Now it should be noted that a lot of these debates are presented to well meaning amateurs. As a result there are a lot of teachers who get confused to what someone else of a label really believes. I have seen Calvinists assume I am a Calvinist, Arminians assume I am Arminian, so on and so forth. The fact is that this states that we are not the experts we assume ourselves to be and often our differences are not that great and we need to practice more charitability in our discussions, If not for the sake of piety at least for the sake of accuracy. But I will attempt here to present a more accurate form of dialogue. Some of these terms are strictly philosophy others may be strictly philosophical, unfortunately they do bleed into another.
My position I entitle Davidic dispensationalism. It has pieces of Amyrauldianism and Arminianism as well as Provisions. My position might be encamped to a broad view of Provisions. However, my view requires a stricter systemic for better exposition and coherence. (free grace, tricotomy, keswick sanctification, gospel based grace, functional election, moral depravity) Provisionists may completely agree with me there but others will disagree on all counts.
Versions of decree.
Decree)1. Judicial decision, or determination of a litigated cause; as a decree of the court of chancery. The decision of a court of equity is called a decree; that of a court of law, a judgment.
2. In the civil law, a determination or judgment of the emperor on a suit between parties.
3. An edict or law made by a council for regulating any business within their jurisdiction; as the decrees of ecclesiastical councils.
4. In general, an order, edict or law made by a superior as a rule to govern inferiors.
There went a decree from Cesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. Luke 2:1.
5. Established law, or rule.
He made a decree for the rain. Job 28:26.
6. In theology, predetermined purpose of God; the purpose or determination of an immutable Being, whose plan of operations is, like himself, unchangeable." 1828 Websters Dictionary
Determinism) the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions."https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/
Compatibilism
"Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent."
- Coates, D. Justin; McKenna, Michael (February 25, 2015). "Compatibilism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved May 10, 2016.
Now often people feel this is a moderate position between free will and predestination. However this is not a true moderation. Instead, this is a paradox and a deny of logic.
Soft determinism (or compatibilism) is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents when, in the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires.
"Compatibilism does not maintain that humans are free. Compatabilism does not hold that humans have free will.
Compatibilism holds that:
1) the thesis of determinism is true, and that accordingly all human behavior, voluntary or involuntary, like the behavior of all other things, arises from antecedent conditions, given which no other behavior is possible: all human behavior is caused and determined
2)voluntary behavior is nonetheless free to the extent that it is not externally constrained or impeded
3) the causes of voluntary behavior are certain states, events, or conditions within the agent: acts of will or volitions, choices, decisions, desires etc...
Compatibilism is NOT a position that combines the libertarian and determinist positions.
Compatibilism is NOT a compromise of the two other positions.
Compatibilism is NOT a position that holds that humans are "a little bit" free.
Compatibilism is NOT a position that holds that humans have "limited free will".
Compatibilism is NOT a position that holds that humans have some free will.
Compatibilism is determinism with a slight modification for the sake of appearances and for our language use. It is a position taken because of the perceived need to have some idea of accountability or responsibility for human behavior. "
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%207%20Freedom/Freedom_Compatibilism.htm
As we see this is a more pragmatic than dogmatic version of determinism. So it is not really a need to refute this doctrine unless one needs to refute either free-will or determinism.
Other important concepts
Supralapsarian Determinism
"Supralapsarianism / antelapsarianism (“before the lapse”) puts God’s decrees in the following order: (1) God decreed the election of some and the eternal condemnation of others, (2) God decreed to create those elected and eternally condemned, (3) God decreed to permit the fall, and (4) God decreed to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ. Supralapsarianism focuses on God ordaining the fall, creating certain people for the sole purpose of being condemned, and then providing salvation for only those whom He had elected."https://www.gotquestions.org/lapsarianism.html
Infra Lapsarian Determinism
"Infralapsarianism (“after the lapse”) puts God’s decrees in the following order: (1) God decreed the creation of mankind, (2) God decreed mankind would be allowed to fall into sin through their own self-determination, (3) God decreed to save some of the fallen, and (4) God decreed to provide Jesus Christ as the Redeemer. Infralapsarianism focuses on God allowing the fall and providing salvation. This is by far the majority Reformed (or Calvinistic) view."https://www.gotquestions.org/lapsarianism.html
Sublapsarian Amyrauldianism/determinism
"Sublapsarianism (“under the lapse”) is very similar to infralapsarianism, putting God’s decrees in the following order: (1) God decreed to create human beings, (2) God decreed to permit the fall, (3) God decreed to provide salvation sufficient to all, and (4) God decreed to choose some to receive this salvation. The only difference between infralapsarianism and sublapsarianism is whether God first decreed to provide salvation through Jesus Christ and then chose some to be saved, or vice-versa."https://www.gotquestions.org/lapsarianism.html
middle-knowledge/molinism)
Arminianism
Conditional election. God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the Gospel. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw, and upon which He based His choice, was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man’s will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner’s choice of Christ—not God’s choice of the sinner—is the ultimate cause of salvation." http://www.bible-researcher.com/arminianism.html
Provisionism) "is a theological label which relates to the specific soteriological perspective, held by many within the Southern Baptist Convention, which emphasizes the Christian teachings found in the Bible regarding God’s love and provision of salvation for every individual (John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:4; Psalm 145:9; Ezekiel 18:31-32; Hosea 3:1) as in contrast with the soteriological views of Calvinism, which emphasizes God’s love and provision of salvation only for “the elect,” those chosen unconditionally before the foundation of the world, while all others are passed by for reprobation."
