Here's the link:
http://www.ligonier.org/radio/radioplayer.php?radioprogram=rym20020720.rm

Obviously, I don't endorse Sproul's views, but I think it's informative for those who are interested in an overview of Reformed theology and particularly the infralapsarian view.

Very interesting stuff by a learned man. This topic certainly is a tough nut to crack.

My only problem with RC is he tends to be a bit defensive in his posture about this issue. He spends too much time building straw men and then knocking them down.

Don Norwood '93
www.galacticcowboys.com
www.atomicopera.com

quote:

---

My only problem with RC is he tends to be a bit defensive in his posture about this issue. He spends too much time building straw men and then knocking them down.

---

Yeah, that's how I felt about the "prescience" view, which I don't think anybody actually holds. But, like he said, you can (and he did) write a book on the subject. I can see where he'd be defensive, though. This issue is what polarizes the denominations more than anything else.

I still believe it is a conflict of true meaning between free will and God's foreknowledge. Will either one or both be understood?

David

quote:

---

Yeah, that's how I felt about the "prescience" view, which I don't think anybody actually holds.

---

Tell me you're joking!

Big Cat

quote:

---

He spends too much time building straw men and then knocking them down.

---

Do you have any proof of this? How about 1 example?

Desert Ag:
No, seriously. Even the Arminian view isn't about foreseen "good works" in that sense. It's not "God sees you doing good things and elects you for grace"; it's "God magnanimously decides to send you grace and sees how you react to it." Foreseen merits is subtly but importantly different than foreseen good works, although that distinction tends to be obscured in Reformed theology.

quote:

---

No, seriously. Even the Arminian view isn't about foreseen "good works" in that sense. It's not "God sees you doing good things and elects you for grace"; it's "God magnanimously decides to send you grace and sees how you react to it." Foreseen merits is subtly but importantly different than foreseen good works, although that distinction tends to be obscured in Reformed theology.

---

What are you talking about? foreseen Good works, and foreseen merits? First off, there is no concept of merit in either of those protestant models you just mentioned, other than the merits of Christ. And secondly there is no obscuring of foreseen anything in the Reformed model, because there is no predestined to grace/predestined to glory problem. The elect are predestined to grace and glory. We don’t have the false view that Baptism saves you, nor of the mortification of ones Justification, and therefore there is no need to create these silly doctrines that follow, but can simply take the scriptures at their word, that Christ knows His sheep, and no one will snatch them out of His hand. I can with confidence say. I am saved, and will be with Christ in heaven when I die. You on the other hand are riddled with uncertainty, as you should be.

Physics

quote:

---

Obviously, I don't endorse Sproul's views, but I think it's informative for those who are interested in an overview of Reformed theology and particularly the infralapsarian view.

---

When you say "obviously don't endorse" --- is that based on a detectible flaw, or a sense of "not allowed to endorse?" Can you point out a clear achilles heel in it?

I agree with Orphan:

quote:

---

I still believe it is a conflict of true meaning between free will and God's foreknowledge. Will either one or both be understood?

---

The Bible appears to teach both. It certainly speaks of predestination, yet there is something that doesn't add up. Science has proven the universe itself is not uniform, that there is a built-in unpredictability in it. The Newtonian closed-model has been superseded. Now the way that relates here is this: it seems that means that an absolutely predestined, as in "already done" outlook won't hold. I see it rather than "always guided to reach a predetermined end". From out point of view, then, God is operating "real-time" at moments of his choosing to move things as He wills.

quote:

---

Desert Ag:
No, seriously. Even the Arminian view isn't about foreseen "good works" in that sense. It's not "God sees you doing good things and elects you for grace"; it's "God magnanimously decides to send you grace and sees how you react to it." Foreseen merits is subtly but importantly different than foreseen good works, although that distinction tends to be obscured in Reformed theology.

---

Let me re-state that so it is clear. Are you saying that: "God sends unmerited grace, and then your salvation is determined by how you react to it? In other words, this "reaction" was not the basis for the *initial* sending of the grace? Hence, not "foreseen good works"? Hmm.

What would the "see how you react to it" involve? Is there some tasks or actions you need to take in particular that have been listed to perform? Or does salvation work only as a negative ---- "how you react" means you can *ignore* or reject the grace, but as long as you 'accept' it, it operates to produce salvation?

Greatheart:

quote:

---

What are you talking about? foreseen Good works, and foreseen merits? First off, there is no concept of merit in either of those protestant models you just mentioned, other than the merits of Christ. And secondly there is no obscuring of foreseen anything in the Reformed model, because there is no predestined to grace/predestined to glory problem.

---

No knock on Reformed theology there, just that when talking across the boundaries, Catholics would distinguish foreseen merits from foreseen works, and I think (although I'm not sure) that Arminians would also. In other words, neither Catholics nor Arminians would view the foreseen free willed consent to grace as a work, where I think that Reformed theologians would. When Sproul talks about the "prescience" view as being about foreseen good works, I think it creates the idea that God elects people based on a set of actions, which nobody actually believes.

Incidentally, I think uncertainty is part and parcel of trust, so I wouldn't say I'm riddled with it. I wake up every day not knowing what tomorrow will bring, and having to place my trust in God continuously to bring me home. I have no doubt that God is trustworthy.

titan:

quote:

---

When you say "obviously don't endorse" --- is that based on a detectible flaw, or a sense of "not allowed to endorse?" Can you point out a clear achilles heel in it?

---

Just personal, and no, there's no Achilles heel in the sense that I can point to it and say, "well, that's a stupid argument." Logically, I have problems with infralapsarians using Adam's free will as an excuse for everything, and yet absolutely refusing to recognize a meaningful incompatibilist free will apart from that, but that's probably just me being dense.

quote:

---

What would the "see how you react to it" involve? Is there some tasks or actions you need to take in particular that have been listed to perform? Or does salvation work only as a negative ---- "how you react" means you can *ignore* or reject the grace, but as long as you 'accept' it, it operates to produce salvation?

