risen Savior through the Holy Spirit, they would also bow before Him.
And my position is that any and every person so confronted by God through the Spirit witnessing in the heart of the cross of Christ does humbly bow before the Lord and is saved.
And until that moment [when God saves them] they can’t [as in impossible] turn themselves from sin and get saved.
Have a great new year in the Lord,
mike
Les,
The bullet point HTML wasn’t accepted 🙂 . The phrase, “cordially embracing all that God reveals” is taken from Gospel Worthy, to the best of my recollection (I’ve currently loaned out my copy, but there is one on line at http://www.wmcarey.edu/carey/fuller/gospel/worthy.pdf
Ken,
There is a false assumption made that all who hear the Gospel with physical ears have it to them revealed as truth by God.
Obedience to God’s commands is obedience to His Law. The Law of God covers all right and wrong. And salvation never comes through obedience to the Law. It can only come by faith that has the understanding that one is a Law breaker, not a Law keeper, and that one needs a savior.
Simply hearing what others say is a command of God does not mean that [a] the person recognizes that it is God Himself giving the command or that it is from them, and [b] simply hearing the Gospel with the physical ear does not produce a heart environment for faith.
As an example to the last point [b] Chris Roberts choose to believe a set of propositions called the Gospel but never had saving faith. Faith doesn’t come about by choosing to believe a set of propositions but by God entering into a relationship with the sinner. There He demonstrates His love by the cross so that the sinner has a foundation for trust and a desire to love and serve God. For we say that we love God because He first loved us and gave Himself for us.
mike
This gets complicated real fast. I am not sure about the voting thing. I see some issues. Yet I do believe I have free will and make choices everyday. Some good and others bad. I do believe that every good choice is because I have been illuminated by the Holy Spirit. So I see it this way. There is the eternal struggle between God and Satan. However that battle has a ben won. The outcome has been decided. Revelation tells me that the final battle will be the battle of Armageddon. Christ will be victorious. That was decided on the cross. So, two armies as it were. I do not vote, but I do decide which army I will join, and I did that at Calvary Baptist Church, St. Louis Mo., August 16, 1960, when I was 17 years old.
Good ol St. Louis. You’re making me feel young DL. I was 3 when you came to know Christ!
On the free will thing, you said, “Yet I do believe I have free will and make choices everyday.”
The debate on free will is not really about which route we take to the beach (wish I was going to the beach today!) or what color socks we choose. It is regarding spiritual things…salvation. The WCF says (and the London Baptist Confession similarly):
“Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”
When we Reformed folk say man does not have a free will, we are talking about regarding his salvation. Man is not free in his fallen condition, on his own, techies Christ. Man in that condition, with a corrupt heart, must have his heart intervened upon by something or someone outside himself. We believe that someone is God. So that when man is so intervened upon, man then freely chooses Christ. The heart is set free. The WCF says re the next step:
“When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.”
I love how Wesley put it in that great hymn And Can it Be:
“Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.”
Amen and amen!
Les
I understand that, I thought I might slip this by you :-).
Seriously, I do fall into the camp that has a different interpretation. Both camps are long and throughly debated and honestly I doubt I have anything to offer that will change anyone’s thinking. While I agree I have nothing to offer for my salvation I am free to reject Christ, hence I am free to accept Christ.
Having said that I have fallen into the trap that I feel has burdened this debate down for decades. That is resorting to our rationale. I hear many times, sentences begin with “therefore” or “that leads me to believe” or “why would God” and then offer an argument from “logic” that defends our position. The issue is exegesis…..interpreting the Scripture without giving a summation from our rationale as to why something can or cannot be true. When I do that and only that I believe that “Calvinism” (whatever that means) is in error.
Don’t hear me say that one should not think. Not at all. However I believe there are times when our arrogance tells us we can think on the level of God, or understand the mind of God in all matters. That gets us into trouble.
One can go batty trying to understand or explain the God/Man concept or the Triune God. At times our best approach is to simply affirm it. There are issues in the “Calvinism” debate that fall into this category. Perhaps our best approach is to affirm not explain
Now I know that is going to raise the accusation that I am intellectually lazy from some people. However, that is their arrogance talking.