Typically provisionalist have a corporate view of election.
"The idea of corporate election expresses a Christian soteriological view that understands Christian salvation as based on "God choosing in Christ a people whom he destines to be holy and blameless in his sight". Put another way, "Election is the corporate choice of the church 'in Christ."
Semi Pelagianism
Semipelagian thought stands in contrast to the earlier Pelagian teaching about salvation, the Pelagianism (in which people achieve their own salvation by their own means), which had been dismissed as heresy. Semipelagianism in its original form was developed as a compromise between Pelagianism and the teaching of Church Fathers such as Saint Augustine, who taught that people cannot come to God without the grace of God. In semipelagian thought, therefore, a distinction is made between the beginning of faith and the increase of faith. Semipelagian thought teaches that the latter half – growing in faith – is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later.[1] It too was labeled heresy by the Western Church at the Second Council of Orange in 529.
Catholicism teaches that the beginning of faith involves an act of free will, that the initiative comes from God, but requires free collaboration on the part of man: "The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration".[2] "Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life."[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Pelagianism
Pelagianism)Pelagianism is a heterodox Christian theological position that holds that the original sin did not taint human nature and that humans have the free will to achieve human perfection without divine grace. Pelagius (c. 355 – c. 420 AD), a British ascetic and philosopher, taught that God could not command believers to do the impossible, and therefore it must be possible to satisfy all divine commandments. He also taught that it was unjust to punish one person for the sins of another; therefore, infants are born blameless. Pelagius accepted no excuse for sinful behavior and taught that all Christians, regardless of their station in life, should live unimpeachable, sinless lives." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism
Open theism), also called free will theism and openness theology, is the belief that God does not exercise meticulous control of the universe but leaves it "open" for humans to make significant choices (free will) that impact their relationships with God and others. A corollary of this is that God has not predetermined the future. Open Theists further believe that this would imply that God does not know the future exhaustively. Proponents affirm that God is omniscient, but deny that this means that God knows everything that will happen."
https://www.theopedia.com/open-theism
Determinist proof texts
Genesis 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
Ex. 9:12And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had spoken unto Moses.
Lamentations 3:37 Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
Genesis 50:20 they would interpret to mean that God meant evil thoughts and somehow that is good, But I would argue it is more natural to argue that God's will is opposition to the will of man and that through providence God accomplishes his Good will in spite of the free will of men causing opposition to Him.
Exodus 9:12 Determinist view the lord is decreeing for the Pharoahs sin through hardening the heart. But the nardening is also performed by the pharoah. Exodus 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said"
Yet it does not end there. the servants of pharoah were able to recant even though the pharoah would not.
Exodus 9:34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.
Exodus 10:1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:
10:7 And Pharaoh's servants said unto him, How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the Lord their God: knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?"
Reprobation is supposed to a deterministic transcendent act. But the hardening of the heart is immanent and it can be overcome.
Lamentations 3:37 sounds like determinism. but a closer look gives us a better context. Everything that "comes to pass" is referring to the immanent. Our thoughts do not always come to pass. God's providence obviously controls the world, but this does not say the God must force evil in our hearts. Free-will does not necessarily reject providence!
Isaiah 45: 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
While I have no problem with people using proof texts, It is necessary that we look at the context first before using them.
Texts that refute deterministic reprobation.
Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"
If Hell was prepared for the devil and fallen angels then it was not originally created for men, which contradicts predestination to Hell.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." God is long suffering or patient upon the will of man and his will is for man's repentance, not determining their rejection.
"Let us note two significant matters pertaining to this question here:(1) The impossibility of going into the mind of God and (2) The plain teaching of scripture of the unity of the decree, in that all the elect are chosen in that all of the elect are chosen in Christ."