---

I wouldn't claim to know the mechanism, but I lean toward the Molinist understanding, which goes something like:
(1) God decides, out of love, to create free willed beings to bring to Himself.
(2) The constraint of free will means that God chooses voluntarily not to create a world or form of grace that annihilates free will. At the same time, God provides salvation to the willing. This establishes a subset of possible worlds.
(3) In consideration of all possibilities within the feasible subset, God selects and actualizes the best one.

The whole segment of the last radio program I heard consisted of RC and RC Jr. giving what they termed typical arguments against Calvinism, none of which I adhere to (although I'm certainly not at all prepared to say I am a Calvinist). Their approach was to shoot down those who philosophically oppose Calvinism rather than give arguments for it.

This is something I'm quite interested in, but it's frustrating to hear an argument based on RC's assumptions about others rather than the facts and his interpretation of them.

[This message has been edited by Big.Cat-93 (edited 7/23/2002 7:48a).]

Physics

quote:

---

When Sproul talks about the "prescience" view as being about foreseen good works, I think it creates the idea that God elects people based on a set of actions, which nobody actually believes.

---

I have heard many times people say that God simply looks down the corridors of time and elects people based on Him foreseeing them choose Him.

Also, Ambrose, Origin, and Jerome all argued that God gives His grace to men according to the use that He foresees each will make of it. Augustine used to also believe this, but later retracted it, and argued very powerfully against it.

quote:

---

Incidentally, I think uncertainty is part and parcel of trust, so I wouldn't say I'm riddled with it. I wake up every day not knowing what tomorrow will bring, and having to place my trust in God continuously to bring me home. I have no doubt that God is trustworthy.

---

In the end it is your own treasury of merit which must have enough in it. You must not mortify (kill) your Justification, and you can add to your own righteousness with your good deeds. In the end your trust must to some degree be in your decisions. Therefore to that degree you must have a certain amount of doubt, and even condemnation. Why have you not done better than you have? Have you really been good enough for God to save you, or is that your trust, that He will let you in anyway?

Big Cat

quote:

---

The whole segment of the last radio program I heard consisted of RC and RC Jr. giving what they termed typical arguments against Calvinism, none of which I adhere to (although I'm certainly not at all prepared to say I am a Calvinist). Their approach was to shoot down those who philosophically oppose Calvinism rather than give arguments for it.

---

Ok, so that’s not a straw man argument though?… A straw man argument would be if they had misrepresented the positions of those against them, and therefore offered a weaker view that the real view of their opponents arguments, which they could then knock down easily. Because they did not cover your particular position which apparently does not agree with Calvinism, dose not mean that they made straw men.

quote:

---

This is something I'm quite interested in, but it's frustrating to hear an argument based on RC's assumptions about others rather than the facts and his interpretation of them.

---

One thing you must consider, is that was a single 20 minute program. RC actually has done a more exhaustive work that would include a more complete look at the opposing positions. Now, you state that he simply has assumptions about the other positions, and not facts. I ask you again, if that is a provable assertion, or if you have a specific example of him only assuming a position rather than basing it on facts?

quote:

---

Logically, I have problems with infralapsarians using Adam's free will as an excuse for everything, and yet absolutely refusing to recognize a meaningful incompatibilist free will apart from that, but that's probably just me being dense.

---

How about this? Instead of "Adam," use "Physics96!" It will work out the same!

quote:

---

I have heard many times people say that God simply looks down the corridors of time and elects people based on Him foreseeing them choose Him.

Also, Ambrose, Origin, and Jerome all argued that God gives His grace to men according to the use that He foresees each will make of it. Augustine used to also believe this, but later retracted it, and argued very powerfully against it.

---

Yes, but neither Arminians nor Catholics consider such a choice a "work." Thus Sproul defines the view in terms of His own definition of works, but his use of the term "works" implies much more than Catholics or Arminians would endorse. Consequently, Sproul's characterization creates a straw man, as the view he characterizes by his terminology is not the view actually held. And certainly, I will not dispute that some of the Church Fathers held similar beliefs, nor that those beliefs may have been incorrect in some sense (as Origen was particularly admitted to be), which is hardly a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But Sproul is presumably not arguing against Jerome or Ambrose, but against some existing view, which he hasn't fairly characterized.

quote:

---

In the end it is your own treasury of merit which must have enough in it. You must not mortify (kill) your Justification, and you can add to your own righteousness with your good deeds. In the end your trust must to some degree be in your decisions. Therefore to that degree you must have a certain amount of doubt, and even condemnation. Why have you not done better than you have? Have you really been good enough for God to save you, or is that your trust, that He will let you in anyway?

---

The questions of merit and mortification are separate, but either way, there is no trust in one's self, since one's own works can never be relevant to the calculus of one's righteousness. In fact, trust in one's self is the exact antithesis of what it is that we are to do (Rom. 2:8). Instead, we must trust completely in God to guide us, and submit our will to His will. If we do that, we can trust that He will not lead us astray. The only thing I can do on my own is sin, so if I trust in myself, only evil can come of it. The good works, those which advance our state of righteousness, come from Christ and no other source (Rom. 15:18). My trust is that He will not abandon me if I do not abandon Him. My power is in that sense only negative. However, this power is not without purpose either, in the sense that when not misused it interacts with grace to allow God's will to be acted out through me.

quote:

---

My trust is that He will not abandon me if I do not abandon Him.

---

Why would you NOT abandon Him, but your friend abandon Him from the get-go?

Are you just smarter?
Did you have a better set of parents?
Did you attend the right schools?
Did you have "better" friends?

If you don't abandon Him, is that considered to be a "good work?"

Was you decision to "abandon" or "not abandon" Christ known before Physics96 was even born?

