If you leave my house and head north on the only highway that runs north out of town (the other way out of town? West) you would take Arkansas Highway 130. Almost any place you intend to go from here, that is the road you want to be on. The first direction you will get is “Go north on 130.”
However, after a certain length of time, if you continue to follow that first direction, you will drive through a caution sign and plant yourself into the middle of a bean field. If your vehicle is fortunate enough to survive leaving the pavement and making the two-and-a-half foot drop into the field, you will bury it up to the axles and be stuck. Your trip will be at an end, your vehicle will be headed to the shop for a while, and you will be the object of much ridicule in the area.
It is basically not something you want to do. And for most reasonable people, it is not something that you would do. Most people would hear the first part of the directions as “Head North on 130” and then they would execute the next maneuver, east or west on 153, when they realized that going north had reached its end.
Yet some people would not make that connection. Some people would look at the map or glance down the road and say “Wait! The logical conclusion to going north on this road lands me in a bean field! Your directions are useless!” These would ignore the clearly marked turnings of the road and the reasonable likelihood that no one would go straight off the road, over the ditch, across the polypipe, and into the beans. Instead, the hidden meaning of the directions would be sought out and determined that the only reason to travel this road is to put someone in the beans.
Others would read the directions, see that there was a turn instructed at the point that 130 runs out, but then hold on to the one phrase: “Go north on 130.” These would insist that the directions were bad, for that one line was of dubious value. After all, if it were followed all on its own, it would lead to a field load of cars rather than beans! The risk of misdirection is too great with such instructions, for that one line could lead astray anyone who could not read either the directions or the signs.
Now, admittedly, some people are impaired and do not make the turn. Others are operating with faulty equipment and cannot make the turn. Yet even the woefully unqualified annual drivers of rice loads know that this turn should be made, even though they only drive double trailers one week a year. Kids know the turn has to be made, as they have seen it done time and again. It does not take a traffic engineer nor a professional driver to know: you do not follow the directions to go north to their logical conclusion. When the road runs out, turn.
A few further comments are necessary here:
First of all, everything I have said about the directions is true: if you go north, unflinchingly, on 130 you land in a bean field. Some years it’s a rice field or a corn field, others it’s a bean field. And 130 is the only road north out of town–the other way out is 130 west out of town. Folks, if you’re in Almyra you are either lost or you meant to be here. You were not just passing through.
Second, and more importantly, this is where we are in the SBC Calvinism/Traditionalist/Whatever-else debate. Here are the frequent accusations:
“The Traditionalists are Semi-Pelagians! Look at this one line right here!”
“Calvinism? The next thing is burning their opponents! That’s the logical result, that’s what Calvin did!”
“Unconditional Election? Might as well stay home instead of doing missions.”
“If God didn’t elect people to salvation, Jesus might have died for nobody.”
I have shortened those statements, but I have seen evidence of each of these either here or at a couple of other mostly famous SBC blogs in recent months.
Here is my problem with these and many of the other forced arguments regarding the soteriological issues in the Southern Baptist Convention. We are picking and choosing one or two lines to do battle with and couching our conclusions as being the “logical outcome” of the other side of the debate.
In the process, we act as if there are no turning points between the starting statement and the end we have defined. Our arguments would be valid if there were no other statements involved in the defining of our theological positions. This is not the case. There is not one Calvinist or Traditionalist who defines themselves first by either Calvin’s Institutes nor Hankin’s Statement. Or by the Southern Seminary Abstract or Patterson’s Revelation Commentary.
Every last one of the people in this argument define themselves as Bible-believing, Scripture-trusting, Baptist-minded Christians. Every one of us is more concerned with Paul than Tom Ascol, the Apostle Peter than David Hankins, John than R. Albert Mohler. And many of us are far more concerned with what happened to Thaddeus, Simon Zealotes, and Philip the Evangelist than we are about Driscoll, Mahaney, or Lumpkins.
The largest group of us are more driven by how we understand the Bible than by how we understand any form of systematic theology, though we use systematic theology in our efforts to understand.
That is how a Calvinist can believe that God has predestined those who will be saved but still believe, and obey, the commands in Scripture to go and tell the world about Jesus.
That is how a Traditionalist can believe that an unsaved person is capable of choosing Christ but still believe that God does the saving.
That is how a Traditionalist can see man as inclined to sin but still believe that all men slide down that incline, without fail.
That is how a Calvinist can believe that God’s love is not incompatible with foreordaining some to eternal damnation.
Why?
Because none of us carry the bulk of our single theological statements to their “logical conclusions.” Along the way, there are Biblical evidences that cause us to turn to the left or to the right before we get off the pavement. There are commandments and instructions that show us not to make the leap from a sovereign God to a life of deterministic fatalism. There are clear statements in Scripture that show us not to make the leap from man capable of accepting the Gospel to man capable of earning salvation without Christ’s death on the Cross.
Rather than arguing about what we think a person’s statements might be taken to mean if extracted from every other declaration of faith they have made, could it be beneficial to slow down and listen to what they actually say? Not just listen for the first phrase to argue with but actually listen?
Otherwise, we’re going to find ourselves axle-deep in the bean field. And the worst part? It’s harvest time. Driving a car into the field will only damage the harvest.
The really strange thing is that I was a member in three different Presbyterian denominations and the “might as well not do missions” argument was NEVER ONCE mentioned. NEVER. Never by any Presbyterian or Reformed pastor or member I ever met or heard. Their mantra was unfailingly and unalterably that Jesus commanded us to go and make disciples and teach, and that was what we were going to do.
It is ironic I’ve heard that only since being a Baptist, from Baptists, as being something the other guys say. Let me count the ways that’s wrong….
Amazing.
Excellent article – the illustration was captivating and spot-on!
My point of discussion is your statement: “We are picking and choosing one or two lines to do battle with and couching our conclusions as being the “logical outcome” of the other side of the debate. In the process, we act as if there are no turning points between the starting statement and the end we have defined.”
I think many Baptists (and armchair theologians in general) are simply following the model set by the early church fathers of testing orthodoxy by short, tenable theological statements – think Nicene Creed
WE don’t allow much room for personal interpretation and nuance – think “sign the BFM 2000 without mental reservation” given that the wording of that document complies with neither side of the soteriological argument. We allowed consensus, dare I say double-speak, in the document for a reason.
I agree that we need to stop fighting over iotas in doctrine, but can we do that? Is that even historically Christian?
For the record, I am somewhere between the 2 and 3 points…but I really try not to think of myself that way.
Here’s my beef:
Yes, we need to make sure our doctrine is correct and Biblical. Yet the current fight claims to be between two groups of people who both base their arguments in Scripture as inerrant and who will generally not claim the other side is so far gone as to be non-Christian. Yet we see the effort to attack folks over a single turn of phrase or even a single word when that word is only part of a complete sentence or document.
