| Poster | Thread | Svineklev
Member
Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74
| | Re: | | Ron--
Though I believe we should declare our independence from creeds and check everything against Scripture (as the Bereans), I find a total rejection of creedalism to be a foolish enterprise. If you out-and-out reject Calvinism and Arminianism and Dispensationalism and Thomism and Cassianism and What-not-ism, all you are left with is "Ron"ism (and not a purer biblicism). Interact with the creeds with respect. These are the work of that great cloud of witnesses who have gone before us. Dismiss them at your peril.
Is there really a need for a detailed definition of the will? Is it really anything more than whatever intellectual or spiritual faculties allow us to make decisions under own own power? You clearly have decision-making capabilities. When I say you have a will, that's all I'm saying. So, like it or not, in my mind, you have a will. Get used to it.
Discovering whether the will is bound or not is a more productive endeavor (and in the process I think we can at least clarify parameters of the will). For example, I have some difficulty with Jonathan Edwards' depiction of the will as bound to its greatest desire. (Evidently, if we choose to go against a particular "strongest desire," we our motivated by an even stronger desire to prove our independence.) For him this is true of the regenerate will, as well. I don't specifically why, but I don't buy this kind of determinism. Yes, I understand that in many senses one would still be "free" (since you are not required, indeed are unable to, choose against your own will). But, to me (intuitively), the will is more complex than that...and freer.
As I said before, to me the question we have been dealing with (concerning the Doctrines of Grace) has more to do with the spiritual inability of the unregenerate, rather than any lack of "freeness."
Happy Nativity!
--Eric |
|  2004/12/24 14:34 | Profile | KeithLaMothe
Member
Joined: 2004/3/28
Posts: 354
| | Re: | | Quote:
Svineklev wrote:
So, like it or not, in my mind, you have a will. Get used to it.
Do we have to, or do we have free will in the matter? :-)
Quote:
Discovering whether the will is bound or not is a more productive endeavor (and in the process I think we can at least clarify parameters of the will).
Indeed, and I think the question is not so much [b]whether[/b] the will is bound, but rather [b]which[/b] way it is bound. When we say "free" will, do we mean to imply that it is completely and perfectly unbound? If anyone would like to make that case, I'd like to hear it, but I expect that we'll be able to agree that we are referring to a (possibly large) degree of freedom, rather than any kind of absolute autonomy.
Quote:
For example, I have some difficulty with Jonathan Edwards' depiction of the will as bound to its greatest desire. (Evidently, if we choose to go against a particular "strongest desire," we our motivated by an even stronger desire to prove our independence.) For him this is true of the regenerate will, as well. I don't specifically why, but I don't buy this kind of determinism.
I remember that, some time ago, you objected to my using "determinism" to describe the Calvinist/Reformed view of reality, though the (largely forgotten) context might be important. Is it Edwards's "kind" of determinism that you object to? Is there a kind you don't mind? As I've mentioned, the Westminster Standards make it pretty cut and dried: "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." (WCF III. I.) Is this one of your points of disagreement with that confession? Or do you see a semantic difference between that and determinism (and I should note, I'm not using that term in the pejorative or incompatibilist sense)?
Quote:
As I said before, to me the question we have been dealing with (concerning the Doctrines of Grace) has more to do with the spiritual inability of the unregenerate, rather than any lack of "freeness."
I think I'm agreeing when I rephrase myself: the unregenerate is free to choose according to his desire, but his desires are bound by his spiritual inability (being spiritually dead).
And a very merry celebration of Christ and His incarnation to y'all :-)
-Keith |
| | 2004/12/24 14:50 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
Calvinists would say something quite similar, he can indeed respond to God's grace when it appears. We just say that this happens through the agency of the Spirit. We are drawn; we are regenerated; we are justified. It is the work of the Spirit and not of our own gentle will or intellectual brilliance. We do not believe the earthly man is "wired" in such a way as to be unable to respond, but that he is dead to Spiritual things and must be regenerated before he can respond.
I would agree with Finney on his categorization of sinners:
1) Careless Sinners
2) Awakened Sinners
3) Convicted Sinners
Careless sinners 'care-less' about their soul. They have pressed God into the back of their minds and quenched their conscience until it must be awakened. They metaphorically are wilted in need of both the light of God's word and the water of the Holy Spirit. When the grace of God appears that brings salvation, they will have the necessary means of responding rightly.
Awakened Sinners have been made to realize they have a need to at least consider their soul's estate. This could be in response to preaching or a disaster or anything that will get their attention.