If the answer is "yes," could that "yes" decision be changed to a "no" after you emerged from the womb as Physics96 and dwelled your 74.2 years on this earth?

quote:

---

Why would you NOT abandon Him, but your friend abandon Him from the get-go?

---

Why does anybody sin? Does God make them sin, or do they choose to sin from something in their own natures? All sorts of people from all sorts of situations make various choices, but I tend to think the ones with the most advantages are most likely to err, as indicated by the enormous respect given to the poor and downtrodden throughout the Bible.

quote:

---

If you don't abandon Him, is that considered to be a "good work?"

---

No, nor is any good that God works by your lack of resistance a good work. We are like infants in the hands of our Father; we can at best struggle with the hands lifting us, but never lift ourselves. Would anyone ever say "look at that child lifting himself in the air" because the child was not struggling? Yet wouldn't we blame the child if the child struggled to the extent that the father dropped him? It is the same in this case; you get no credit for the lifting, but you can get blame for the fall.

quote:

---

Was you decision to "abandon" or "not abandon" Christ known before Physics96 was even born?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

If the answer is "yes," could that "yes" decision be changed to a "no" after you emerged from the womb as Physics96 and dwelled your 74.2 years on this earth?

---

No, it can't be changed. The important inquiry is if it could have been otherwise. My position is that God considered all free-willed possibilities before choosing to actualize a particular creation. Thus, even though God has completely determined what will happen, He has considered the full range of possibilities and selected a world compatible with those possibilities. In that sense, he incorporates free will into the equation.

This is where I would differ from Sproul. Sproul would say that God selects from among the free willed possibilities completely without regard to who the people are. I would say that God makes a free choice to create free-willed beings, and then makes a free choice from among the possible worlds having free willed beings. This doesn't mean that God has to be 100% free will oriented, in that He can at times override the operation of free will, but those are exceptional cases predicated on free-willed choices of the person. But in general, God does not operate to violate the free will of His creation; rather, He persuades them using His grace.

quote:

---

No, it can't be changed. The important inquiry is if it could have been otherwise. My position is that God considered all free-willed possibilities before choosing to actualize a particular creation. Thus, even though God has completely determined what will happen, He has considered the full range of possibilities and selected a world compatible with those possibilities. In that sense, he incorporates free will into the equation.

---

Physics, one can use "human" logic to try and justify God's sovereignty from now to eternity, but the the bottom line should not be that difficult for those that are under His Grace.

If (as you say) that "decision" cannot be changed after we are born, then it can't be "free-will!" You can write a book here on TexAgs.com trying to prove the contrary. You can pull up "human-theory" after "human-theory," but the fact remains that God acting at His own good pleasure, acting by and through His complete sovereign Will and Mercy, chose some of His "human" creation unto salvation and the rest He allowed to receive justice. That is what is taught in Scripture, in fact that is the Good News of the Gospel!

If we cannot change our decision after we are born, then it is "election," it is "predestination," it is the Grace of Almighty God at work through His plan of salvation. And praise God, that the Grace decribed in Scripture is not dependent upon us for verification. Scripture tells us the God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit will never abandon His Children. We need nothing more!

quote:

---

Yes, but neither Arminians nor Catholics consider such a choice a "work." Thus Sproul defines the view in terms of His own definition of works, but his use of the term "works" implies much more than Catholics or Arminians would endorse. Consequently, Sproul's characterization creates a straw man, as the view he characterizes by his terminology is not the view actually held. And certainly, I will not dispute that some of the Church Fathers held similar beliefs, nor that those beliefs may have been incorrect in some sense (as Origen was particularly admitted to be), which is hardly a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But Sproul is presumably not arguing against Jerome or Ambrose, but against some existing view, which he hasn't fairly characterized.

---

I listened to the broadcast, and I didn’t hear Sproul state that the Arminian believed his choosing God was a work, or for the RC, that cooperating with grace was a work. That would be changing his opponents arguments making them straw men. This has never been the accepted standard for what a straw man is throughout history either, but I understand how you would come up with an argument like that.
As far as you stating that he has not fairly characterized some view, that is simply a matter of your opinion. I don’t know what you call it when someone insists on the cooperation of some sort (no matter how small) from man for justification. But I do know that the scriptures call it works. Theologians call it semi-pelaginaism.

quote:

---

The questions of merit and mortification are separate, but either way, there is no trust in one's self, since one's own works can never be relevant to the calculus of one's righteousness. In fact, trust in one's self is the exact antithesis of what it is that we are to do (Rom. 2:8). Instead, we must trust completely in God to guide us, and submit our will to His will. If we do that, we can trust that He will not lead us astray. The only thing I can do on my own is sin, so if I trust in myself, only evil can come of it. The good works, those which advance our state of righteousness, come from Christ and no other source (Rom. 15:18). My trust is that He will not abandon me if I do not abandon Him. My power is in that sense only negative. However, this power is not without purpose either, in the sense that when not misused it interacts with grace to allow God's will to be acted out through me.

---

How confusing for you. You say you must trust in God to guide you, but what that really means is that you must trust yourself to trust God. You said yourself “if I do not abandon Him”. You trust in God as the certain one that will not abandon you, but then you must trust that you will not abandon Him, yet how much time have you spent in prayer today? Have you really loved the Lord with all your heart, mind soul and strength? Can you really say that?… How have you loved your neighbor as yourself? How much love of your neighbor is enough? Some standard you come up with? Will God judge your faithfulness to Him based on your standards? Do you really believe that you are righteous enough to stand before a holy and perfect God? Certainly you must be feeling doubt and condemnation. Do you have a spirit that cries out “Abba Father”, or a feeling of uncertainty when you think of those things?

quote:

---

This is where I would differ from Sproul. Sproul would say that God selects from among the free willed possibilities completely without regard to who the people are. I would say that God makes a free choice to create free-willed beings, and then makes a free choice from among the possible worlds having free willed beings. This doesn't mean that God has to be 100% free will oriented, in that He can at times override the operation of free will, but those are exceptional cases predicated on free-willed choices of the person. But in general, God does not operate to violate the free will of His creation; rather, He persuades them using His grace.