Yes, some things really do hinge on exact precision of one phrase, but I think fewer things do so than we SBC folks are acting like right now.
For example: how much should we stress about whether or not our “mission statements” accurately reflect that “ethne” in Greek refers to ethnic groups rather than nation-states? Is that a turn of phrase worth splitting over? After all, one might make the logical case that getting the gospel to “all nations” will be easier than “all ethnicities.” So, do we have to really fight that? The other side of the argument would allow one to reach an immigrant that is a member of an ethnic group and count that “nation” as reached without ever carrying the Gospel back to the homeland. Is that truly the Great Commission?
Or should we simply use the word and spread the Gospel?
That sounds like it might be less worth arguing about and more worth just doing, right?
Both sides of the Calvinist/Traditionalist argument officially claim that the other side preaches the Gospel but just misunderstands parts of the Gospel. So, we’re not talking the importance here of “homoousios” vs “homoiousious” here. We’re into “Red Sea” vs. “Reed Sea” territory.
“”The largest group of us are more driven by how we understand the Bible than by how we understand any form of systematic theology, though we use systematic theology in our efforts to understand.””
I’m not sure, but I’m guessing that a good part of the problem in the whole mess is that we DON’T use a systematic theological approach to the Bible when we try to understand what it’s saying. I think you can do theology without a systematic approach, but you end up with really bad theology, and an understanding of Scripture that doesn’t make much sense when you put it all together. All of us eventually need to systematize what we believe, and it seems that God would have us have it this way as well.
“We believe that the truth is more than a system; but we also believe that the truth is one, even as God is one. And we believe, therefore, that the truth is systematic, and that the different truths are related. Chaos is never truth, because God is not chaos. In other words, the logical system is not merely in the mind of the dogmatician, but in the truth.” — Herman Hoeksema
Rick,
I agree or at least somewhat agree with your comment. But all systems of theology are fraught with human error and therefore must only be loosely used in interpreting the bible. Paradigm driven hermaneutics has been responsible for a many misinterpretations.
Btw Doug,
That was an excellent article.
John — any and all interpretation of any kind is fraught with human error. And I don’t think that a paradigm is the same as a system. I don’t mean devising a “pattern, or model” for interpretation, unless the analogy of faith is considered a pattern or model.
‘Paradigm driven hermeneutics’ is an interesting expression. It implies to me that one has an agenda ahead of time and seeks to apply it to Scripture as a whole to arrive at a preconceived interpretation. This would only aid in the misinterpretation and not alleviate misinterpretation it seems to me.
I mean using an “organized, and orderly” approach to understanding the whole of Scripture, not forcing a preconceived paradigm on it. I mean looking at the whole of it as an analogy of faith; that one employ the general hermeneutical principle that an obscure text or passage is illumined by other texts of Scripture whose meaning is clear. Doing this allows for a broader contextual understanding of the whole and alleviates the narrow perspective that often accompanies looking at verses out of context.
You suggest there are many misinterpretations that result from paradigm driven hermeneutics — I’d be curious to have you share a ‘paradigm driven hermeneutic’ that you know about that is responsible for a misinterpretation. And by that I mean that the misinterpretation is directly resulting from the paradigm. Can you give me an example?
Sure Rick,
Here’s a safe one that is easy for us to agree upon. The apostolic doctrine of the oneness of God. The use Acts 2:38 to prove that we are to be baptized in the name of Jesus only. The reinterpret Matthew 28 to be baptized in the name of Jesus only even though it clearly says in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I see paradigm driven hermaneutics almost every time I pick a Bible commentary. John Gill is particularly bad about it. Now I really don’t want to argue about Calvinism but I think that it’s safe to say that Gill was a hyper Calvinist and it affected his hermaneutics. Just one example would be his commentary on 1 Timothy 2:4. He proposes that all men means “all sorts of men” rather than all mankind, even the ESV doesn’t translate that text that way.
But regardless my point is that we can all be guilty of reinterpreting a passage because it is in conflict with our paradigm. I use the word paradigm simply to mean a framework or perspective. I believe Calvinism, Arminianism, dispensationlism, and any other “ism” insofar as theology is concerned to be a paradigm.
Thank you John. I guess I would ask how you know whether or not the paradigm drives the interpretation of the verse in 1 Tim. 2:4? How do you know that he hasn’t looked at the way he systematizes Scripture and putting it all together through the analogy of faith has come up with the conclusion about the verse? How can that be demonstrated?
Then I would say that the analogy of faith is what’s behind Gill’s interpretation here for these reasons:
(1) There are multiple locations in Scripture where ‘all’ does not mean each and every single existing individual. In fact it can be shown that in a single verse it can mean both each and every individual as well as some or many. For instance, Romans 5:18:
“Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men[each and every existing individual], … through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life [since only believers are justified, this ‘all’ must refer to all believers, and not every single existing individual]. But there are many more examples as well John.
(2) We know that Scripture teaches that all men will not be saved, and also teaches that men from all nations, walks of life, lawyers, kings, theologians, etc. will eventually be saved. The analogy of faith leads us to this conclusion in Scripture.
(3) Further use of the analogy of faith requires us to ask a question of the ‘all’ in verse 1 as well: If Paul means for us to pray for ‘all’ men [every existing individual], then why does he qualify it in the very next verse [2] that he includes kings and all who are in authority? Aren’t these already a part of the ‘all’ that ‘every existing individual’ implies? If they are, then why mention them in verse 2?
Again, I’m not sure that we can demonstrate that we get ourselves into more trouble theologically without a systematic approach.
Hi Rick,
Theistic determinism is such a paradigm. It is the reason for the errors of John Gill in his interpretation of such texts as Matthew 23:37 that leads him to Nestorianism in those texts. (If you are not familiar with his interpretation here, just Google it and read it) It is the lens through which Augustine rejected the received tradition and came to his own interpretation of Romans 9.
Unfortunately theistic determinism is the foundation that undergirds today’s Augustinian-Calvin synthesis.
Jim G.
As opposed to what- theistic randomization?
That doesn’t even deserve a response, Mark. You know better.
Jim G.
Jim,
And you should know better than to claim that ” theistic determinism is the foundation that undergirds today’s Augustinian-Calvin synthesis.” Because, of course, it just couldn’t be exegesis driving said theology.
Whatever, dude.
No, it most certainly is not exegesis driving said theology. It is a classic case of theology driving hermeneutics. Exegesis has almost nothing to do with it.
This is simple to illustrate. Exegesis is what the text says. Hermeneutics is what the text means. We pretty much all agree on what it says (grammar and syntax). We disagree on what the meaning is behind the words. That is hermeneutics, my friend. Aren’t you a seminary student? They are teaching you that, aren’t they?