Convicted Sinners are those who are under genuine Holy Ghost conviction- being compelled and enabled by the Holy Spirit to turn to Christ. They are being 'turned' in this condition and are 'striving' with the Holy Spirit. It is at this point that Finney would press upon the sinner (compel them) to repent. If they would not repent he would probe to flush out the cause or source of their resistance. The sinner was left to know exactly what they were trading their soul for when it was all said and done.
Quote:
Many beliefs have commingled with or been derived from the Reformed /Presbyterian branch of the church, including Finneyitism and Dispensationalism, but these all diverge from actual Reformed doctrine.
As the Jew's say; ask two Rabbi's and get three opinions.
Quote:
I could possibly go along with you as regards Ephesians 1 (looking ahead to 2:11) but Romans 8 has no such context.
Romans 9-11 deal with the Jews in particular. Actually the thought's continue (therefor) into Romans 12. Election is in Christ because He is the ELECT of God. The particular individual's election into Christ is a simple Gospel message as given by Wesley; "I believe election to be conditional, as well as the reprobation opposite thereto. I believe the eternal decree concerning both is expressed in those words, He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not, shall be damned. And this decree without doubt God will not change, and man cannot resist,"
Quote:
It is not intended to take away from the notion of the Freedom of the Will, but to establish the absolute Sovereignty of God.
I have no problem with and emphasis on God's sovereignty so long as we understand that God does not reveal himself as a tyrranical sovereign but as a Omnipotent God of love. The strict hyper FPC might say; "If God wants to damn a soul that's His perogative"- my reply would be "If God wants to save a soul it's His perogative." One is an emphasis on sovereignty unto a hellenistic pagan construct; the other is one of God's love and mercy over all humanity to whosoever will as revealed in scripture as opposed to Greek mythology.
Quote:
That leaves Soli Deo Gloria. And whereas we may differ on the interpretation of this Latin phrase, few Christians are going to say they don't want all glory to go to God.
I do not believe that God wants the glory for the fall of man. I do not believe God wants the glory for all my sin. Why, because there is no glory in these things. Nor does God want the 'credit' or 'blame' (if you please) in order to demonstrate His absolute sovereignty .
When I first taught soteriology years ago to my class I came to the point with which you now speak. In order for God to get "all the glory- must He have done every action start to finish?" I answered the question by asking; "If someone took a meal to a starving man in Africa and he ate it- does he deserve the 'credit' for saving the man's life?" Will the man give thanks to him? Surely he would. Or, would we say that he does not get all the thanks unless he chews and swallows the meal for him? It is nonsense to suggest that unless God 'chews' and 'swallows' the free gift of salvation that God does not deserve the glory. That is where the whole topic goes off the rails and we end up blaming God for everything. It is God's grace alone that we are saved. 'Only the scriptures' are the final authority for life and doctrine. To God be the glory alone for all of his marvelous works. In Christ alone is salvation. And by faith alone are we saved- for the just shall live by faith. Not just assent of the mind, but a verifiable trust in God authenticated by a right response to the revelation of God.
God Bless,
-Robert
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2004/12/24 15:12 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
Very sobering, Brother, thank you for the reminder. I don't see anything in there to disagree with, so you're probably not talking to me
Just my general position thats all.
God Bless,
-Robert
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2004/12/24 15:15 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
If you out-and-out reject Calvinism and Arminianism and Dispensationalism and Thomism and Cassianism and What-not-ism, all you are left with is "Ron"ism (and not a purer biblicism). Interact with the creeds with respect. These are the work of that great cloud of witnesses who have gone before us. Dismiss them at your peril.
I hope Bro. Ron does not mind me here; He does not reject these men who devised them 'out of hand' and has rebuked me for doing so in the past. Some of our sharpest exchanges have been when I did just that. ;-) BTW, Adam Clarke is one of my favorite commentators. :-)
God Bless,
-Robert
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2004/12/24 15:24 | Profile | ZekeO
Member
Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
| | Re: I thought it was biblicism? | | Quote:
Svineklev wrote:
If you out-and-out reject Calvinism and Arminianism and Dispensationalism and Thomism and Cassianism and What-not-ism, all you are left with is "Ron"ism (and not a purer biblicism).
To clasify any biblical truth within the genre of the above mentioned smacks of what Paul talks of in 1 Cor 3. The goal of any truth is the revelation of Christ in his fullness. I personly would never put myself into any of these categories, but I would class myself as a bible believer. And the bible has the truths contained in the great calvinism/arminianism debate. God never tries in his word to reconcile them, because they are both held together in the wisdom that he has.