---

Sproul would NOT say that it is without regard to who they are. He would say that there is nothing IN them that would make God choose them, but that those who are the elect is a choice of God, according to His sovereign choice. Does God not say “I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, and I will harden whom I will harden” ? This might see arbitrary to man, and indeed you can’t seem to resolve it, though God clearly says to you “Who are you to question God” (Roman 9) in regard to His choice. Yet you wish to push the doctrine farther into a set of freewill doctrines not specifically taught in the bible, but from verses that you say implies it, and yet you choose to ignore and downplay the verses that specifically do teach on the subject. In any case, it would seem that you are coming around some on the view that God persuades man rather than violating his freewill.

A&O:

quote:

---

If we cannot change our decision after we are born, then it is "election," it is "predestination," it is the Grace of Almighty God at work through His plan of salvation. And praise God, that the Grace decribed in Scripture is not dependent upon us for verification. Scripture tells us the God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit will never abandon His Children. We need nothing more!

---

Yes, I agree with you; there is certainly predestination and there is certainly election. Whether election is conditional and what the conditions are is what I perceive to be the relevant issue. As an infralapsarian, Sproul has already admitted that at least one decree of God is conditional based on the free will of Adam, because the doctrine of election is a response to the fallen state of man, which God chose to permit. Otherwise, God could not "consider" humanity as fallen in the apportionment of grace, because before the decision, they wouldn't be fallen. The question here is "what does God's good pleasure mean?" Does it just mean that because it is God's pleasure, it is inherently good, or does it mean, as I maintain, that it is good as measured with respect to God's own expressed standards for goodness? The fact that God has the ability to bestow mercy on whomever He will does not tell us anything about the conditions that He considers in making the determination.

Greatheart:

quote:

---

I listened to the broadcast, and I didn’t hear Sproul state that the Arminian believed his choosing God was a work, or for the RC, that cooperating with grace was a work. That would be changing his opponents arguments making them straw men.

---

No, you're right, he didn't say that, and I'm not trying to claim that he did. I'm saying that the "prescience" argument that he describes is, to my knowledge, not held by any modern systematic theology. Prescience of good works, in the sense that Catholics and Arminians use the term, is Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism. I'm afraid that people listening to the broadcast may falsely ascribe Sproul's description of prescience, which sounds like Pelagianism, to Catholics and Arminians. It seems fair to say that if one said "the prescient view, in which God foresees good works," and implied that was the position held by Catholics and Arminians, both groups would say "whoa, wait a minute!" Certainly, I'm not challenging either Sproul's integrity or competence, just that he isn't being especially clear about what it is that his opponents believe.

quote:

---

As far as you stating that he has not fairly characterized some view, that is simply a matter of your opinion. I don’t know what you call it when someone insists on the cooperation of some sort (no matter how small) from man for justification. But I do know that the scriptures call it works. Theologians call it semi-pelaginaism.

---

It would be one thing if it were cooperation in the sense that someone takes an independent action to assist. But this is a metaphysical nullity, a non-action. It is exactly the same case as I described above; no one in his right mind would say that the child is lifting himself. It's an extremely simple concept: you can't boast for not doing anything. Our opinions differ drastically on what Scripture calls works and the implications of that definitions, so it's pretty fruitless to discuss them except to say that I perceive myself as having a reasonable interpretation that differs from yours. I will say that I know of no Catholic theologian that calls Catholic doctrine semi-Pelagian, and in fact, you may recall that we were the Church that condemned semi-Pelagianism as heresy.

quote:

---

How confusing for you. You say you must trust in God to guide you, but what that really means is that you must trust yourself to trust God.

---

Not at all. I trust God to help me in this matter, and to assist me in turning toward Him. If I had no doubt, I could hardly "work out my salvation with fear and trembling," and indeed, it is only by poignant awareness of exactly how worthless one is that one can find the humility of true submission. Those doubts, those wrongs, those sins you describe only remind me how insignificant I truly am, and how only God can make a worthwhile project of me. It is this awareness above all which causes someone to cry out "Abba, Father!" It is why the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
And yes, I do pray I will have the chance to stand before a righteous God some day, cleansed of my sins through the power of Christ and made a partaker of the divine nature. But that day is not yet, and I have not become what I would be on that day.

quote:

---

Sproul would NOT say that it is without regard to who they are. He would say that there is nothing IN them that would make God choose them, but that those who are the elect is a choice of God, according to His sovereign choice.

---

Good catch, and I agree with the way that you've stated it. My point is that God does not consider anything of the nature of the people who He chooses to save in Sproul's view. That is the core of our disagreement; I believe that He does.

quote:

---

Does God not say “I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, and I will harden whom I will harden” ?

---

Certainly.

quote:

---

This might see arbitrary to man, and indeed you can’t seem to resolve it, though God clearly says to you “Who are you to question God” (Roman 9) in regard to His choice.

---

It doesn't seem arbitrary; it is arbitrary. If you pick people for no reason within the people, that is the dictionary definition of arbitrary. If you're saying that it's God prerogative to be arbitrary, I won't disagree, but there is no way that any human being would view that as good or just. That's why "arbitrary" is a pejorative term used for tyrants like Stalin. Our choice is either God selects for a reason or God selects for no reason. I'll go with the reason every day and twice on Sundays.