P.S. 3 years old? You are just a young sprat! 🙂
You are right brother. Any and all of us are too often arguing from arrogance and not putting forth exegesis. I’m guilty sometimes.
I don’t see you as intellectually lazy at all brother. And yep, I’m a young one. Some on here have even put me in the YRR camp. That’s a funny one there. I turned 40-17 this past summer.
Les
I love Montana. It is home now. But brother I do miss St. Louis. It is a great city. Not to mention having the greatest Italian food in the nation.
On predestination and foreknowledge:
“Scripture plainly teaches that predestination, which means to destine beforehand, is based on foreknowledge. God chose those whom He knew beforehand would choose Him! That’s why Paul said, in Romans 8:29-30 in that tremendous passage, ‘For whom He foreknew…’ You’d better start where Paul starts. ‘For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son…’ But He predestines on the basis of foreknowledge! The same thing is said in I Peter 1:2…
God elects, God predestines on the basis of knowing beforehand. That’s what the word “foreknowledge” means. I’ve checked it out in the Greek. It just means God knows what’s going to happen.”
-Dr. Roy Fish, evangelism professor, SWBTS.
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2013/02/roy-fish-on-calvinism-part-1-of-2.html
David R. Brumbelow
David,
Thank your for the quote from Dr. Fish. But I do think that the word translated “foreknowledge” has much more to say than simply that God knew something we humans would do beforehand. I agree with Dr. James Montgomery Boice in his comments on Romans 8:29,
“the verse does not say that God foreknew what certain of his creatures would do. It is not talking about human actions at all. On the contrary, it is speaking entirely of God and of what God does. Each of these five terms is like that: God foreknew, God predestined, God called, God justified, God glorified. Besides, the object of the divine foreknowledge is not the actions of certain people but the people themselves. In this sense it can only mean that God has fixed a special attention upon them or loved them savingly.”
And this, “God chose those whom He knew beforehand would choose Him!”
This really presents a problem for those who reject the Reformed view. If God knew beforehand who would NOT choose Him, then this was a fixed certainty. So why did He go ahead and create those He foreknew (had prior knowledge of) would reject Him?
If God did indeed foreknow He was creating persons He knew would reject Him, then how can non Reformed folks argue that God is trying to save every person? Why would He atone for the sins of those whom He created “foreknowing” would reject Him?
One other thing here David. In the passage where God is comforting His people,
“26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because[g] the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. 28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,[h] for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
It seems clear that He is referring to “[all] those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And [all] those whom he predestined he also called, and [all] those whom he called he also justified, and [all] those whom he justified he also glorified.”
So if it is as Dr. Fish said, then it would have to be [some]. It would read like this:
“For [some of] those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And [some of] those whom he predestined he also called, and [some of] those whom he called he also justified, and [some of] those whom he justified he also glorified.”
That certainly won’t work.
Les,
I’m in agreement with you on this passage but I’m not tracking with you on why one like Dr. Fish would have to say [some]. Help me out. Wouldn’t a non-Calvinist say “all those whom God saw would have faith…”
For me, even if we take Dr. Fish’s definition of foreknowledge “God knows what’s going to happen”, I don’t think it proves the argument that what God foresees is faith. I don’t see that anywhere in here. It seems to me that one has to come to the text with a theology in order to say “God foresees their faith”. The text simply doesn’t say that. It might be foreseen faith…but I don’t find sufficient warrant in any Scriptures to supply that. Nowhere do I read, “God foresaw their faith…” or “God foreknowledge of their choice”.
Hi Mike. Dr. Fish says,
“Scripture plainly teaches that predestination, which means to destine beforehand, is based on foreknowledge. God chose those whom He knew beforehand would choose Him!”
You: For me, even if we take Dr. Fish’s definition of foreknowledge “God knows what’s going to happen”, I don’t think it proves the argument that what God foresees is faith.”