I would rather say I believe such and such from the word and not package the truth into creeds and definitions would lead to intelectual stalemates in our understanding of them. If someone believes half of calvinism, does that make him a calvinist? I see that the problem in these is that we make it something that is external to the word and not the word itself, which is truth. Surely our mantra should be, is that the bible says this, this is the word and leave the absolute applcations of that word to the one who wrote it. Lets keep people free in regard to such things.
_________________
Zeke Oosthuis
|
| | 2004/12/24 15:24 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
I see that the problem in these is that we make it something that is external to the word and not the word itself, which is truth. Surely our mantra should be, is that the bible says this, this is the word and leave the absolute applcations of that word to the one who wrote it. Lets keep people free in regard to such things.
Good point ZekeO!
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2004/12/24 15:25 | Profile | Svineklev
Member
Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74
| | Re: | | Keith--
Well, well, well
is the will involved in regeneration? We'd have to nail down the parameters of regeneration. I doubt the actualities are as clear-cut as anyone's ordo salutis. Is any part of it a process? Or is the process only properly called conversion? I tend to conflate the two to some extent. Given that, then yes, the will is involved, but mostly passively
in being drawn, persuaded. But look, if I took you to a beach and tried to convince you of the existence of the ocean, I wouldn't need to be coercive and you wouldn't need to rationalize too proactively.
The ever-unregenerate are dead and will never be able to respond. The elect who are as yet unregenerated, will be brought to life and then show the signs of that life. (I'm not sure if there is any name given to the providential protection of the elect while they are still unregenerate.)
I think actual inabilities cannot be considered "wired," whereas restrictions can. It would be wrong to say you are programmed to be flightless (no wings!), but if born with a congenital defect making you crippled, we could say you were "wired" not to walk.
The regenerate will always cease resistance (whether one is talking justification or sanctification). The unregenerate can resist to greater and lesser degrees the common grace they are given.
No, the regenerate cannot apostasize (apparent believers can).
Such inevitability does not imply that there is nothing to be done, merely that one will do it. If we are called to climb a mountain and assured we will get to the summit, we still have to climb (it may require extremely intense work
and our success is conditional upon our doing it
but the point is moot because we WILL do it.)
Give me a break, Keith: Arminians don't KNOW they are saved anymore than anyone else!
When we speak of the past we can say, "She KNEW that what she was doing would be successful" only if she actually proved successful (otherwise we would say "she THOUGHT she would succeed.") Arminians believe regeneration to be FEELABLE (or otherwise subjectively / spiritually experienced) and knowable in that sense.
In a similar way, Calvinists believe it to be MOSTLY KNOWABLE, based on their subjective experience PLUS the Sovereignty and Fealty of God. They know--that is, they believe--they will persevere. And with confidence they work toward that end. Arminians can only work, pray, and hope for the best.
The "Eternal Security folk" are in most ways identical to Calvinists on this (and John MacArthur would not take well to your calling him an antinomian
I would say the majority of Dispensationalists are not antinomian, but I have no study to cite).
You're being too literal with 1 John 3:15. His point in this passage is that we should love one another. If we don't love we cannot say that we are part of the kingdom. Matthew 5:22 is similar to this: anger or hate toward one's brother is equated with murder. That doesn't mean that just because I'm A-N-G-R-Y with you right now, I'm headed for hell. (Besides, my anger will dissipate the moment you show proper respect and agree with me!)
BTW, one cannot be RE-regenerated (there's no need). Like physical birth, regeneration is a one-time event. David never lost his salvation. (Look at God's intense interaction with him throughout the whole process if you truly believe otherwise.)
Good point about the possibility of one's theology being consistent (or inconsistent) with Soli Deo Gloria.
(I hinted at this in my post, but didn't state it directly: SDG could be used in part for a defense of Calvinism. But then we would really only be talking about interpretation not the "letter" of the sola. There are those who do this with Sola Fide, but their point is that Arminianism is neither genuinely Protestant nor orthodox nor biblical.)
I gotta go buy presents!
--Eric
|
| | 2004/12/24 16:27 | Profile | Svineklev
Member
Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74
| | Re: | | Keith--
My point was that (to the extent to which I understand him) Edwards comes too close to hyper-Calvinism in his concept of the will. (In other words, I think he is contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith.)
On the other hand, I'm sure I'm missing something. I was throwing it out there in case anyone knew how to reconcile his teachings with compatibilism.
--Eric |
| | 2004/12/24 16:39 | Profile | Svineklev
Member
Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74
| | Re: | | Robert--
If someone takes a meal to a town in Africa, and a starving man walks 20 miles from his home village into town, takes the meal and eats it--who deserves the 'credit' for saving the man's life?
--Eric |
| | 2004/12/24 16:48 | Profile |
|