Nor will I commit the error of Paul's audience in Romans, which was subtle. Paul's questioner first responds to the idea that God selects not only from the Jews, but also the Gentiles, and that not all Jews are truly of Israel. They accuse God of unrighteousness in this selection, but Paul chastises them, noting that it is God's choice as to who receives mercy from Him, and whom He will harden in their misdeeds. Then Paul's questioner commits the error in *response* to the statement that God has the power to harden hearts. He says "For who can resist His will?" Look at the implicit charge in this question: if you really wanted us to be good, you could have made us good. This is a disclaimer of responsibility, and Paul will have none of it. He then explains why God *tolerates* evil ("endured with patience" ), so that the greater glory will be demonstrated to those found worthy ("prepared unto glory" ). Nowhere does Paul ever say that God elects the vessels of destruction or intendsoriginally for them to be destroyed; instead He is said to be enduring them. You don't endure something that you yourself want to happen, so clearly God's desire is not for these vessels to exist. But they are from the *same* lump; there is nothing that separates their nature other than the use to which they are put. They are either "prepared for glory" or "fitted to destruction." Like John Chrysostom, I think this makes most sense in light of free will, which dictates the use to which the vessels are put. The vessels of mercy, those who do not resist God, are prepared for glory; the stubborn and resistant are fitted for destruction. There is nothing unjust in this decision; not all vessels deserve to be saved just because they're all from the same lump.

[panting]OK, that's the quick run though Romans 9 *gasp* I doubt I'll get much agreement, but that's my take.

[This message has been edited by Physics96 (edited 7/23/2002 2:28p).]

[This message has been edited by Physics96 (edited 7/23/2002 2:43p).]

quote:

---

The question here is "what does God's good pleasure mean?" Does it just mean that because it is God's pleasure, it is inherently good, or does it mean, as I maintain, that it is good as measured with respect to God's own expressed standards for goodness? The fact that God has the ability to bestow mercy on whomever He will does not tell us anything about the conditions that He considers in making the determination.

---

Yes, of course, if it is God's pleasure, then it has to be good. To say otherwise would seem to place God Almighty on a level just above or equal to us. God does not need to inform us about His conditions for bestowing mercy! We should just be thankful for the fact that Scripture tells us that He will indeed bestow mercy on His children. And just for His children, His sheep.

John 10:25-28 (NKJV) Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. 26 "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.

It is only Jesus' sheep that hear His voice and respond.

Is it unjust that God only calls certain people to salvation and not others? No, of course not, it's according to His own good pleasure!

Romans 9:14 (NKJV) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!

This question would never arise if Paul didn't intend to be understood as saying that the doctrine of election teaches that the choice rests with God alone. If Paul was saying that God looks ahead and sees if men will believe in him, and on the basis of man's choice, God chooses, this question would never come up. If Paul intends to say that, there would be no place for questions of God's justice. This question indicates that the doctrine of election places the choice with God and God alone.

What is Paul's answer to the question, is God unrighteous? "God forbid", or may it never be --whenever that phrase is used in Romans, it always means that is a false conclusion based upon a correct premise. The premise is, God has chosen some for salvation and that choice rests solely upon his will and purpose. The conclusion is, that's not fair, that is not just. Paul says, "God forbid." That is a false conclusion, though the premise is correct. God is just! The Scripture clearly tells us that God is just.

Genesis 18:25 (NKJV) "Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

Psalms 119:137 (NKJV) Righteous are You, O LORD, And upright are Your judgments.

Psalms 119:142 (NKJV) Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, And Your law is truth.

Malachi 3:6 (NKJV) "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.

Whatever God does is absolutely just and righteous, for this very reason, because He does it.

Why is it that God's choosing certain men to salvation is not unjust? Paul gives a principle in a quotation from the Old Testament. Paul doesn't launch out into a great legal debate here, he simply quotes the Old Testament. The Jews would have trouble arguing with their own Scripture.

Romans 9:15 (NKJV) For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."

This is a quotation from Exodus 33:19. Moses is up on the mountain getting the 10 commandments from God. The children of Israel have just built a golden calf. Because of their idolatry, they all deserved to be destroyed. What happened? God destroyed 3,000 of them and left the rest alive, when they all deserved to be destroyed.

God says, "the principle upon which I work is this, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." That is a formal declaration of divine prerogative. Election is based upon the mercy of God. For God to choose some for salvation is for God to show mercy to those individuals. God is free to show mercy to whom he will. God showed that mercy to Israel, that's why they weren't destroyed as a nation.

God is sovereign in the exercise of his mercy. Mercy is not a right to which man is entitled. Mercy is that attribute of God by which He pities and relieves the wretched. The objects of mercy then, are those who are miserable and all misery is the result of sin, hence the miserable are deserving of punishment, not mercy. To speak of deserving mercy is a contradiction of terms. God gives mercy to whom he pleases and withholds mercy as it seems good to himself.

John 5:1-9 (NKJV) After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches. 3 In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had. 5 Now a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, "Do you want to be made well?" 7 The sick man answered Him, "Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; but while I am coming, another steps down before me." 8 Jesus said to him, "Rise, take up your bed and walk." 9 And immediately the man was made well, took up his bed, and walked. And that day was the Sabbath.

There was a great multitude of sick people and Jesus healed a certain man, one man. This is a case of the sovereign exercise of divine mercy. It would have been just as easy for Christ to have healed the great multitude as it was for him to heal the one man, but he didn't. Why? He chose not to.

Since all of us are sinners, and we all deserve hell, none of us can claim the right to mercy. Therefore, none of us is wronged if mercy is withheld, right? So it is not unrighteous for God to choose to be merciful to some.

Romans 9:16 (NKJV) So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

"So then" -- election does not depend on the will of man! Paul didn't believe in the free will of man as regarding election, and neither did John.

John 1:13 (NKJV) who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

We are not born again because of a decision of our will. Jesus makes this clear, God must draw us.

John 6:44 (NKJV) "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

God's mercy is based upon God's will, it rests in God's choice. God has chosen to show mercy to some and give justice to others. This is based on his sovereign choice alone.

We look at the metaphor differently, I suppose.

This thread is giving me a headache.

quote:

---

We look at the metaphor differently, I suppose.