I agree with you, not Fish. He is the one who said “God chose those whom He knew beforehand would choose Him!”
I see Fish as saying God chooses based on which people choose. And I think Fish is wrong.
As to the [some] thing, my point is that the passage has to be speaking of “all,” or “some” or “none.” No one will think it is speaking of “none.” So that leaves either “some” or “all.” Implied of course. But I think justifiably implied as “all.” Of course we call this the Golden Chain of salvation. One follows after another and so on. According to Fish, God foreknew everyone’s choice to choose God or not choose God. I’m saying “all” God foreknew make it through the entire chain of salvation.
Now I’m tracking with you…
Thanks.
Thanks Mike. I was confusing myself as I typed that response. 🙂
But I still think a non-C would just say that this passage isn’t talking about foreseen unbelief–only belief. And they could keep the golden chain that way.
Mike, I agree the non C would probably do that. But I cannot see how he/she can get away with it. That would seem to suggest by them that God only foreknows some things and not the other things. i.e. he foreknows who will choose him but not foreknow who doesn’t. But hey…
Mike & Les,
So, are you saying God foreknew some things, but not others?
That God could not foreknow a person’s faith or lack thereof, so He had to arbitrarily pronounce some would go to Heaven and some to Hell?
David R. Brumbelow
I don’t think it would have to mean that. They would just be saying in these contexts and in the places where it speaks of foreseen faith it isn’t talking about God’s omniscience in regard to unbelievers rejection.
I don’t believe that is what the text is saying either–but I’m trying to be fair and understand the text from their perspective and give the benefit of the doubt. I think what Tyler says below is very helpful as well. The Scriptures are speaking of God foreknowing people and not facts. That to me is a big reason why I don’t buy the non-C argumentation of foreseen faith in these passages.
David, I’m not saying “God foreknew some things, but not others.”
I think “foreknowledge” has much more to it than simply knowing (intellectually) beforehand. The Boice quote is what I agree with.
“so He had to arbitrarily pronounce some would go to Heaven and some to Hell?”
No, nothing God does is arbitrary. His election of some is not arbitrary.
David,
I’m not saying that at all. I’m trying to fully understand the non-C argument.
I fully believe in the complete omniscience of God.
Mike,
Maybe you’re right. And yes Tyler’s comment is right. See my comment at 2:46pm where I quote Boice. Yes, more about his foreknowing people. In fact, that is what the passage is all about.
David,
There is more for God to foreknow than merely what men will or won’t do. God is active in this world at every moment and every place. There is no way to abstract that actions and choices of men from what God has already done and is currently doing. Therefore, there is no human choice or action that is free from some degree of God’s influence. So when God foreknows that a certain man will believe, He also foresees all that He Himself will do in his life to bring about that faith.
Foreknowledge has so much more beauty and depth than mereely “God knows whats going to happen.” The Bible THOSE he foreknew, not WHAT he foreknew.
I had Dr. Fish for severe classes. I realize that it is intellectually dishonest as well as unfair in a debate to say a man said something who is not alive to verify the statement. Hence I merely offer this in the “for what its worth department.” Dr. Fish would go to say that what God foreordained was that they would be molded into the image of Christ. That is those who accepted Christ God foreordained that they would become in the image of Christ. Again note my disclaimer. I hesitated a long time before I typed this.
D. L.,
I think you are probably right. Sounds just like something he would say.
Dr. Roy Fish was a great professor, evangelist, and preacher.
David R. Brumbelow
David B.
I agree re. Dr. Fish. I had a great amount of respect for him and his integrity. He held a revival for me when I was a young pastor pastoring in a small church in Oklahoma. I was impressed by that. He preached the biggest venues in the SBC yet he spent 4 days in or small church.
Good morning, Gentlemen!
There are two issues that no one has touched on yet.
1) What is your assessment of Fuller’s view of inability as it compares with standard Calvinism? Can you agree with me that his brand of Calvinism is a much needed improvement?
2) If you’re familiar with Fuller, do you agree with my assessment of his view?