Theistic determinism is the common denominator model of providence of every single Calv-Augustinian of which I am aware. Since one cannot do soteriology without a firm doctrine of providence already in place, then, yes, I am correct in saying that determinism is the foundation.
Jim G.
Thank you Jim. I’m sorry I just do not see your connection to Nestorianism and Mt. 23:37 for Gill at all. What does the rejection of the doctrine of the theotokos have to do with Gill’s take on Mt. 23:37? Gill’s argument at Mt. 23:37 is as follows:
“And it is to be observed, that the persons whom Christ would have gathered, are not represented as being unwilling to be gathered; but their rulers were not willing that they should, and be made proselytes to him, and come under his wings. It is not said, “how often would I have gathered you, and you would not!” nor, “I would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not”; nor, “I would have gathered thy children, and they would not”; but, “how often would I have gathered thy children, and ye would not!” Which observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage in favour of free will.”
I’m sorry I just don’t follow you here.
Rick,
Keep reading (I’m on Gill’s Exposition of the Bible – Matt 23:37). You will see that he treats Jesus’ words “Would I have gathered you” as an expression of his human will and human love. Gill has painted himself into a Nestorian corner to defend his baby – divine determinism. Nestorianism, as I hope you are aware, goes far deeper than the rejection of theotokos (the symptom of the disease). Nestorianism is the separation of the natures in Christ to the point that two persons are necessary – one divine and one human. Gill’s explanation that Christ “speaks as a man” is a slap at the doctrine of the incarnation, since the Word became flesh. Christ always speaks as the God-man. If we can isolate the “I” in Matt 23:37 to the human without the divine, we have no meaningful doctrine of the incarnation.
Moreover, if the human will/love of Jesus would have gathered the Jews, then that would be in direct violation of the WC definition of sin, which is any want of conformity to the law of God. God (to Gill) obviously wanted the Jews to not respond, for he decreed it and rendered it certain. If Jesus were to will otherwise without deference (think of Gethsemane), would that not be an opposition to the hidden will of God? How then can he maintain integrity as the God who cannot sin if he is openly willing something without deference that God has decreed not to occur?
Gill can only resort to a Nestorian answer and divide the natures, or, more accurately, personalize the two natures to draw them apart. That is the only way he can salvage his presupposition of determinism in a text where God-in-flesh openly wills the conversion of his people and what he WOULD do if they repented. Gill’s only recourse is to pull apart God and flesh, and thereby capitulate to Nestorianism. Hope that clarifies.
Jim G.
Oh OK. Well, according to Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Elwell, ed. Baker, 1987) 759, you appear to be among the many who have wrongly pinned this on Nestorius. In Nestorius’ book entitled Book of Herecleides, he flatly denies that accusation by which he has been condemned. He affirms in the book, of Christ, that ‘the same One is twofold,” an expression not unlike the orthodox formulation of Chaldea 451. The article says, “This points to a high degree of misunderstanding which characterized the entire controversy.” Written by H. Griffith, Gordon-Conwell Seminary. So what does that now say of Gill, that he is a Nestorian?
Jim,
Gill is speaking of Christ not counting his deity as something to be grasped and speaking from his humanity. The next chapter, in Matthew 24, we see Jesus speaking about not knowing when he was going to return. This is the same kind of speaking from his humanity.
“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
Accusing Gill of Nestorianism or even approaching Nestorianism is unfounded and grasping at straws.
I might add that the extent to which you have made assumptions not only about Gill but about Nestorius as well, could appear to folks as being ‘paradigm’ driven.
Don’t deflect the issue, Rick. I am fully aware of the historical debate over whether or not Nestorius himself was “Nestorian.” Whether the historical Bishop of Constantinople himself was a heretic or not is irrelevant to our discussion. What is relevant is that Nestorianism as a paradigm – the division and separation of the divine and human natures in Christ (using Chalcedonian language) – has been held as heretical since the early fifth century.
Joshua, we can’t have Jesus speaking as a man one minute and as God the next. He is the Word made flesh – the God-man. You are confusing person and nature. A nature cannot DO anything – it just guarantees the capacity for being able to do something. Persons speak. Persons act. The “person” of Jesus Christ is the eternal God-the-Son. To say that when Jesus says “I” he really means a human nature and not the eternal person of God-the-Son is disastrous theologically. The fifth-century fathers (Cyril and Leo in particular) recognized this. It is one thing to resort to patristic partitive exegesis when describing the ignorance of Christ. It is a whole other thing to have him will against the hidden will of the Father without deference. Such a problem is every bit as bad as Nestorianism. Gill evidently thinks dividing the natures solves the problem. It only makes the problem worse. Determinism can only be defended in this text by going Nestorian or denying Jesus’ volitional sinlessness. Neither option is good.
Gill does exactly this to preserve divine determinism. I don’t think Gill was Nestorian, but he resorted to a Nestorian answer to defend his view.
Jim G.
Jim — it’s so over the top it just screams of your own paradigm. Sorry man. It’s just a little too far-fetched for me.
Over the top…my own paradigm…mmm-hmmmm
I think it is more like a really loose board on the deterministic platform.
Jim G.
Jim,
You made a mistake. You said;
“The OP states we should not make the leap from the sovereignty of God to determinism, yet that is the Calvinist point of view – by their own admission. I think my pointing that out, and the means to which some determinists will go to defend such a view of sovereignty (Gill’s dilemma), I am not violating the OP. This discussion needs to be had somewhere. If not here, I’ll wait until appropriate.”
You changed the parameters. You left out a word. You said the op says this:
“The OP states we should not make the leap from the sovereignty of God to determinism,…”
But the Op says this:
“There are commandments and instructions that show us not to make the leap from a sovereign God to a life of deterministic fatalism.”
Maybe in your mind they mean the same thing. But in people who think there is a difference between determinism and deterministic fatalism don’t agree. They are stopping at 153, and you have them driving into the bean field.
So the ensuing discussion is distorted and time wasting.
I know, it was the ‘other guys’ doctrine that drove into the bean field… nope, it was you.
“”
Hi Mike,
It won’t be the first time I’ve made a mistake. Prob’ly not the last, either.
But give me the benefit of the doubt, here. We’re both willing to reject deterministic fatalism. Neither of us are naturalists. What are the advantages of a theistic determinism over a theistic deterministic fatalism? Can you clarify that for me and keep me out of the bean field? I’m not a big fan of beans anyway.
Jim G.
Jim, you said:
“We’re both willing to reject deterministic fatalism. Neither of us are naturalists. What are the advantages of a theistic determinism over a theistic deterministic fatalism? ”
What, Jim, are you?
I am a West Virginia hillbilly living in North Carolina.
Actually, I just reject determinism. I gave a short overview of what I believe to be a better view of providence somewhere up the chain in a response to Rick. I think determinism just creates far more problems than it solves. I’m looking for a better model that causes fewer serious theological problems, that’s all.
