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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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;… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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]: If the… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Les, You cited the WCF: 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. 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
David, You stated: 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 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 believe God gives each person an actual free will (the ability to choose between two options), and man can… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Mike, You stated: 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. 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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.