Ken, I thought my brief comments sufficed. I’ll add here that I hold to the WCF standards and I don’t think they disagree with Fuller. On Free Will:
“1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.
2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.
3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.”
If we agree that ““They are unable to believe, in the moral sense of that word…” as you said, then good. Now when you say “standard Calvinism” as it relates to this, then maybe I need a definition of what you are calling “standard Calvinism.”
Thanks brother.
Les,
You cited the WCF:
I haven’t read where Fuller addressed the WCF—maybe because he was Baptist (or maybe I missed it). But Fuller would not agree that man “hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good…” He insists in Gospel Worthy that the inability is not complete as in natural inability, but is culpable due to the fact that natural ability remains.
Men are not converted by strength, but by turning from rebellion to embrace God and His revealed truth. Men are not lost from lack of strength, but from disobedience, sin and hatred of God.
Ken,
““hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good…” He insists in Gospel Worthy that the inability is not complete as in natural inability, but is culpable due to the fact that natural ability remains.”
The word “spiritual” sets this apart. He has lost any and all ability “spiritually” and key qualifier, “accompanying salvation.” So not talking about natural ability.
The word ‘natural’ in natural ability is not referring to the nature of the man, such as a natural man v. a spiritual man, but rather, refers to the natural use of the term ‘ability’ as opposed to the moral use of the word. Fuller argued that if men had no ability to believe, then they would have no ability to disbelieve, since one cannot reject what one cannot comprehend, and a man born blind cannot possibly hate the light.
Ken I’m unavailable for a while. Y’all have fun.
Now i am off to work.
Til Tomorrow
Ken,
You and Fuller, if you have him right, would say that man has NOT lost all ability to do spiritual good? And this because man has a ~natural~ ability to do spiritual good?
What would this natural ability consist of? Would it be the ability to profess faith [if they had it]?
Or what would it be?
Mike,
As Fuller argued, each man is accountable to love God with all his strength, etc., but no one is required to love God beyond his strength.
Rejecting the truth of the gospel, or “all that God reveals,” is not a morally neutral decision, but is an immoral, sinful act of spiritual rebellion. That culpability carries with it the understanding that the right path ought to have been chosen but was refused.
From 1st Corinthians 2:
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
The problem of the natural man goes beyond his will. To show that, let me change the above slightly:
The natural person WILL not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
To say that the ONLY reason that a natural man WILL NOT accept the things of the Spirit of God because he DOESN’T WANT to falls short of actual truth. I agree that he doesn’t want to, and that he could [natural ability] if he wanted to, but the Scripture takes us beyond the will of man to tell us WHY he doesn’t want to, namely:
[a] the things of the Spirit of God are folly to him, and
[b] he is not able to understand them for they are spiritually discerned.
This same idea is echoed in Ephesians 4:
Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.
Here again we see that the reason the unsaved continue to walk against God is not SIMPLY that their will is against God. The Word tells us that the reason they walk/live the way they do alienated from the life of God is:
[c] the futility of their minds,
[d] they are darkened in their understanding,
[e] there is an ignorance in them.
These things are justly on them because of the hardness of their hearts which cause them to become callous, and to revel in sin.
What they do not have is the natural or spiritual or moral ability to either soften their hearts or UNDO the consequences that their choice of sin leaves them with.
We also see where their sin leaves them suffering under its consequences in Romans 1 that also echoes Ephesians 4 and 1st Corinthians 2:
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
We see how it echoes the other passages in:
[a] the things of the Spirit of God are folly to him [“they became fools”],
[c] the futility of their minds [“they became futile in their thinking”],
[d] they are darkened in their understanding [“their foolish hearts were darkened”]
And of course they reveled in sin.
These are ~some~ of the passages which stand against the idea that man is lost simply because he has a moral inability [Ken] or that he chooses against God [David B.].
Blessings,
-mike
Ken,
Thanks for you reply, but…
You did not answer my question…
What natural ability do they have that enables them to choose God?
Oh wait, I see you answered Les, they have the ability to believe.
But what does that mean?
The Bible paints us a more complicated position of a sinner than just they won’t believe because they don’t want to.
