Comments on: Another Response from Richard Mouw

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 11 May 2005 22:25:42 +0000

Victor,
Good man. Often times people overlook the tempt/test in James.
Not only that, but Timbo your syllogism is completely mistaken. Because God creates 2 to bring about 3 does not make 1 the author of 3 as the secondary cause.
Dustin…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 11 May 2005 22:06:57 +0000

I think there is a misunderstanding/confusion about this issue of God "tempting." Scripture is clear that God does not tempt, just as Timbo pointed out in James 1:13. But we find in that same chapter of James that we are given many kinds of trials that tests our faith. Such trials are ordained by God for our good, and those trials include temptation by secondary means, but be it far from us to say that God is tempting us. The secondary means have the intent to tempt, but God has the intent to test.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 11 May 2005 21:01:01 +0000

Holy fecal matter, Batman! I don't want to get sucked into this debate too much, but I have chosen/am determined to point out a flaw I see in the following:
Dustin wrote: “God uses a secondary means to tempt. Thus, whatever that secondary means is is the thing tempting, not God.”
For the sake of simplification:
G=God
S=Secondary means
T=The thing doing the tempting
(1) G uses S (from Dustin's first sentence)
(2) S=T (from Dustin's second sentence)
(3) If G uses S and S=T, then G uses T (from 1 and 2)
Suppose I am tempted to look at porn. In other words, porn is tempting me. It thus satisfies the conditions for T (i.e., it is the thing doing the tempting). Given (3), God thus uses porn, which tempts me. This is clearly mistaken though, for if God uses porn, even as a secondary means, then God is tempting me, which is contrary to what the Bible declares in James 1:13.
Soli Deo Gloria

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 11 May 2005 19:46:48 +0000

I had a feeling this would be your reaction. You cannot define what you assert.
You say:
Of course. So what do you take yourself to be doing? Persuading me?
You say:
No, you can't budge me an inch.
You are right. Only God can in my position. In yours though, God is reactionary to the creature.
No, I don't. When did I ever insinuate such a thing? I'm called to proclaim what I know is truth, according to Scripture. That's what I do.
You say:
You assume by “free” I mean radically autonomous, uninfluenced, etc.
It's not my assumption, it is the reality. Either God determines or man does. Where is the middle ground? Either God determined actively, or He foresaw what man would do autonomously. Where is the middle ground? The fact that you don't like this and scream about it doesn't make your position any stronger.
You say:
And so, we arrive where I said me would: at incommensurable starting points.
We didn't “arrive” here. This is where we always were. It is only being brought out into the open. I'm sure glad that God foresaw our “free will” actions, and then out of a reaction, allowed this to happen, right? 😉
You say:
Your position is one of hyper-determinism.
Straw man. My position is Biblical, not “hyper-determinism.” Because you hold to sovereign grace (well, according to you) does that make you a Calvinist? Can all the stigmas of Calvinism be attributed to you Micah? Of course not.
You say:
It appears that we choose,…
Micah, what do you mean by this? Explain yourself. Define to its conclusion what it means to choose? Think about it for a moment. A choice is nothing more than the manifestation of a series of events, i.e. a first cause (God), a series of events, the process within us of emotion, bias, judgment, resolve, etc that was caused by God. So a “choice” is???
You say:
…it appears that Jesus urges Thomas to stop doubting,…
Really? Let's look at the text:
27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
Where does he “urge” Thomas to not doubt? In fact, there is the command, “Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Where is the “urging” there?
You say:
…but these are false appearances…
No, just a false premise on your part. Thus, a false conclusion.
You say:
All our admonitions to our children, all our preaching, a facade, a “just kidding!”
This is the same kind of emotive language used by people who are angry that God is sovereign. Micah, why resort to this? Who counsels God? Who does God confer with to decree His plans? Can God determine/decree something to happen, and yet still hold what is determined morally culpable? Are you going to be so bold and arrogant as to say, no, He cannot? Why is it so hard to believe that God determines all that was, is, and will be, creates the secondary means to bring about His plan, and holds His own creation morally culpable for the ends to which He created them? Why is that hard to swallow? Because it isn't “fair” huh?
You say as a hypothetical:
“Pastor, I'm tempted to commit adultery,”
“Adultery is a sin! Are you in any sort of accountability with a strong Christian man? Are you in the word? Are you involved in pornography? If you are, repent and turn to Christ by His Spirit.” In other words Micah, do what the word says to do in that situation. And yes, trust that God has decreed the footsteps of that man. His decree doesn't negate responsibility. Why? God says so.
You say:
Don't blame me for being wrong,…
When did I blame you?
You say:
…remember, it's not my fault…
God forgives and holds responsible Micah, not me. I only stay faithful to His word, and that by His Spirit.
You say:
God may still blame me,…
Indeed!
You say:
…but you should not…
I never said that I did.
You say:
…(though, I guess, you can't help it either,…
Can't help what?
You say:
…because God decreed it, just as He decreed everything else…
Decreed what? Yes, He decrees everything.
You say:
I guess He does tempt us.
No Micah. God uses a secondary means to tempt. Thus, whatever that secondary means is is the thing tempting, not God.
You say:
But wait, “tempting” has no meaning, b/c it too implies a choice).
No, tempting does have meaning. Temptation causes a manifestation of what is within. In other words, if I am tempted and I sin, then what is inside of me is made manifest. And after all, we are defiled by what comes out, not what goes in, right? Temptation is God's gorgeous invisible creation that CAUSES natures to be revealed, false children to be identified, sanctification to occur, ad infinitum. For you to say that temptation has no meaning is just silly.
You say:
Evil too loses its meaning, or God becomes the author of it.
Why does evil lose its meaning? Explain that. I don't understand that at all. And why is the necessary conclusion of your illogical statement that God becomes the author of sin. That's 2 non sequiturs that have 0 substantiation.
You say:
Oh no! Now what? Now the resort will be to how mysterious God is and how we cannot access His higher ways.
The resort? Really? Is that going to be my position? Funny, those aren't my thoughts at all. God seems to be pretty clear on His sovereignty and majesty. While it is true that we cannot know all of God's ways, we can know what He has revealed. And He has revealed that He does things without counseling with the creation. He does as He wills.
You say:
We are crystal clear about how His sovereignty must mean we are marionettes on a string, but we harken back to a glass darkly when we try to understand what “temptation”, “evil”, and “responsibilty” mean in a completely determined world.
Who are you reading? Put those books down and pick up the Bible. 😉 (that was a joke by the way) I don't harken back to any glass. I simply say what Scripture says.
You say:
I'm done (though I'll with this post I predict I'll have exhausted your patience…
Well see, that's what you get for trying to play God again by predicting. You haven't exhausted my patience at all.
You say:
…and the announcment of my eternal damnation is likely forthcoming.
Where did this come from? That's just silly.
You say:
For better or worse, nothing I can do about it 😉 ). Thanks for the interaction.
Of course. I am thankful to God and His sovereign grace for our interaction. He uses all means to mold His children according to His decrees.
Dustin…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 11 May 2005 19:45:44 +0000