Jim G.
I saw your post. Mine have been jumping around )-:
As to staying out of the bean field, Jim, it isn’t that the other guy isn’t headed for the bean field and may well end up there, it is rather that we sometimes don’t wait til he gets in before we assume he is already there.
Even if we are doctrinally right, it does not help the discussion to put him where he isn’t, since his intention isn’t to go off the road and into the field. We need to frame our part of the discussion in such a way to respect those we converse with in the hope of showing them that they are headed to the bean field because the road they travel goes there.
So Jim I take it this doesn’t sit well with your theology?
“I believe that every particle of dust that dances in the sunbeam does not move an atom more or less than God wishes, — that every particle of spray that dashes against the steamboat has its orbit as well as the sun in the heavens, — that the chaff from the hand of the winnower is steered as the stars in their courses, — that the creeping of an aphid over a rosebud is as much fixed as the march of the devastating pestilence [of God’s plague of locusts upon Egypt (Exodus 10:13-14, 17-19)], and the fall of the sere leaves from the poplar is as fully ordained as the tumbling of an avalanche. He who believes in God must believe this truth.” –Charles Spurgeon
You would be 100% correct in that, Rick.
Jim G.
“””Since one cannot do soteriology without a firm doctrine of providence already in place, then, yes, I am correct in saying that determinism is the foundation.”””
Jim what would your foundation be?
Hi Rick,
I don’t know that we know completely how God acts in relation to creation. I don’t think it is possible to simplify it to a one-size-fits-all model. I believe that God’s interaction with creation is sufficiently complex to allow for true libertarian freedom in many of our choices. I don’t know where all the boundaries are, and I don’t know that we can always know with any measure of certainty.
I am working toward a deeper formulation of what I see in the doctrine of providence, but there are a few things that I see that are immediate components.
1. God does have control over history in that he will direct all of existence toward his desired ends.
2. God does determine some specific events. There are some biblical examples of this upon which we can all agree.
3. God does leave some things undetermined. I don’t know that I can say for certain what or how. The reason that I know this is because exhaustive determinism yields conclusions that I am not sure Christians can fully live with. Those are many and are the subject of a book I am presently working on.
So, in short, providence can be bounded negatively like the Chalcedonian formula of the natures. It can show what is out of bounds instead of precisely defining what is correct.
Jim G.
Jim: Forgive me if we’ve done all this before. When you say that God leaves some things undetermined, do you mean that He actively does not make them happen? If so, I don’t see a problem. I know you aren’t an open theist, so I know you don’t mean that some things are unknown to Him. God made gravity, so he doesn’t actively have to make things fall to the ground. But if I drop a ball and it hits the ground (even of my own free will), then that event, known by God from all eternity is, in some sense, ordained, is it not?
Hi Bill,
I am not an open theist. I do believe God has exhaustive foreknowledge of all events.
I reject the following two things:
1. I reject that God’s foreknowledge is a result of his decree, and
2. I reject that foreknowledge must imply fore-ordination.
I prefer to appeal to, if not mystery, then my own lack of understanding. None of us know HOW God knows things. We do not know how he experiences what he knows. I can fathom even in my feeble mind that it would certainly be possible for the God of the universe to know something without decreeing and/or causing it. In my own view, since I reject the implication in both directions (by 1 and 2 above), I reject that foreknowledge and decree are logically equivalent. If they were, then we would be left at determinism, a view of providence that I cannot accept for a multitude of reasons.
Jim G.
Jim: I think we are using different understandings of various words, but I agree that decree and foreknowledge are not synonymous. I do however think that foreknowledge renders things certain, at least in the mind of God, so in my thinking all events are in that sense, “ordained”.
I could be wrong in how I think of it, but foreknowledge does not seem that mysterious to me. One, it could be that time simply is irrelevant to God and that all times are in some sense “now” to God, so that foreknowledge is simply a poor understanding of how God knows all things. But even if we thought God somehow exists in the same “time” that we do, if God knows all things that are right now (call it time X), and God knows all universal laws of physics, mathematics, etc, then He must necessarily know all things that will be at time X + 1 nanosecond, and so on. If I know the direction and speed of a car right now, I know its position in 3 seconds, without needing to see the future.
This article is illustrative of one essentially undeniable fact. Your mind works in a fascinating and unique way.
SPOT ON!!!
I think after this article, it should be you leading the “Can’t we all just get along” committee. If you decline, then this document should be their starting point. I don’t think anyone could describe the problem with any greater degree of precision.
Thank you for a phenominal post.
Fundamentally, I am at the “Can’t we all just get along” point because it seems that we are quibbling over whether to order 5 pepperoni pizzas and 5 cheese for the youth group or 6 cheese and 4 pepperoni.
Unless either (or both) sides of this argument really thinks that the other is actually, truly, not preaching the Biblical Gospel then we’re heading the largest group of Baptists and one of the better organized mission forces in the world straight into nothingness so that we can win about a secondary issue.
Now, if either side would like to fess up and say this is actually about folks preaching a message that is contrary to the Gospel and will result in those believing it going to Hell, then we should try to settle it and make sure that no Baptist effort is supporting deceiving people into thinking they are saved when they are not.
Until then, it’s a debate about the historical nature of faith and the finer points of how to understand whether God made it happen and so knew it would happen or whether God knew it would happen and so it happened—and either way, unless the person confesses, believes, repents then nothing happened. And we have pastors, churches, seminaries, on all sides of this. Typically, we will offer to the other side none of the consideration we demand for ourselves.
And we’re going to tear this thing to pieces. If we cannot all get along because we are blood-bought, Spirit-indwelt, baptized believers in Jesus who are out to preach the Gospel that some who hear will be saved, then we as a denomination/convention/whatever are not worth keeping around.
Rick, Jim, et al —
I’d like to say that I think you’ve missed the point of the post…
But, in fact…
You’re actually exemplifying it.
Hi Greg,
I didn’t miss the point. I’m not talking about the logical implications of this-and-that. Rick asked for an example of a hermeneutical paradigm and I volunteered determinism. Doug’s post reads:
“Because none of us carry the bulk of our single theological statements to their “logical conclusions.” Along the way, there are Biblical evidences that cause us to turn to the left or to the right before we get off the pavement. There are commandments and instructions that show us not to make the leap from a sovereign God to a life of deterministic fatalism. There are clear statements in Scripture that show us not to make the leap from man capable of accepting the Gospel to man capable of earning salvation without Christ’s death on the Cross.”
Calvinists are determinists. They say so – in their own words. Every reputable scholarly book by a Calvinist on the Doctrine of God states that Calvinists are determinists. John Feinberg’s “No One Like Him” is a prime but hardly unique example. I could cite Terrance Tiessen’s “Providence and Prayer” or many others.