So I would challenge the idea that they have an ability to believe, for such an ability depends on them not having the very conditions they have due to the consequences of their own sin, as I noted the Scriptures telling is they do have.
Mike,
You need to back up that passage in Rom. 1 a few verses. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness…” That’s what sinners do, Mike. They suppress the truth. That is their spiritual attitude toward God and truth. Hardness of heart comes from suppressing that truth over time—the more that they suppress it, the harder their hearts get. The ignorance that the Bible speaks of regarding unbelievers is never an innocent ignorance, such as the fact that I’m ignorant of quantum mechanics. Rather, it is always a willful ignorance—a running from the light, a suppressing of the truth, and what would be expected from those who were not “lovers of the truth.” The gospel is nonsense only to those who have already rejected the truth in their spirit and will have nothing of it.
Ken,
“But Fuller would not agree that man “hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good…”
Then Fuller and I will disagree. I think the WCF is quite clear that the fall has left man in a state of having “lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation.” So as a natural man, “he is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”
So if I’m understanding Fuller, I will disagree after all since I agree with WCF on man’s condition and apparently he doesn’t.
Have a blessed day.
There’s a good article over at SBCToday that explains the corporate view of election as an alternative to the Calvinist view. I’ve long felt that the corporate view, while I don’t hold to it, is at least plausible. The foreseen faith view is, IMO, not. God choosing us because He knows we’ll choose him is not a choice at all. It doesn’t make sense. Why not just say God doesn’t choose at all, and just leaves it to us to choose?
Maybe it’s just me, but this (reasoning of Fuller) all seems as so much equivocation to try to answer the why of the universal call. The reason changes from inability to aversion or unwillingness. So what, if a person is inherently unwilling to heed the call of the gospel without prior regeneration, what substantial (or practical) difference is there between that and being unable to heed the gospel call without prior regeneration? Yes, it may fit someone’s philosophical view (or feelings) better than the other, but what real life difference is there? Not one person, not any where or at any time, will ever be willing to repent and believe just because they hear the gospel.
IMO, this (and election viewpoints like that of Herschel Hobbs on the other end) is what we get into when we try to wrap salvation up into a tight academic, systematic, logical ball.
Why does it matter? It matters because understanding God and His Word better matters. It matters because errors in understanding cause unnecessary division. Erring to either side of this Biblical balance brings a repugnance-fueled divisiveness that we’ve all witnessed. The idea that sinner will refuse God’s well-meant offer of salvation is Biblical. The idea that God would send to hell myriad men not based on their refusal but only because God locked them into a blindness that they could not overcome no matter what, is repugnant error.
Ken,
I agree that understanding God’s Word matters. But I am not sure that Fuller’s view “matters” in that it seems to be a distinction without a difference. IOW, Fuller and those who follow his view see it as “well-meaning” to make an offer to someone they know WILL not receive it anyway. But that’s OK just so we agree that they “can”.
As far as drawing back the divisiveness, to me it seems that would be more in the realm of possibility by not straining at gnats that we can’t clearly see in the Bible, and agree that we have a clear duty to preach the gospel and leave it up to God to save sinner.
One man’s gnat seems to be another man’s camel. If all took your attitude, then that would be fine.
Agreed, with the understanding that, as much as is possible, we shouldn’t keep adding on to gnats until we’ve made them camels.
…Nor should we stop seeking a better, deeper understanding, and teaching that, merely because some aren’t interested or fail to see the importance.
I can’t keep up with these, but if you’re patient, I’ll get to everyone eventually.
A quote from another Fuller:
“Indeed, it is manifest that every call, every threat, every expostulation, every exhortation in the Bible supposes that man is a free agent. If he be not free, if he be the passive victim of inexorable, irresistible destiny, the Sacred Volume is a compilation of glaring inconsistencies–of sheer downright falsehood and mockery…
If we attempt to explain and reconcile the doctrines of predestination and free agency, we find impassable barriers hemming us in, and sharp adamant striking us back. Their harmony we must leave with God.”