Douglas Kelly Theology for ministry pg. 43 The Decrees of God" P&R publishing
"Second, the plain teaching of scripture of the unity of divine decree includes the elect in Christ." Theology for Ministry pg 44
The first matter is an answer to the ordo salutis. Essentially these Calvinists are denying the need for Devine order in decree. Now this is the same solution as this author. But in the mechanics of systematic theology there is a problem for the Calvinists. If God has organized the whole universe by method of divine decree there has to be an order of these decrees. Because even though the divine mind is limitless, the creation which God has acted to create is not limitless. thus the idea of creation has limits and if there are limits then there is order. Reformed church fathers admit this when they include the Thomistic(Thomas Aquinas) concept of secondary causes.
"Yet the truth it proclaims for the most part, been obscured far too often by a misunderstanding of one of the very first terms encountered, that being "foreknew". What does this term mean? Roman Catholic theologians lacking the concept of salvation by grace through faith and the attendant concept of the sovereignty of God in salvation)election) view the term as referring to God's foresight of future events; that is God knowing the future "chooses" those whom He knows will be pliable to His will and who will repent from their sins and turn to Him." White, James R. God's Sovereign Grace Append "A" Foreknowledge pg. 117
As a determinist James White does not believe in God's omniscience the same way we do. For Him God only knows things if He has determined them.
"When Adam knew Eve in Gen. 4:1, The result was the conception of a Child. Obviously, then, this 'knowing' of Eve by Adam was far more than a simple understanding of her existence= his yada of His wife was intensely personal."pg. 119
So if James White is saying that this is foreknowledge then what does that say about eternal decree???
"Above we cited Romans 8:29-30. As we look at this passage we note that again the object of God's action in foreknowing is a personal (or a people if we take the plurality of all men and women who are to be saved). We do not here see God knowing actions but rather people. God is not a passive recipient of knowledge of future events, but the active one who is foreknowing"
You can not negate God's knowledge because some uses carry an adjective of intimate knowledge. Otherwise White is denying God's omniscience. Well to a degree he is!!! If God is not receiving knowledge, then God does not have said knowledge!
White may respond that there is no knowledge to receive. This however would deny creation and no longer qualify as theism. Theism assumes that God is distinct from creation. Pantheism assumes that God is equal with creation. God should know of creation before he decrees what it will do.
psalm 4:3 But know that the Lord hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the Lord will hear when I call unto him."
psalm 55:19 God shall hear, and afflict them, even he that abideth of old. Selah. Because they have no changes, therefore they fear not God."
psalm 78:59 When God heard this, he was wroth, and greatly abhorred Israel:"
If God is hearing then he is not just declaring information but receiving it.
https://effectualgrace.com/category/foreknowledge/
Dr. Brown does not see the Calvinist doctrine of foreknowledge and decree. White can't simply question Michael Brown's knowledge of Hebrew, the messianic Jewish scholar has been utilized by him in tag team debates with unbelievers! https://youtu.be/8-ZbEFjm3PQ
1 samuel 23:7 And it was told Saul that David was come to Keilah. And Saul said, God hath delivered him into mine hand; for he is shut in, by entering into a town that hath gates and bars.8 And Saul called all the people together to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men.9 And David knew that Saul secretly practised mischief against him; and he said to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod."
13 Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go. And it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah; and he forbare to go forth. 14 And David abode in the wilderness in strongholds, and remained in a mountain in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God delivered him not into his hand."
Davidic Dispensationalism)[On the topic of Free-will and predestination}
Holds that the human will as a component of the soul has a full range of choices, though not a full range of action. Man is born with a conditional spiritual life that is created within the womb prior to birth. That this life is conditioned upon a state of innocence which may be disrupted by an age of accountability which will allow the occasion of spiritual death. That Man has flesh which is divorced from the authority of spirit. That the flesh is composed of the physical body including the brain and all the forces of hormones. That the flesh embodies the self-centered nature which is expressed in the doctrine of Iniquity. The flesh works to produce the spiritual result of moral depravity upon spiritual death.
Also Davidic Dispensationalism holds) a. That Jehovah has complete control over the physical outcomes of Destiny. However, while many mechanisms enable God to have such power. The will of God does not exhaustively use the force of decree over and against His creation. In order that God's Will to determine the outcome of destiny, does not contradict His established will of creating His various creatures with varying levels of autonomy.
Tricotomist & Soul Creation
If the will is part of the soul but not part of the Spirit, then spiritual death will not disable the soul.
Secondary Causes)
When dealing with raw philosophical issues it is practical to use philosophical answers.