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 11 May 2005 18:57:57 +0000

Of course. So what do you take yourself to be doing? Persuading me? No, you can't budge me an inch. You assume by “free” I mean radically autonomous, uninfluenced, etc. Straw man (or, rather, straw wall). You cannot prove God has not authored free will. (proof of negation is rather difficult).
And so, we arrive where I said me would: at incommensurable starting points. Your position is one of hyper-determinism. You bring your principle to Scripture and not surprisingly find it everywhere. It appears that we choose, it appears that Jesus urges Thomas to stop doubting, but these are false appearances. All our admonitions to our children, all our preaching, a facade, a “just kidding!” You have been given the unique ability to see through these false appearances of “choice”, you can apparently see through the glass clearly. This may be the doctrine, but it is not how anyone lives
(how does one counsel given this truth, “Pastor, I'm tempted to commit adultery,” says the man. “God will either grant you grace to not commit adultery, or decree (i.e. make) you do it.” says the pastor. “Go and sin no more,” says Christ.)
Don't blame me for being wrong, remember, it's not my fault. God may still blame me, but you should not (though, I guess, you can't help it either, because God decreed it, just as He decreed everything else. I guess He does tempt us. But wait, “tempting” has no meaning, b/c it too implies a choice).
Evil too loses its meaning, or God becomes the author of it. Oh no! Now what? Now the resort will be to how mysterious God is and how we cannot access His higher ways. We are crystal clear about how His sovereignty must mean we are marionettes on a string, but we harken back to a glass darkly when we try to understand what “temptation”, “evil”, and “responsibilty” mean in a completely determined world.
I'm done (though I'll with this post I predict I'll have exhausted your patience and the announcment of my eternal damnation is likely forthcoming. For better or worse, nothing I can do about it 😉 ). Thanks for the interaction.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 11 May 2005 18:00:03 +0000