-Richard Fuller; 1885. Fuller was an SBC president and a Calvinist.
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2014/12/quotes-on-free-will-of-man.html
I believe God can be sovereign, give a man free will, and still know ahead of time what that man will do. God’s foreknowledge encompasses all of this.
I believe God gives each person an actual free will (the ability to choose between two options), and man can accept or reject God’s call to salvation by the Holy Spirit.
Whatever the finer points of sovereignty and free will, our main job should be presenting the Gospel to all men, and even persuading them.
Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men. -1 Corinthians 5:11
Of course, I also believe Jesus died for all, so all actually have something to believe in.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
You stated:
I believe that God can know ahead of time that no man will ever freely believe unless God decides to fully persuade him to believe, that God can then choose to persuade some, and that the will of men can still be free in all of that.
You stated:
I agree that God gives each person an actual free will (the ability to choose between two options), and that all sinners use that freedom to choose against God every day, and that no man will freely accept God’s call unless God first chooses to fully persuade the man.
You said,
Amen to that!
Fuller’s teaching is invaluable, even if not recognized as such by most. I hope God will use it to bring Calvinists and “those of the other side” closer together. Call me a crazy optimist. But more than that, call me a Baptist Centrist. Election didn’t begin with Calvin, but with the Bible; and Calvinists aren’t the only ones who hold to it. Tozer can hardly be called a Calvinist, and neither can I. The term, “non-Calvinist,” should not be used in a way that ignores the centrists—we who affirm both that God is the ultimate determiner of the destinies of men, and that men have a free will by which they freely choose or reject God.
Election is unconditional in eternity past, but salvation in this temporal world is conditioned on the response of genuine, repentant faith. Men either freely come to Christ, or freely reject and go to hell because of it. Even those who never hear the gospel are “without excuse” for rejecting what they did know of God.
Election itself would not be so repugnant if it were not for the Calvinists taking sovereignty to the extreme, and making sinners out to be in such a helpless, unresponsive state as to be victims rather than criminals. Part of that is this idea of men being so unable as to be like walking corpses. Ideas like that are what have made election so repugnant. The Trads would not have found it so bad if it did not come at the expense of the love and goodness of God, due to men being condemned without any real opportunity for forgiveness.
Fuller sets it right again by bringing out the Biblical emphasis on the freedom and culpability of sinners.
Ken,
Thanks for the reply brother.
You said:
“Hardness of heart comes from suppressing that truth over time—the more that they suppress it, the harder their hearts get. The ignorance that the Bible speaks of regarding unbelievers is never an innocent ignorance, such as the fact that I’m ignorant of quantum mechanics. Rather, it is always a willful ignorance—a running from the light, a suppressing of the truth, and what would be expected from those who were not “lovers of the truth.” ”
The opposite of innocent ignorance is not willful ignorance. I am not sure why you brought up the idea of innocent ignorance. I specifically said that their ignorance was a consequence of their sin.
But your position remains confused for ignorance is not overcome simply by willing it gone. Neither is the hardness of one’s heart against God mitigated by one willing it to be soft. Neither is futile thinking overcome by simply willing one’s self to think correctly.
Read Romans 1 again or remember that it is God who gives them over to lusts and impurity and to dishonorableness and to a debased mind. We all lose something when we sin against God before salvation. We just can’t ~will~ ourselves back to that innocent place. Adam and Eve couldn’t go back to the Garden. For sin changes a person, it degrades him or her. No amount of moral or natural ability can overcome the spiritual consequences of sin. Certainly not a moment of obedience.
The passages I gave can’t be written off because man is culpable in the hardening of his own heart. Who disagrees with that! But being culpable for its hardening due to his own willful transgressions doesn’t mean he has the ability to simply revert to what he was before he sinned.
Spiritual understanding and discernment is not like a light switch that can be turned back on whenever a person wills to. When the Bible says the natural man CAN”T understand the things of the Spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned, it doesn’t mean that they could if they wanted to.