The OP states we should not make the leap from the sovereignty of God to determinism, yet that is the Calvinist point of view – by their own admission. I think my pointing that out, and the means to which some determinists will go to defend such a view of sovereignty (Gill’s dilemma), I am not violating the OP. This discussion needs to be had somewhere. If not here, I’ll wait until appropriate.
Jim G.
I probably should have gone with “fatalist” or expanded the definition on “determinist.” The accusation I keep seeing is that Calvinism requires that God makes every decision ever made and that man has no responsible will—which is not what most people who actually claim to be Calvinists say they believe. They accept that God determines who will and will not be saved, but they don’t go to say that God determines what color shirt you will wear tomorrow.
So, the wording choice there was shaky. Or it might have been just a bad example to pick from for Calvinists, though it reflects my own thoughts: God is sovereign but that does not eliminate my responsibility to make decisions. Or my ability to make them.
Hi Doug,
I appreciate your efforts, but all of the historic Calvinistic confessions DO say that God ordains everything that comes to pass. I know Westminster and 2London both do (Article 3 in both). I’d be happy to hear if any Calvinists on this board disagree with those confessions on that point.
Most Calvinists believe in compatibilist freedom for humans. But the ground for compatibilism is that all things that actually happen are fully decreed and rendered certain by God’s providence. The model of human freedom is dependent on the doctrine of God, which in and of itself is correct. I just argue determinism is an incorrect model of providence.
I don’t want to hijack your thread. Say the word and I’ll drop it because I think you made some good points and I don’t want them to get lost on this if you don’t want them to.
Jim G.
I’m not sure how I was exemplifying it Greg.
Excellent article brother. I hope and pray folks will consider this thought before they drive the SBC truck right off the road.
Looks to me like someone needs to make a call to the farmer……
Actually, if you go north on 130, you will not end up in a bean field. Nope.
Could you pass bean fields? Maybe, but lets say you do, as you travel north on 130. Then could you say, I will end up in a bean field if I go west on 130? Nope. Cause if you end up in the bean field, it is because you left 130.
Likewise 130 ENDS at 153. To continue north would mean to leave 130 and end up in a bean field.
So it is illogical to say that if you go north on 130, you will end up in a bean filed. Just like it is illogical to say that if you believe in a form of determinism it must mean that it is fatalistic.
What we do at times is to go past the place where we should stop. Now usually it refers to the ‘other guys’ doctrine, but I have known some really hyperC’s who call Spurgeon a heretic because he thinks A’s are saved.
Those guys drove into the bean field all on their own. )-:
What we want to avoid is our conversation from casually assuming that the ‘other guys’ doctrine must drive them into the bean field, if logically extended. Maybe it does. But maybe it doesn’t. But to assume that and then accuse them of messing up the crops is wrong headed. It hinders dialogue. It isn’t how we want to be treated. It is sin.
If we think that they are headed to the bean field, we should point that out to them, and ask them about it. But most sane people stop at 153. They turn left or right or turn around.
Or maybe they see a way through where you see a dead end.
let’s stop assuming, and make the effort to ask and discuss.
Matthew 23:37 is about the flesh and the spirit. It is about the old and the new. It is about slaves and sons. It is about a good King and Judge who rules by Law and a good King and Savior who saves by grace.
No good King wants His subjects to walk in sin towards destruction. But their wills were in rebellion, they esteemed themselves as god of their own life. Thus they all face the condemnation they deserve.
God does not want sin, but He allows it. God does not find joy in condemning, but His justice demands it. But God chooses to have mercy on some and harden others. Some He leaves in present Jerusalem as slaves, while others He births them to Jerusalem above.
God gave the Jews every chance to find Him on their own terms, by His help and they refused. They killed their prophets and stoned those he sent to them. By their WILL, they displayed the extent of man’s search for God, it never made it to the Top. Man’s pride keeps man’s will from submitting to God’s hand. They even killed the Son.
That is why Jesus had to come and die. If one IOTA of man was in the salvation process, that iota would maintain man’s separation from God, and leave the man still condemned.
Thus our boast is ONLY and can be ONLY in the Lord. If you really had the CHOICE, you would not be saved.
Jim,
If you really want to know the difference, look it up on line.
I am no expert in that field, and it would take me some research [time] to put forth a cogent position.
I just know there is a difference.
here is an article you could read that might shed some light:
http://biblicalrealist.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/god-is-unavoidably-in-the-mix/
Ken is no expert either, but what he says bears some light.
I do know the difference, Mike.
I was hoping you could tell me what you thought, since you are the one who chided me on my “mistake.” If you are going to call me out, you should be ready to back it up.
I’m aware of Ken’s position. He has West Virginia roots, so he can’t be all bad.
I will explain the difference between theistic deterministic fatalism and theistic determinism. The difference between the two positions is one of semantics once the word “theistic” is placed in the mix. The word “fatalism” leaves a bad taste in the mouth because of its pagan roots (the “fates” were false gods who controlled the destinies of men). There is no observable difference between a theistic determinism and a theistic fatalism. The word “theistic” reduces this to a distinction without a difference because both acknowledge the source as God as long as we are speaking within a Christian context. (If we eliminated “theistic” there would most certainly be a difference, since the origin of the determiner would be ambiguous and possibly impersonal)
Now, as far as Ken’s point is concerned, he is on to something because all of us are impacted by God in a few ways we can and in many ways we cannot fathom. But God’s impact does not necessitate determinism, nor does it require us to interpret human freedom compatibilistically. We disagree there, but I’m not a determinist.
Jim G.
Thanks Jim,
You have more knowledge than I on this subject, but if it is just my understanding you want, than I don’t mind sharing what little I have.
When someone uses the word, fatalism, it leads me to think like this, summed up from Wiki but with changes to be true to what I understand:
The word “fatalism” is commonly used to refer to an attitude of resignation in the face of some future event or events which are thought to be inevitable. Included in this is that man has no power to influence the future, or indeed, his own actions.
This belief can lead to defeatism.
We choose sin. Sometimes. We don’t choose the consequences, but they are there. There is a difference between Law and Grace. Law has its rules, its blessings, its curses. Grace, in a sotierlogical setting is about God’s love overcoming those curses.
So fatalism tells me that man has no real choice to sin or not, but I believe man does have a choice.
And I imagine you will have a question for me.
My last two posts, meant to be at the end have flown up the page somewhats. Posts numbered 34 and 35. Both were written after my post 38, and the second after Jim’s post 39.
Of course, if this post flies up the page, those numbers will change.