---

You know, I really ought to just make that my signature. It'd probably save pages and pages of typing.

quote:

---

No, you're right, he didn't say that, and I'm not trying to claim that he did. I'm saying that the "prescience" argument that he describes is, to my knowledge, not held by any modern systematic theology. Prescience of good works, in the sense that Catholics and Arminians use the term, is Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism. I'm afraid that people listening to the broadcast may falsely ascribe Sproul's description of prescience, which sounds like Pelagianism, to Catholics and Arminians. It seems fair to say that if one said "the prescient view, in which God foresees good works," and implied that was the position held by Catholics and Arminians, both groups would say "whoa, wait a minute!" Certainly, I'm not challenging either Sproul's integrity or competence, just that he isn't being especially clear about what it is that his opponents believe.

---

I listened to it again. Sproul no where defines a view of Prescience where God looks down the corridors of time to see a choosing of God or a cooperation with God that is considered a ”good work” . I believe you are importing that in, because your RC view of justification is so tied to the whole of a persons life, where as it is the coming to Christ that the Protestant finds a moment of the application of atonement, and therefore a permanent justification. You are trying to factor works into the equation somewhere, and Sproul is by no means going down that road.

quote:

---

It would be one thing if it were cooperation in the sense that someone takes an independent action to assist. But this is a metaphysical nullity, a non-action. It is exactly the same case as I described above; no one in his right mind would say that the child is lifting himself. It's an extremely simple concept: you can't boast for not doing anything. Our opinions differ drastically on what Scripture calls works and the implications of that definitions, so it's pretty fruitless to discuss them except to say that I perceive myself as having a reasonable interpretation that differs from yours. I will say that I know of no Catholic theologian that calls Catholic doctrine semi-Pelagian, and in fact, you may recall that we were the Church that condemned semi-Pelagianism as heresy.

---

Let’s say your neighbor becomes Roman Catholic just like you. You are both given equal amounts of grace. You cooperate with God’s grace, he does not, You go to heaven, He goes to hell. What was it about you that was more special than him?.. What inside of you was better than him? Certainly you have something to boast about. You apparently cooperated better than He did.

quote:

---

Not at all. I trust God to help me in this matter, and to assist me in turning toward Him.

---

Is that what makes you better than the neighbor who perished?… That you make the good decision of trusting, or that you have more will power to trust that he did?

quote:

---

If I had no doubt, I could hardly "work out my salvation with fear and trembling," and indeed, it is only by poignant awareness of exactly how worthless one is that one can find the humility of true submission. Those doubts, those wrongs, those sins you describe only remind me how insignificant I truly am, and how only God can make a worthwhile project of me. It is this awareness above all which causes someone to cry out "Abba, Father!" It is why the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

---

Physics: The bible says we are simply given a spirit that cries out “Abba Father”, not an awareness of our unworthiness. It’s kind of like one of those, you’d know it if you had it kind of things.

quote:

---

And yes, I do pray I will have the chance to stand before a righteous God some day, cleansed of my sins through the power of Christ and made a partaker of the divine nature. But that day is not yet, and I have not become what I would be on that day.

---

Oh, you will stand before him some day. Would you thank Him that you were not like the imaginary Roman Catholic neighbor that perished? After all, it’s His grace that made you that way, right?

quote:

---

Good catch, and I agree with the way that you've stated it. My point is that God does not consider anything of the nature of the people who He chooses to save in Sproul's view. That is the core of our disagreement; I believe that He does.

---

So what kind of nature do you believe makes one more choosable to save?

quote:

---

It doesn't seem arbitrary; it is arbitrary. If you pick people for no reason within the people, that is the dictionary definition of arbitrary. If you're saying that it's God prerogative to be arbitrary, I won't disagree, but there is no way that any human being would view that as good or just. That's why "arbitrary" is a pejorative term used for tyrants like Stalin. Our choice is either God selects for a reason or God selects for no reason. I'll go with the reason every day and twice on Sundays.

---

No it’s not, arbitrariness would be if God chose them for no reason at all. He Chooses them according to HIS purposes. It is Not therefore arbitrary, but because there was nothing in them that would make Him choose them.

quote:

---

Nor will I commit the error of Paul's audience in Romans, which was subtle. Paul's questioner first responds to the idea that God selects not only from the Jews, but also the Gentiles, and that not all Jews are truly of Israel. They accuse God of unrighteousness in this selection, but Paul chastises them, noting that it is God's choice as to who receives mercy from Him, and whom He will harden in their misdeeds.

---

He does not say harden for their misdeeds, and He is specifically talking of the election of one person over another in the specific context there… It seemed like you were trying to apply it only to the larger context of the argument.

quote:

---

Then Paul's questioner commits the error in *response* to the statement that God has the power to harden hearts. He says "For who can resist His will?" Look at the implicit charge in this question: if you really wanted us to be good, you could have made us good. This is a disclaimer of responsibility, and Paul will have none of it.

---

God did harden Pharaoh and Pharaoh did harden himself… Luther does a great job with this.

http://www.covenanter.org/Luther/Bondage/bowpt2.html

quote:

---

He then explains why God *tolerates* evil ("endured with patience" ), so that the greater glory will be demonstrated to those found worthy ("prepared unto glory" ).

---

The only one worthy in God’s eyes is Christ, and it’s only by his worthiness that we are saved.

quote:

---

Nowhere does Paul ever say that God elects the vessels of destruction or intendsoriginally for them to be destroyed; instead He is said to be enduring them. You don't endure something that you yourself want to happen, so clearly God's desire is not for these vessels to exist. But they are from the *same* lump; there is nothing that separates their nature other than the use to which they are put. They are either "prepared for glory" or "fitted to destruction." Like John Chrysostom, I think this makes most sense in light of free will, which dictates the use to which the vessels are put. The vessels of mercy, those who do not resist God, are prepared for glory; the stubborn and resistant are fitted for destruction. There is nothing unjust in this decision; not all vessels deserve to be saved just because they're all from the same lump.