It means that such an understanding is beyond their comprehension unless as the earlier verse teaches us:
So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
Blessings,
mike
Mike,
You stated:
I disagree. Willful ignorance is opposite of innocent ignorance. I brought it up because I’m reading our past discussions into your comments (fairly or not). If I remember correctly, you hold that some initial sin forever puts them into an ignorance from which they cannot escape. Am I right about that? The difference between us being that I say their knowledge of the real truth still eats at them somewhere deep down inside, waiting to be revealed against them on Judgment Day—while in the mean time their more surface levels of consciousness fabricate, embrace and affirm their chosen lies. You continued:
On the contrary, willful—chosen—ignorance can indeed be overcome simply by willing it gone. The hardening of the heart adds to the moral inability, in that one’s heart will become more and more adverse toward God & truth, but it never brings about inability in the natural sense—otherwise, it would become true that the man could not come to God in faith no matter how much he might want to (even if he wanted to “with his whole heart”). Keep in mind that natural inability is like a physically blind man who cannot see no matter how hard he tries; whereas moral inability is like a rebel holding his hands over his eyes and refusing to see. He may hold his hands there for so long that he no longer feels the pangs of conscience telling him that he ought to take down his hands and open his eyes to the truth—that is hardening of heart, and while it lessens the likelihood that he will repent, it does nothing to force his hands to remain over his eyes should he decide to repent. You continued:
Again, I must disagree. We Christians sin even after our initial point of faith. Yet, we stopped for one obedient moment, and it was God who responded by filling us with His Spirit, justifying us from all guilt, and starting our transformation. We do lose much by sinning. But we never lose the ongoing culpability for not repenting right where we are and throwing ourselves onto the mercy of God. You continued:
It depends on the kind of ability that we’re talking about. You seem to be writing off moral inability as not real. There is a kind of inability that is in spite of the will; and there is a kind of inability that is of the will: which do you have in mind here? It cannot be the former, since God would never cast out any man who truly wants to come to Him in all sincerity. So you must mean the latter, the inability OF the will. And this is where the crux of the matter is. It is extremely difficult to keep the idea of inability within the mental boundaries of the category of will. This is why Fuller is so useful and so needed. Without realizing, we all tend to keep within the idea of inability the characteristic of effective resistance against any will to the contrary. And since we know that the sinner does not will to the contrary, this incorrect tendency of thought merely backs up an extra step—as if their were insurmountable resistance to the will at some earlier step. The idea of resistance to the will (the inability in spite of the will) is still a hidden assumption even if the logic is a bit fuzzy. As you keep asserting, the man “can’t just will his way out of it.” But, either the inability is of the will or it is in spite of the will, and the former—if logically analyzed—will prove to be, in the end, nothing more than unwillingness combined with utter certainty. You continued:
Again, I disagree. Some spiritual truths will not be understood until after conversion, but the gospel is simple enough to be understood by sinners without first indwelling them with God’s Spirit. God does reveal truth and convict sinners, but He reveals enough to every man to leave him without excuse. Any man who hears the gospel can understand enough to be without excuse for not believing. The Word of God does require more than a mind—it requires that we engage our spirit in understanding by having a spiritual attitude of seeking truth and the God of that truth. If we do not engage our spirit in the process, we will leave out one of the cogs, so to speak, and the whole thing may seem nonsense. In other words, when it comes to the truth of God, the spirit must be willing to embrace the truth before the mind can understand it. Men build up many defenses in their minds to protect their spirit from the hated truth—and human beings are the sole creatures able to tailor their own perception of reality and to embrace as true what they know down inside are lies, just to keep up their comfort level. But God sees through all that, and all the excuses. And thank God, that He does, from time to time, cause the power of His Word to pierce “even unto the dividing of soul and spirit”—to pierce our defenses and confront that spirit in our heart with the truth. I believe this is what is described in Acts in two places, the preaching of Peter and the stoning of Stephen. Both crowds were cut to the heart, but with much different results. Confront men with something they really don’t think is true and don’t like it, and they might call you stupid; but confront them with something that they hate but are lying to themselves about, and they will hate you with the same level of hatred toward that truth.