Micah,
I never said Scripture ONLY. Again, be careful about inserting what just isn't there. I asked you to use Scripture to prove your assertions. You attempted to on some things, but didn't on others. That's fine. I'll address these things.
You define “free will” as:
Free will is the ability to choose. You'll be exercising it in a moment when deciding on whether you should bother continuing this back-and-forth. 😉
Ok, so you say that “free will” is the “ability to choose.” Who gave us the ability to choose? Who fashioned that ability intricately according to His plan?
Micah, if “free will” is our ability to choose, in what way is it “free?” You've yet to define that.
You then say that my “ability to choose” would be “exercised” in this very response. Your claim is that this ability to respond is my FREE will in action. I also deny this as unbiblical and concretely wrong. Is it your assertion that my responding is truly free? If so, free from what? Free from whom? Wasn't my DESIRE to respond to your words driven from logic, reason, emotion, bias, circumstances, a course of actions and reactions that all have an original Source? If so, then how is it that this response is “free?”
You are going to run into a brick wall momentarily.
You bring up some passages that at first glance seem to teach “free will.” However, they do not. For instance, you bring up Joshua and choosing:
“Choose you this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15
Where is “free will” in this verse? In what way were those who were going to choose “free?” You see, it's not there. You say, “Well, it's implied.” Really? Where?
Who are those who are going to choose? And are they choosing according to their natures? If so, who gave them their natures? Who fashions our days and footsteps before there were any of them (Ps. 139)? And as for him “and his house,” by what grace did they “serve the Lord?” You affirm that God grants grace apart from works, yes? If so, then those of Joshua's household served God according to sovereign grace, yes? If so, then isn't that sovereign grace the same grace that is either granted or withheld according to God's own good pleasure? You see, your “free will” assertion into the text falls apart. There's no “free will” taught there at all. In fact, they aren't taught in any of the Scriptures.
Satan does not have a “free will.” This claim of yours cannot be proven. Satan was created by God, through God, and for God (Rom. 11:36; Col. 1:15-16). If Satan was created to fall, then his fall was perfect. If Satan was created with the disposition to sin, then his sin was perfect. If God decreed that there be evil in this world so that His power, glory, and redemption would be made manifest, and He used secondary means to accomplish these things, then these things are perfect. This is the testimony of God's word, and it refutes yours. So, I claim according to Scripture that Satan fell because God decreed that He would fall, else God decreed in response, and out of reaction, to His creations “free will” behavior. That is borderline Open Theism, but most assuredly silly doctrine.
You say:
“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” We disagree about some of what counts as essential. God in His sovereignty has allowed this to be so.
No, God DECREED that this be so. You see, if God has exhaustive foreknowledge, if God does all things according to the counsel of His own will, if all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, if none can “stay His hand, or say to Him, 'What have you done,'” then I assert that all of this happens according to God's decree for the sake of His glory alone, and not out of any sort of response or reaction to mans supposed “free will.”
Dustin…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 11 May 2005 16:58:39 +0000

We agree, to some extent, on Eerdman's, though for different reasons.
As for using Scripture exclusively, please give me a Scripture telling me I can ONLY use Scripture (and one that makes sense of Paul's use of extra-biblical sources).
In other words, while I hold Scripture to be God's Word, I find nowhere in it the rule “all positions held by Christians must have an explicit source in Scripture.” As such, such a rule is self-defeating, because there is no explicit source (Scripture itself points outside itself “for the heavens declare the glory of God.” The Romans passage I quote below references our nature and conscience as giving us knowledge as well. The beginning of Romans states that all men know about God from what has been made). Moreover, you reference “logic”. I don't see the use of logic explicitly allowed for in Scripture (and I'm not being illogical, if you're correct about me, I'm mistaken in one of my premises. My mistake derives from a mistaken view of the atonement. One can be completely logical and still be wrong).
To answer one question, I don't believe the fractured imago dei is anything that merits God saving us. We don't deserve it, it's purely grace. We don't have a claim on God. We deserve to go to Hell.
Satan's free will . . . I brought it up in light of the truth that God cannot tempt anyone. If Satan was merely a tool in God's hand, a sort of puppet in the garden, than does it not follow that God tempted Eve? That's the tension I was getting at.
What is free will? (quite an ambitious question!)
“Choose you this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15
“Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” John 20:27
Both these injunctions imply that the person[s] addressed could do otherwise.
Free will is the ability to choose. You'll be exercising it in a moment when deciding on whether you should bother continuing this back-and-forth. 😉
The power we are equipped with is a power to discern, albeit incompletely and always imperfectly, the good, and the Good.
“God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any of us.” Acts 17:27-28
“(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, now accusing them, now even defending them.)” Romans 2:15-16.
What is this nature? Who wrote the law in the hearts of the unsaved Gentiles? Where does Scripture say that God broke out his meta-eraser?
I want to affirm that I believe that this power, broken as it is, is still from God. It is not ours, we can't take credit for it, but I do think there are many Scriptures that allude to it (including the countless OT references to the Jews being an example to the nations; how would their example mean anything unless they still had some notion of their sin and lack of communion with God?)
“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” We disagree about some of what counts as essential. God in His sovereignty has allowed this to be so. If I am mistaken I pray that He will lead me to truth and repentance. Blessings.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 11 May 2005 15:23:19 +0000