---

The vessels of wrath, or destruction are prepared that way, they don’t become that way, or are not in the process of becoming vessels of destruction.. Otherwise Paul would have said so. There are wheat and tares, vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy, descendents of Adam, and descendents of Christ, sheep and goats, etc. There is never a becoming one or the other described in the scriptures, but only are or are not…

quote:

---

I listened to it again. Sproul no where defines a view of Prescience where God looks down the corridors of time to see a choosing of God or a cooperation with God that is considered a ”good work” .

---

Yes, but he makes no reference to grace, and so the view looks Pelagian (at about the 14th minute or so). It's as if God looks ahead to see who accepts Christ and rewards that decision or decides to bestow the grace of eternal life in response to that. At the very least, that's not the Catholic view of predestination. This may be a mountain over a molehill, but the distinctions are so fine here that I think it's worth being careful.

quote:

---

Let’s say your neighbor becomes Roman Catholic just like you. You are both given equal amounts of grace. You cooperate with God’s grace, he does not, You go to heaven, He goes to hell. What was it about you that was more special than him?.. What inside of you was better than him? Certainly you have something to boast about. You apparently cooperated better than He did.

---

No, not really. Cooperation, although it's an accurate technical term, may carry the wrong connotation. It is cooperation in the sense that two factors (free will and grace) operate together in their effect; neither is designed to reach its effect without the other. But it is not cooperation in the sense that free will is taking any positive action. Instead, it is refraining from an action that it could possibly take (defying grace). In other words, if I am saved, I haven't done anything better than anyone else; I have only refrained from taking a bad action within my power. As far as the cause of my neighbor doing worse things than I do, which drive out the Holy Spirit, the particular cause is mysterious, but we know only that God does not cause it, that it comes from within.

quote:

---

Is that what makes you better than the neighbor who perished?… That you make the good decision of trusting, or that you have more will power to trust that he did?

---

No, the trust comes from God. It's just that if you are bound and determined to kick at the goads, you can succeed.

quote:

---

Physics: The bible says we are simply given a spirit that cries out “Abba Father”, not an awareness of our unworthiness. It’s kind of like one of those, you’d know it if you had it kind of things.

---

Yes, yes, and presumably God works with you in some way. I understand that it might be a foreign concept to you that God can work in ways other than annihilating your existing personality, but I assure you He does.

quote:

---

Oh, you will stand before him some day. Would you thank Him that you were not like the imaginary Roman Catholic neighbor that perished? After all, it’s His grace that made you that way, right?

---

I would thank Him for doing His best to save us, all of us. That's what I believe He does.

quote:

---

So what kind of nature do you believe makes one more choosable to save?

---

No one really knows. That's the real mystery of the whole thing.

Gotta go, wife need the computer, so I'll respond to Luther with my sig.




----------------------------------------
"...people are impossible to understand, like irrational numbers. Each time we think we've got each other pegged we see a new stretch going on ahead."
-- Gone, Helena Echlin

Big.Cat-93
posted 3:35p, 07/23/02
We look at the metaphor differently, I suppose.

Predestination is scriptural. Read Romans 8 and 9 I think. Quite clear. If you want to treat the bible like a loose leaf notebook and ignore these numerous passages, so be it.

quote:

---

No, not really. Cooperation, although it's an accurate technical term, may carry the wrong connotation. It is cooperation in the sense that two factors (free will and grace) operate together in their effect; neither is designed to reach its effect without the other.

---

If I may interject just real quick into an interesting conversation. There do seem to be some specific areas of agreement and disagreement. One of these areas is what is referred to as synergism, which any Calvinist will flat reject as unbiblical given thier understand of what the fall entails among other reasons.

Some passages to consider are: Acts 7:51, Mark 16:20, Romans 8:28, 2 Corinthians 6:1, 1 Corinthians 3:9-- which are all discussed in this article presenting a pro-synergism view from several biblical passages: www.cin.org/users/james/files/cooperat.htm by a former Calvinist (James Akin) and now Roman Catholic.

[This message has been edited by WHOOO2P!! (edited 7/23/2002 10:25p).]

quote:

---

Yes, but he makes no reference to grace, and so the view looks Pelagian (at about the 14th minute or so). It's as if God looks ahead to see who accepts Christ and rewards that decision or decides to bestow the grace of eternal life in response to that. At the very least, that's not the Catholic view of predestination. This may be a mountain over a molehill, but the distinctions are so fine here that I think it's worth being careful.

---

Well, I think perhaps you should give him the benefit of the doubt here. I can steer you to some resources where he does accurately describe the Romish position if you like…

quote:

---

No, not really. Cooperation, although it's an accurate technical term, may carry the wrong connotation. It is cooperation in the sense that two factors (free will and grace) operate together in their effect; neither is designed to reach its effect without the other. But it is not cooperation in the sense that free will is taking any positive action. Instead, it is refraining from an action that it could possibly take (defying grace). In other words, if I am saved, I haven't done anything better than anyone else; I have only refrained from taking a bad action within my power. As far as the cause of my neighbor doing worse things than I do, which drive out the Holy Spirit, the particular cause is mysterious, but we know only that God does not cause it, that it comes from within.

---

So you are saying that since you make the cooperation such a little thing such as refraining from things that would make it fall away that has resolved your problem? Sorry but you still have a problem. In the end your salvation is contingent to some degree upon yourself. You didn’t take the negative actions, yet your neighbor did… That means that there is something special that is in you, and yet was not in him… No way around it… This model has boasting room, over the neighbor… Glory be to you who has not kicked against the goads as your neighbor did…

quote:

---

No, the trust comes from God. It's just that if you are bound and determined to kick at the goads, you can succeed.