Be blessed, and Happy New Year!
It is impossible for God to lie.
It is impossible for God to sin.
Jesus Christ is God.
Jesus Christ is God the Son.
It is impossible for Jesus to sin or to lie.
Was the temptation of Jesus real? Yes.
Why was Jesus tempted?
To show Him for who He is.
A bridge is built to hold up under one million pounds.
Then they drive trucks that weigh one million pounds and park them on the bridge.
Why?
To collapse the bridge? No.
But to show the bridge for what it is.
Jesus was tempted in part to show Him for who He is; the eternal, everlasting, almighty God.
David R. Brumbelow
PS – And may you all have a Happy New Year!
David, it is also written that God cannot be tempted. By your logic, Jesus cannot be tempted. But you see, man can be tempted and man can sin, so Jesus being 100% man as well as God could be tempted and could sin if He chose. The fact that He was God merely made it 100% certain that He would not choose to sin, but it did not make it impossible in the strict sense of that word. He had a moral inability to sin, but a natural ability, since He was human.
Ken,
You make a good point.
I believe Jesus was 100% God and 100$ human.
I suppose we will never know all the details of the divine, and human, sides of Jesus Christ.
But we bow before Him as our God and Savior.
David R. Brumbelow
That’s “100% human.”
I hate typos and my own mortality!
David R. Brumbelow
😉 😉 😉
Don’t feel bad, David Brumbelow. I just watched TCU stomp a mud hole in OLE MISS after I assured the whole world the REBELS would have FROG legs for supper. Shame on me and and all the rest of the SEC fans who are sitting in their dens in shame and misery right now.
I’m just sitting ashamed at work. I’ll commence tearing of clothes and putting ashes on my head after I get home, I guess. Worse yet, almost none of my co-workers care about (American) football in general and less so about college. It’s a hard life.
BUT: it’s a good day for Aggie football.
As Nebuchadnezzar said,
“Those that walk in pride He is able to abase.” -Daniel 4:37
David R. Brumbelow
Ken: And I don’t think Christ could have sinned. That was the whole reason He came to earth, to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. That was the goal and the only goal for his birth. The rest was a gift to us. If he could sin, then he could not be the perfect sacrifice.
Ken: And I don’t think Christ could have sinned. That was the whole reason He came to earth, to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. That was the goal and the only goal for his birth. The rest was a gift to us. If he could sin, then he could not be the perfect sacrifice.
Christ’s humanness was seen in his love, his weeping, his devotion to his friends, his caring about those who were lost. That was his 100% human side. You could be right to a degree as he understands everything we go through. But I think in the area of lust and other sins, his 100% God shone through. God is Holy, God hates sin etc.
I hate to bring up such a bastion of reformed thought in light of the ongoing back and forth, but this is Jonathan Edwards to the core. Fuller is essentially repeating Edwards’ thoughts on humanity’s moral (in)ability vs. our natural ability. By the way, this is particularly helpful on aiding in the discussion on whether or not children who are too young to know and understand the Gospel can be saved. Same for those who are intellectually incapable, etc.
“Debbie, even the Arminians and the Traditionalists can get that right.”
A question for most any of you who frequently comment here:
Why is it that seemingly everything brought to this blog site, other than football, has to eventually become shackled by the argument about who is a Calvinist and who is not a Calvinist and why one or the other is an enlightened, spiritually healthy child of God and one or the other is not?
I, for one, have come to see this constant debate about Calvinism, both pro and con as a crippling disease in the SBC and I can see no good end to it.
“I, for one, have come to see this constant debate about Calvinism, both pro and con as a crippling disease in the SBC and I can see no good end to it.”
I believe that if there had been a healthy upfront debate to begin with instead of all the stealth in churches and entities, it could have been a very positive edifying experience. The stealth is what did it. There are trust issues.
Lydia
There are trust issues. about that I think you are correct. However, I think that was in place long before the Cal/non Cal issue.
I also tire of it. It could not be settled by past generations, what makes us think we can settle it now. Like you, I see no good end.