There is no such thing as the systematic study of theology (which includes the study of Scripture) that is free from paradigmatic bias. Although we should approach such study with at least an attempted recognition of our own biases, even if we could discard all biases at the beginning, we could not conduct a proper systematic study without developing a paradigm along the way as a result of our studying—and subsequently applying that bias to Scripture within our study. Systematic theology is not the paradigm-free study of Scripture, but the development of a paradigm from Scripture. To ask, is your understanding of Scripture influencing your paradigm or is your paradigm influencing your understanding of Scripture, is to ask the wrong question. Both are developed side by side. A proper systematic study of theology will theoretically being with many possible paradigms. As the study of Scripture progresses, various paradigms will be written off as less consistent, coherent, reasonable, or Biblical, narrowing the field. Further progress in the study requires that conclusions be made regarding which paradigm best applies and best fits. But each step of progress requires that the paradigmatic conclusions of the previous steps be subsequently applied in understanding Scripture.
type: correct “A proper systematic study of theology will theoretically being with many possible paradigms” to read “A proper systematic study of theology will theoretically begin with many possible paradigms.”
Jim G.,
You said,
“God does determine some specific events. There are some biblical examples of this upon which we can all agree.”
Does God, in making these events happen over ride the free will of man in doing so?
If so, how do you draw the line where God does and does not over ride free will?
Or does God’s determinations get done by not over riding free will aka compatibilism?
Hi Mike,
I think the question might be misplaced. The type of capacity of freedom (either libertarian or compatibilist) can only be defined once we understand the way God works. I’m not so sure we can know the latter (providence) in every instance so it would be impossible to ascertain the former (type of freedom) in those events.
Of course, if God determines one event (or fifty) that is no indication he determines everything. I would say that human freedom depends directly on the limitations God has placed in a given situation. As I stated before, I do not think that exhaustive (in every case) determinism is a viable Christian view of providence because of where it leads. And we don’t have to go all the way to the bean field to get there either.
Jim G.
Jim,
It seems that you are saying, and of course i may have it wrong, that sometimes God overrides mans LFW [for i take it you see compatibilism as just another name for determinism?], and at other times He does not?
And if that is what I think you are saying, at least so far, then it seems to me that it is very possible in your understanding that LFW is NOT necessarily the way to see man’s decision for God [to use, say a Trad or an A term.]
I mean you might think it does, but how is it necessary given what you have just told me?
Jim,
To follow up.
I see that man is free to sin or not.
Adam had a choice.
We do not have to lie.
But that in choosing to sin, we have to live with the consequences, one of which is a nature that increasingly relies on sin and sinfulness, that leads us in a downward spiral into accepting sin as OK.
But I see salvation as not a choice of man, but the choice of God, in that He does something different to those he is saving than those He is not saving, so that the reason we choose Him is because of Him, and not because of our own will.
Or that our choice of Him is one any one and everyone would make in the same situation. The difference then in a person’s salvation is not one iota of that person, but all of God.
Careful Mike,
There are some on your own side that would take you to task for the unguarded statement “I see that man is free to sin or not.”
I won’t because I know what you mean by it in the context of our discussion. There are some over-zealous ones among us. :0)
Most of what you said in the post immediately above (I hope this goes under it) I agree. And I fully understand your desire to magnify the sovereignty of God. Believe it or not, I want to do the same. Just beware that you are borrowing some of Augustine’s assumptions (that have been handed down over 1500 years) that are faulty at the core. One of those is the belief in the well-ordered world. God can still be sovereign and the world not be well-ordered. That did not make sense to Augustine but it did to his predecessors. It also does not make sense to the spiritual children of the magisterial reformers.
Jim G.
Jim,
I am sure as we get into it, you will see that I do not walk lock step with the regular 5 pointer views.
I have looked at these doctrines for many years and my thinking has evolved as I deal with reasonable objections to what I believe. But at the core, i am a 5 pointer who sees salvation as all of God AND none of me.
Well ordered is a subjective perception. I knew where all my tools were until my wife organized them.
lol
So what might seem like a chaotic mess to us may be a world going exactly as planned to God.
Now let us look at that from our own biased viewpoints:
I’ll take a stab at yours first and if I fail, I apologize in advance. I am not trying to paint you anywhere you are not, but if you are in the corner, you are in the corner.
You see a world where man has LFW and for salvation to happen, men must be willing to go and preach, and serve and sometimes we do and sometimes we don’t. And sometimes when we do, we do a poor job. Thus the salvation of others depends on others as well as the person them self. Meanwhile God is spreading grace around, doing what He can to get believers to go witness and unbelievers to choose Him. So God is not in complete control [He purposefully gave that up so man could have LFW].
From that I conclude that randomness reigns, men get saved by a good dose of chance.
Now in my biased view, God is in complete control, He allows sin and uses it for His purposes. Man deserves much more than he gets while on this earth, but God still has mercy and grace so that sinfulness doesn’t kill everyone, and God can bring salvation to those He has chosen to. This leaves God open up to charges that he is the author of sin, and a monster for His condemnation of those who had no chance to be saved.
But…
You probably agree with me that God knew everything from before the foundation of the world [“I am no open theist”], and knowing that there was EITHER nothing He WOULD do or COULD do to save those He KNEW He would send to eternal Hell, made the world anyhow.
Hi Mike,
I don’t know that I would use the phrase “man’s decision for God” because I think it is too imprecise.
I believe that any decision for God is grace-enabled. I would say that my own decision to follow Christ was not one that I made in some sort of graceless vacuum. I know that God revealed himself to me and allowed me to make the choice to follow him. I do believe that the choice was libertarian. I could have resisted but I did not.
Jim G.
Jim,
Thanks for that clarification.
But that is not what I asked you.
I asked why, under what you have said so far, why does that [grace-enabled] choice to choose God NECESSARILY has to be LFW.
Since God does use determinism to bring things about [isn’t that what you are saying?], then why can’t salvation be one of those things?
And Jim,
If you make the choice to follow God, grace-enabled or not [since it wasn’t the actual option that is grace enabled but only the choosing for you had to pull the lever down on yes or no, right?], than how is your salvation all of God and not God and you together?
Let me ask you a question, Mike.
Was the salvation of Israel at the Red Sea of God or of God and Israel together? What does the Bible say, repeatedly, on this topic?
And yet did the children of Israel not walk across the dry ground on their own power? Shouldn’t that give them reason to boast that their choice to obey God and Moses should earn them a part of their own salvation? God did not pick them up and carry them across the sea. They could have stayed at the shore and become Egyptian shish-ke-bob. Shouldn’t the fact that they willfully obeyed God and did something (namely walked across) allow them and their progeny who penned the OT to boast that they and God saved them in the Exodus?
If you think that scenario is absurd, and you should, then you should think the one you posed to me is equally so. If the salvation given to Israel at the Exodus is all of God (even though the Israelites had to will to cross in a libertarian fashion), then certainly my explanation of salvation is valid.
The OT, from which the NT is conceived, is full of examples of God’s mighty power to save Israel where there is no scriptural doubt that the work of salvation is “all of God.” Yet Israel’s obedience was required and there is nothing textually or contextually to indicate that such obedience is ever compatibilistic.