In dealing with the theodicy(figuring out the how an almighty God and the problem of evil)
"In the history of Christian thought, the philosopher Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274) refers to God as the "Primary Cause" of the being of everything; Aquinas refers to creatures as "secondary causes" whose activity reaches particular aspects and depends on divine action. These concepts are related to core Christian ideas of God and creatures. God's being does not depend on anything outside God, is self-sufficient, and is the fountain of the being of all that exists. Creatures have their own consistency but require the divine founding action that makes possible their existence and activity. The Primary Cause is unique. It is not the first of a series of causes belonging to the same level. God's action is different from created action. God does not substitute creatures (except in miracles). God not only respects the activity of the creatures, God is its main guarantee, as created agency corresponds to God's plans." https://www.encyclopedia.com/education/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/causality-primary-and-secondary This argumentation translates easily to creationism, since creation was very good and it is the later actions of man and demons that bring about a cursed creation. Some reformers agree, others don't
Middle knowledge) Deals with he fact the God in his infinite knowledge would also have middle knowledge, which is all knowledge of possible events or in philosophical term "Possible worlds". A possibility in philosophy is also known as a counterfactual.
Here is an example, where jesus is discussing what would have happened.
Here we see the counterfactual for the jews salvation. thus breaking the deterministic paradigm.
Bad Alternatives:
Amyrauldianism) I have held this position for years in the past. The problem here is typically the issue is a full understanding of the definitions. The amyrauldian has submitted to a range of unbiblical man made axioms. Because of naive' te. they assume that total depravity equals the fallen state or the inequity of mankind. Instead we have a system of spiritual death with no free will that does not allow us to logically receive Christ as the gospel offers. Instead, we have to win an arbitrary lottery of election and owe the glory to it instead of the work of christ which is nothing more than a safety belt on the way to heaven.
So an Amryauldian can either deny their reading of scripture and give in to determinism or they can give up theology for a fideism where their superior Calvinist friends can laugh and snicker at them.
It is not wrong that they are trying to moderate or balanced. But it is scandalous that they though the five points of Calvinism was an objective conversation, The well is poisoned from the start.
James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."
Arminianism) Arminianism also suffers from definition issues. A. The idea that election is about salvation. B. Prevenient grace as a universal free-will system. C. The idea of a lost salvation.
Arminianism as classically understood along with Wesleyanism, carry the Augustinian doctrine of regeneration preceding faith. Thus they also keep the tradition of depravity alongside sacramental infant baptism. The idea of regeneration becomes rather light. Therefore, in order to gain a universal free will over depravity regeneration becomes a lighter doctrine where depravity is light, regeneration is light and security in salvation is also light. Later Wesleyans would reject the strict sacramentalism, the penal substitutionary atonement and eternal security. Catholic tradition carried Augustinian errors into the churches.
Predestination in sync with God's foreknowledge is fine enough. But the election interpret as salvation makes makes Arminians assume that belief is the cause of salvation instead of the receivers of it.
Since prevenient grace is universalized as a cause of free will, the effectiveness of atonement is neither a permanent effect.
Romans 9:11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)"
Infralapsarianism) which typically partners with compatibilism, at least gives some legitimate effort in making a distinction between the god of the bible and an amoral deity. The problem is, if you believe that God has decreed all actions, then He has not just "passed over" the unbelievers. Unless God has bot decreed all things. If so that puts infralapsarians in the same place as the rest of Christianity!
john 3: 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."
Pelagianism) Now some scholars contend that Pelagius was the victim of ad hominem and that he had some concept of sin nature. While I am sensitive to that, let's just assume the position for practicality sake that this term refers to the rejection of total depravity as well as moral depravity.
If man can overcome his sins through self effort then there is no need of the cross for salvation. Then why believe in a dying savior? Sure we could have a Muslim Messiah who assists in the distribution of wrath.
1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Open Theism) Open theism contends to be the ultimate free will advocate in the Theodicy(problem of evil) God is an only good spirit who is only advocating evil but is limited by the fact that there is only one timeline and therefore can not transcend time to know the future, only calculating within a immanent reality. Thus God is not infinity all knowing just all knowing current reality. Our free will is as enabled as God in terms of range.
This transgresses the definition of God in any monotheistic sense it disables the infallibility of scripture.
Some may regard this worldview because it helps train people to accept personal responsibility.
Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite."
Assurance of salvation.
The Calvinist doctrine of Perseverance of the saints assumes Assurance of salvation is based upon the doctrine of predestination. If we are going strictly by a calvinistic election to salvation then assurance of salvation becomes a mystery. But Biblical assurance is not so.
1 john 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."
No comments:
Post a Comment