Micah,
You're right, we won't agree.
I believe that you have placed humanistic philosophy into the Bible. Your minimizing the Scriptural standard of the atonement is indeed your flaw in logic.
You've yet to explain what the “image” left within us is? What power does that equip us with Micah? Or, what worth does that place within us that causes a reaction on God's part to desire to sacrifice Himself for a rebellious people? (please use Scripture for your answers)
Where do you get that Satan has “free will?” And can you explain what “free will” is? (please use Scripture)
As far as Eerdmans goes, regardless of a soteriological position, we should regard it as a travesty nonetheless. Why? If we are Calvinistic (I hate that label) then we are repulsed by Eerdmans because they have placed a Mormon apologetic, without warning or refutation, on the shelves of Christian bookstores. This is an affront to Biblical responsibility. If we are Arminian then we are repulsed by Eerdmans because they have placed a Mormon apologetic, without warning or refutation, on the shelves of Chrsitian bookstores. This is an affront to Biblical responsibility. The difference is that the Arminian should be concerned about the souls that this might sway towards Mormonism, and be in an uproar. They should be at the local Christians bookstores boycotting, picketing, and doing everything that they can to warn the naive and unlearned Christians out there about the truth so that they have a better chance to accept God's universal offer of salvation. They should be working for this cause without ceasing.
Dustin…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 11 May 2005 15:05:36 +0000

Thanks for the response Dustin.
I linked to the essay you're talking about in my comment above. Having read the piece, I don't see anything in the context that changes the sentiment expressed in the quotation. Cheung says unbelievers are nothing more than fecal matter. “Nothing more.” Your contextualizing is about how this doesn't mean we are rude to them, which was not the thrust of my quoting the piece. And Cheung's sentiment makes sense given a belief in active double predestination. Why should we esteem those whom God hates and has predestined for everlasting destruction? (though, for one who believes this, it still seems that since one doesn't know ultimately who is or isn't foreordained for salvation, we should be careful in our assumptions about who is and isn't excrement).
One difference between us is I do not believe God has sovereignly decreed the complete effacing of His image in us. I think all men and women, saved or not, still bear God's stamp, even though it is fractured by the Fall. When we get to the root of this, we will discover that we differ on biblical first principles, and that these differences will be incommensurable.
At that point, it is likely you will think that I am placing man's wisdom above God's sovereignty, most likely as a result of my own sinful desires. I, on the other hand, tend to think that while you are mistaken, you are sincerely trying to understand Scripture as you read it, and as exposited by some key thinkers you admire. I do think there are some clear, shining lines that aren't up for grabs, but I also think there are some things that Christians in good faith can disagree about. Even we (if I might be so bold) still see through a glass darkly.
So where does our disagreement stem from? I'll get to this. I still think God's creation of the imago dei is found in all men and women. What good is it? It is certainly not salvific. But it is such that man is, even post-fall, just a little below the angels. It is such that even the Gentiles have a knowledge of the law and can obey it (Romans 2:14-15). (as a tangent I don't know how God could have decreed, i.e. commanded, the Fall given Scripture is clear that He cannot tempt anyone, or perhaps, as I think about it, Satan is the only being with free will).
I would even say men are valubale insofar as while we were sinners Jesus died for us, but there we'll differ because I believe that Jesus died for all of us, saved or not.
And here we get to the root I mentioned earlier. You believe that it is an insult to God's sovereignty to believe that man has an active role in God's plan (and you'll be joined by many here on that). I believe that God in His sovereigntly has allowed for man to have such a role, albeit infinitesimal when compared to His. He does the heavy lifting, but allows us an active, very small, part.
Arminian heresy! (can you tell I've had some converesations like this before?). But I ask, could God in his sovereignty not do this? Is that unbelievable that a God who would stoop to be born in a manure-filled stable would also stoop to allow for free will?

From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any of us. Acts 17:27-28

I know, I know. We won't solve this here, and no doubt I've completely misread this passage where Paul says to pagans that God isn't far from them and “perhaps” they might reach out to Him. But this, I think, is part of where we (Dustin and I, and probably Bill), differ. And I think, at least in this area, it's helpful to reach the root of the disagreement. Where Roger and other Calvinists part ways I'll leave to someone else or another post.
You see, though, how such a root belief affects how we approach the Eerdman's decision (back to what started this). Ultimately Dustin (and Roger) have to be upset about what Eerdman's is doing because it is an insult to God, disloyalty if you will. Bill and I, I think, are more concerned that Eerdman's actions might lead some away from the true Christ (Roger writes sometimes like he is concerned about this, but given a Calvinst understanding of salvation a true understanding of Christ is a result of having been saved, rather than vice versa).
I've gone on too far! Peace (and go Spurs . . .)