Jim G.
Jim,
You know that faith without works is dead, not alive. Not real.
And i am sure you know this passage:
“…that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”
Thus as you point out, obedience is part of salvation. But why does anyone obey UNLESS they believe? Why repent if you don’t believe?
And of course who will say that when one confesses or when one repents, that they are not doing either by their own free will? Of course they are!
But where the confusion begins is when people mix up faith with its works. Confession and repentance are free will choices made BECAUSE one has faith. They are WORKS. Like walking across the dry sea bed. A WORK. Obedience to God is a WORK.
But who stayed on the Egyptian side of the Red Sea? No One.
Likewise when God’s mighty Hand moves over our hearts revealing His Son, who does not desire Jesus? NO ONE! Who fails to obey God then? NO ONE!
If we are driving down 153 together, and I point to a field full of horses and say, LOOK at those cows, are they cows just because I called them cows? Nope.
Likewise, if you call choice faith, is it faith? Nope. To choose is to work. You can’t just choose to have faith, but rather you choose to repent, you choose to confess. You choose to go forward to the altar and pray the sinners prayer.
And why? Because you have faith. Because you believe and desire to be obedient to the call of God on your life.
And if you were an Israelite standing at the shore, you choose to cross because you believe.
Faith precedes choice.
Jim,
As I understand it, divine decrees fall under the category of the “works” of God in Systematic theology – and they include the decrees of God, predestination, creation of both the spiritual and material world and finally providence (the governing and sustaining of the material and spiritual world).
Divine decree(s) (pl) is actually incorrect; it would be better to say that the divine decree is but a single act of God, a single purpose or counsel of God’s.
We say that the decree is singular because
(1) God’s knowledge is immediate and simultaneous – not successive.
(2) What he understands about His knowledge is always complete – and therefore the decree founded on this knowledge is a single – all-comprehensive and simultaneous plan embracing all that comes to pass.
(3) The knowledge God possesses furnishes the material for the decree.
Divine knowledge —> wisdom of what he wanted to bring to realization—>formation of His eternal purpose.
The decree is the foundation of His knowledge of things as they are realized in the course of history. Anything (actions of men) included in the decree renders them absolutely certain.
His decree is eternal – it lies entirely in eternity.
Nothing can thwart His purposes because:
There is no deficiency in God, therefore:
— no need to change the decree
–no mistakes; God is not ignorant about anything; He’s able to bring any aspect of what He has decreed to pass both the ends and the means (Acts 2:23).
— for those struggling with His permission of sin: God renders the sinful actions of men infallibly certain without deciding to
effectuate them by acting on them immediately.
— this does not imply a ‘passive’ permission of something not under the control of the divine will. The decree renders the future sinful act as absolutely certain – but where God determines not to: (a) hinder the sinful self-determination of the finite will, or (b) to regulate and control this sinful determination.
Rick,
At least give credit where credit is due. Most of those words belong to Louis Berkhof.
And…you guessed it…I reject Berkhof’s definitions and descriptions. Look and see what ol’ Louie has to say about Baptists while you are at it. He doesn’t like us much.
Jim G.
Jim @ 57 — Correct on Berkhof. It doesn’t make any difference to me Jim what he says about Baptists; any more than what you say about Reformers. I only care about what Berkhof says theologically. You’re great at saying you don’t agree with everyone Jim, like Spurgeon or Berkhof, but I don’t see you saying why. It pretty much looks like you don’t like anything any Reformed folks say. What did you see that was inconsistent with Berkhofs take on decrees?
I disagree with more than I could write in a single blog post.
For the record, I don’t disagree with everything Reformed folks say. I think they do a fine job of standing up for and defending the inerrancy of Scripture. I think the Trinitarian resurgence of the late 20th / early 21st century has come to us largely through folks who self-describe as Reformed and I think that is wonderful. Reformed folks are adamant about the special creation of the universe and I applaud that. I also consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ and will spend eternity with them.
Now, Reformed Christology, soteriology, and ecclesiology have some problems inherent within their formulations. My biggest disagreement, however, with Reformed thinking is this Augustinian meticulous determinism. Berkhof, as a deeply Reformed thinker, is a meticulous determinist and therefore has a simplistic and skewed understanding of the way God acts in the world. It originally comes from Augustine’s simplistic and skewed understanding. The Reformed are just following him, almost to a tee.
By the way, did you catch where Berkhof / you said that “What he understands about His knowledge is always complete – and therefore the decree founded on this knowledge is a single – all-comprehensive and simultaneous plan embracing all that comes to pass.” and also “The decree is the foundation of His knowledge of things as they are realized in the course of history.” How can his decree be both the foundation of and founded upon his knowledge at the same time? Wouldn’t that make his knowledge and his decree synonymous? If that is so, how do we explain God’s self-knowledge, or even the intra-Trinitarian relations lived out in time in the incarnate Son / Father relationship, since those are not and cannot be decreed? After all, God IS triune; he cannot decree himself to be so.
Jim G.
Well, Jim, it seems like you ought to be very comfortable with Open Theology, since in its rejection of determinism it has wondered off into the forests of indeterminism and a god who no god.(lower case used on purpose to express the god who is not in control of anything).
a god who is no god correcto
Baloney, James. That’s the problem with determinists. It’s all or nothing. One stray molecule and God is no longer God (SEE THE CAPS?) He controls everything or he can’t control anything. You do not even realize you are starting with the pagan Platonic/Aristotelian concept of “the omnipotent” rather than the God revealed as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thank Augustine for that – more on him below.
But that is how it goes with a true determinist. A person is either a determinist or any one of the following: open theist, semi-pelagian, outright Pelagian, or just plain heretic. For it is all or nothing. Either God decrees and controls and renders certain every iota of created existence or he is wholly impotent capable of controlling nothing. The idea that God is smart enough or powerful enough or sophisticated enough to create humans with libertarian freedom while at the same time exercising complete sovereignty over his creation is just beyond you guys – you don’t get it and probably never will. Your categories for understanding God are a simplified version of Augustine’s and that is the heart of the problem. The determinist world follows and adores a guy who could not pass a first-year seminary-level Bible Interpretation course. Augustine abused Scripture worse than a rented mule.
Aren’t you a student of church history? If you are, don’t you see how utterly ridiculous your post is (never mind seriously insulting to me)? What, are Eastern Orthodox, Thomists, Molinists, Anabaptists, and Arminians open theists too? Are you willing to consign the greater part of the Christians who have ever lived to the heresy heap? Determinists always have been and always will be a minority among believers. You should know that. There was not even one whiff of one scintilla of determinism in the Christian Church until Augustine took it upon himself to redefine grace based on an overly simplistic understanding of his own experiences and his latent Manichaeism/Platonism. He was not mature enough in the faith when he debated Fortunatus the Manichee and when Fortunatus confounded him, he accepted the Manichaean understanding of grace/determinism. The rest, unfortunately for those of us who want to steer clear of such gross over-simplification and understanding, is history.