---

Well, I’m sure you are better than that… You will not kick like the neighbor did…I’m sure you have that extra bit of smarts, or personal piety or good guyness in you or whatever it is that will mean that you will make it were others won’t…

quote:

---

Yes, yes, and presumably God works with you in some way. I understand that it might be a foreign concept to you that God can work in ways other than annihilating your existing personality, but I assure you He does.

---

Woah nelly, Now look who has built the straw man…. Perhaps you don’t remember, but I posted to you more than one post a while back detailing objects that attract, and repel, and lambs and hay, and lions and meat, etc, detailing how God could be sovereign and man could be responsible. And in fact in the Link that Luther wrote in the message above, he goes over the same thing, yet you try to say that the reformed position believes that the will is annihilated? Hmmm…Does this kind of thing from you take away from your treasury of merit, or is it too small a sin, and who decides that?

quote:

---

I would thank Him for doing His best to save us, all of us. That's what I believe He does.

---

Well, you should thank him that he didn’t make you like that sinner neighbor that didn’t have what it takes like you do.

quote:

---

No one really knows. That's the real mystery of the whole thing.

---

Well, since you are so ardent in insisting on the fact that it must be something in the person, certainly you have got to have some kind of general idea, a nice guy, a good decision maker, a good cooperator, a bad guy, a really bad guy, a useful guy. I mean, what’s the sense of insisting on the fact that God selects people based on something in their nature that makes them more choosable, if you then insist that there is no way to know what it is? Why can’t it be strictly according to God’s purposes in creation for His own glory like the bible teaches instead?

Whoo2p!


I started to read some of it, but the forward (which is supposedly his whole document is based on) was wrong, so I thought I’d post it, instead of reading the rest right now…

quote:

---

Calvinists are often horrified when they hear of Catholics talking about resisting grace or cooperating with God. However, the fact is that the Bible uses this language, meaning that Calvinists cannot criticize it without criticizing the language of Scripture.

---

The fact is that Calvinists are NOT horrified to hear Romish people talking about resisting grace, or cooperating with God… Sanctification (a word that the Romish often replace with Justification, and rarely use) IS a cooperation with God, and sinning or backsliding (as our Baptist brethren like to call it) is resisting God’s grace. Why should I read a document that starts our from the get go with this kind of gross misrepresentation, and a false footing?

Big Cat

quote:

---

This thread is giving me a headache.

---

hang in there! it get's better!

GH,

No offense, but what in the world makes you think Akin's had a calvinist understanding of santification in mind in that bit you decided to paste that? You read too far into it. Look at the point where Akin's focuses on in regards to a calvinist's area of concern.

To state from the 3rd paragraph:

quote:

---

The thing Calvinists are concerned about -- the concept that there is a motion of God's grace which is infallibly fruitful in bringing about the repentance and salvation of a sinner

---

So much for that.

quote:

---

No offense, but what in the world makes you think Akin's had a calvinist understanding of santification in mind in that bit you decided to paste that? You read too far into it. Look at the point where Akin's focuses on in regards to a calvinist's area of concern.

---

None taken. Every passage he uses is God dealing with believers. People in covenant relationship with Him. Do you believe that God sanctifies anyone any other way? He tries to get tricky and argue verses that are always in the context of God in covenant relationship, and yet he wishes to hold that up against the Calvinist’s arguments against those outside of the covenant relationship…


[This message has been edited by Greatheart (edited 7/24/2002 12:36a).]

A longer reply is forthcoming when I have more time to sit down and type it out. I want to do some research real fast as well. A large part of the disagreement in the use of the passage is what you noted earlier in the Catholic usage of justification in what you label as santification.

But that aside, in a brief reply to your post: The Jews Stephen preaches to are not in such a relationship. He calls uses Old Testament metaphors in calling them unregenerate (Ex 32:9; 33:3,5;-- Deut. 9:6; 10:16; 30:6;-- Jer. 4:4)

[This message has been edited by WHOOO2P!! (edited 7/24/2002 2:56a).]

The CPA wrote:

quote:

---

Predestination is scriptural. Read Romans 8 and 9 I think. Quite clear. If you want to treat the bible like a loose leaf notebook and ignore these numerous passages, so be it.

---

I don't think the discussion is attempting to refute predestination. Predestination is a Scriptural fact...it appears in the Bible four (4) times. The discussion is over mechanics and how it seems to conflict with Free Will..which personally, I don't think it does..

End of interference......no more.

David

I think it all comes down to this issue; both A&O and yourself have come down to it.

quote:

---

Well, since you are so ardent in insisting on the fact that it must be something in the person, certainly you have got to have some kind of general idea, a nice guy, a good decision maker, a good cooperator, a bad guy, a really bad guy, a useful guy. I mean, what’s the sense of insisting on the fact that God selects people based on something in their nature that makes them more choosable, if you then insist that there is no way to know what it is? Why can’t it be strictly according to God’s purposes in creation for His own glory like the bible teaches instead?

---

The problem with your reasoning here is that you're completely hung up on deterministic reasoning. There is no flaw in the will that *necessarily* leads to error; that's what free will is. If a being has free will, that being's choices are not completely dictated by nature. That's what freedom is. If you want me to explain how God creates free will, you're on your own. That's the mysterious part. But what separates one from another is nothing more than a possible range of undetermined choices (in the metaphysical sense; the actual choice made is determined by God).

There must be an asymmetric relationship between good and evil for God not to be the author of evil. Luther tried to get around it with the nature argument, but when people call him on the apparent logical flaw (why would a perfect God use "wicked seeds" or "corrupt wood"?), he hides from the question. He is therefore deliberately illogical, deliberately avoids the question, as was Augustine. Well, our alternatives are either that God obscures the truth deliberately, so that we are not to investigate even the most apparent theological problem even though our reason provides us a guide, or Luther and Augustine made a mistake. Pardon me if I opt for the latter.
It's truly unfortunate that you are willing to discard your God-given rational faculties on the say-so of somebody else, but thank God, I don't have to do that.