Jim G.
You must not have read Bruce Ware’s scathing rebuke of Open theism in The God of lesser Glory. I think that open theism is about as close to the line of heresy as any modern day theological position.
Rick,
Jim never said he believed in open theism. In fact, his whole point, if I’m understanding him, is that the notion that one has to be an exclusive determinist otherwise he believes in open theism is asinine.
I read his post John, and I didn’t say he did believe in open theism. In Ware’s book he argues for the glory of God against open theism’s ‘indeterminate’ view, which is a worthwhile read in light of Jim’s anti determinism. That’s all.
Good grief. See comment 25, or at least that’s the number at the moment.
I’m aware of Ware. I do not agree with open theism, but it is no more damaging to the character of God than determinism, probably far less so.
Did you say Christ is not the author of the decree? Is that what you said?
Jim G.
Jim why does God forsee all things? Because He decreed them from eternity. Against semi pelagians, Arminians, etc., decreetal theologians taught that God’s predeterminations do not depend on God’s foreknowledge of free agents.
“””If that is so, how do we explain God’s self-knowledge, or even the intra-Trinitarian relations lived out in time in the incarnate Son / Father relationship, since those are not and cannot be decreed? After all, God IS triune; he cannot decree himself to be so.”””
Christ is in the decree instead of the decree being in Him as author.
Was it possible for David not to become King? Was it possible for any prophesied statement that God made not to come to pass?
Perhaps a new old logic is needed, even that of the Puritans’ favorite logician, Peter Ramus?
Almyra, huh? Is that where the Amyraldians are from?
Finally, a different joke about the town name.
Perhaps these might serve to help in the conversation. beware, it’s not an easy topic.
http://thoughtstheological.com/helseths-determinist-model-of-providence/
http://thoughtstheological.com/a-molinist-response-to-a-determinist-model-of-providence/
http://thoughtstheological.com/restorationist-and-open-theist-responses-to-a-determinist-model-of-providence/
Doug, it’s good as an illustration albeit questionable as an analogy. However, the point you ultimately make with it is valid and needs to be well considered. I think it’s why we see many of the same tired arguments being made over and over again from all sides although the arguments have all been soundly answered.
So, thanks for the article. Let’s pray it is applied.
Amyraldists and Molinists suffer from the Middle Knowledge syndrome, so I understand. Such approach cuts out the paradoxical intervention, the therapeutic paradox.
Jim: I know you think most Calvinists are strict determinists, and you might be right. But do you think Calvinists have to be strict determinists?
Hi Bill,
That’s a philosophical question that goes back to the time of Augustine. On a micro (individual) level, Augustine saw grace in two parts – electing grace and persevering grace. God determined whom he would save and then determined to work out all events to ensure the elect’s perseverance. So on a micro level, one need not be a determinist to be a believer in unconditional election.
But once we move to the macro level where all of God’s actions toward the whole world are involved, it would be extremely difficult to hold to micro-determinism on the electing/persevering level and not hold to a macro-determinism on the universal level, since we cannot know with certainty which occurrences in time play some role in salvific significance.
Let me make up an example. Suppose I presume I have a libertarian free choice to eat a hamburger rather than a taco today. So I go to the local hamburger joint and tip the waitress $5. She uses that $5 to put extra gas in her tank at the gas station on her way home from work. That extra $5 means she does not have to buy gas the next evening. That next evening, some guy robs the gas station at the very time she would be standing in line at the counter. He shoots everyone in the room and is then killed in a shootout with police. One week later, the waitress converts to Christianity from Wicca. Now, my seemingly arbitrary choice has a real significant outcome in God’s plan of salvation for the waitress, even though I have no clue about it. Therefore, a determinist would have to conclude my decision to eat the hamburger was ordained on her micro-level and therefore was an overall part of God’s decree on the macro-level. What seemed like a libertarian choice to me was in reality compatibilistic, even though I was unaware of it. This fictional (but possible) story illustrates why it is hard for a micro-determinist to not be a macro-determinist.
I am unaware of any Calvinist who is not a determinist. I suppose it is possible, but given their confessional history, it is extremely unlikely.
Jim G.
Actually Jim, that’s what Philip Holtrop said in his article entitled Decrees of God in The Westminster Handbook to Reformed Theology, ed. Donald McKim, Westminster John Knox, 2001, page 54-56. Here’s a bit more of the context:
“”The decree is founded in God’s wisdom (counsel) and presumes a consultation in the Trinity, a rational actualization in history, and immutability throughout the ages. Its “parts” are related logically but not chronologically…. The decisive action occurs in a “prior” eternity, and history “effects” what God has (already) “caused.” Faith is the product of the decree–and Christ is the “executor” or ground for assurance of salvation (“the mirror of election”). Christ is in the decree instead of the decree in Him (as “author”). Finally, the decree is the starting point for all theological reflection. The idea of reprobation “naturally follows from the logic of the situation,” since “the decree of election inevitably implies the decree of reprobation” (L. Berkhof, 116). The fall (lapsis) is therefore necessary for God to realize both mercy and justice in history.””
Berkhof, along with the Reformed creeds, are infralapsarian; i.e., God regarded the objects of election and reprobation as already-created-and-fallen. setting the fall logically after the creation; both lapsarian views stress the sequence from eternity to time and contended that God’s decisive action occurred in eternity.
Can you flesh out what you think that quoted paragraph from Holtrop means? Since I do not have the book you are quoting, I’ll rely on you. Is Christ (or, God the Son in eternity, if you will) not the author of the decree? If not, how can we maintain he is very God of very God?
Jim G.
My immediate reply (without depth of thought): Christ is very God of very God, but not God the father or God the Holy Spirit.
Here’s my best take off the cuff as I understand the paragraph:
The decree is characterized by being founded in God’s wisdom, and that means that as a Trinitarian God, all persons of the Trinity were necessarily consulted (as to how it would come to pass, or, the manner in which they would be involved in carrying out the decree); then it was actualized as taking place in history; and upon the finalized decision of the decree, it was from then on forever unchangeable.
Seeing as how God does not exist in time, the process and connection of the various elements of the decree cannot be understood to be chronological, but (they are/it [the decree] is) nevertheless rational and logical. The action that decided all of what is in the decree occurred “prior” (first?) in eternity; and what God has already decided is then caused and comes to pass as history is unfolding.
Christ’s role in the decree is not that of authoring it, but rather the Executor of the salvific aspect of the decree, of which faith is a product. In other words, if election is deliberate, then there must be an assurance of it taking place within the decree and within history, Christ being that assurance, and faith being the “mirror,” the reflecting side of the decree to save.