Divine Exasperation

By the way, William your fellow Calvinist in this discussion, believes this verse means something totally different then what you believe here.

I don’t know how different we are, but I do disagree with him on the meaning of ‘malista’. It’s a plausible story, but try looking through the New Testament for the Greek word; I can’t find any uses that make strong sense under that theory. I don’t know if it perhaps works in some cases, but I don’t see an argument within the usage of the rest of the Bible.

http://net.bible.org/search.php?search=greek_strict_index:3122

-Wm

Cheryl, I don’t get your claims that Calvinism has to strain to interpret John 3:16, in particular the meaning of the word “world”. The problem with your claim here is that these verses aren’t a strain at all. And that can be read in the obvious way (God loves the whole thing as a unit), or in a subtler way (God loves every person in the world); but the next part of the same verse clarifies that whatever “the world” may be, He acted only to save the ones who believe. Then the next verse claims that Jesus came into the world to save it — but then it talks about individuals who are condemned versus not condemned, and if “the world” meant all individuals, then why would it talk about condemning some individuals for the same reason after Christ as before Christ?

It’s nonsense (as you point out) to say that “the world” means “the elect”, but no Calvinists here have claimed that. I do claim that “whoever would believe” is the same as “the elect”, though. Of course, John 3:16 doesn’t say that; but many other segments of John do say it.

-Wm

William,

Re comment # 99:

All of those commentaries specifically said it was food that was being spoken of that was sanctified by the word and prayer. True, none of them denied it was marriage–they mostly just ignored that issue and talked about the food–the creature. They didn’t at all say that all creatures included men that were sanctified by the word and by prayer. They spoke solely of the creatures God created for food being sanctified by the the word and prayer. That was the point I was trying to make. They seemed to connect the phrase, “sancitifed by the word and prayer,” totally with the issue of food just as I believed was correct. Not also with the issue of marriage. I haven’t heard or read any one else at all that has your take on this issue that God is the Savior of all men because they are sanctified or made holy by the word and prayer. (By the way, that is what I was mostly referring to when I mentioned to Hodge that you have totally different interpretations of this verse.)

This quote of mine: Marriage was mentioned as being good here and to be received, but it was the foods–the creatures God gives–specifically that were spoken of as being sanctified by the word and prayer.— was speaking about what the commentaries emphasized.

I still think the John 3 thing becomes very strained.

And unless I am not remembering correctly at all, Hodge said that John 3:16 means, “God so loved the believers”. You said whoever would believe is the same as the elect. It seems that the term “believers” and “elect” have been used rather interchangeably here at times. And I am quite sure I have read somewhere else in these discussions on this site that it is the elect that are referred to as the ones God loves here. Which is why I worded things the way I did.

(If my memory is failing me completely here, I apologize. These have all been loooong discussions with many points made. I have also been in similar discussions in the past on another blog. So it is possible some of what has been said there is being confused in my memory with what folks here have said.)

Cheryl,

Ironically, I believe in a form of unlimited atonement, so I have no dog in the fight over this passage, except my desire that it not be warped in the service of an idea.

Re: malista

Knight agrees with Skeat, stating that he gives persuasive arguments from the papyri (203-4).
Marshall agrees with Skeat (“Universal Grace and Atonement in the Pastoral Epistles.” In the Grace of God and the Will of Man 55; see also now his ICC commentary). Mounce gives Skeat’s suggestion as a viable option, and adopts a mythopoeic interpretation of the text (256-57). It is not clear whether he accepts all of the four points he mentions or not (since they are not necessarily contradictory).
Vincent in his early ICC commentary on Philippians could not understand why “malista” was being used in Phil 4:22 (154). Thinking the word only meant what the accepted definition gave to it, he didn’t think it made sense to him here, but he had no other option, so he seemed to think it was just an oddity that could not be explained.

Look at another parallel in 1 Tim 5:8: “his own” with “his household.” Now who else are “his own” that he is obligated to take care of? Do you mean to say that you interpret this verse to mean that he has to take care of a larger group that belongs to him that is not a part of his family or he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever? Who is this larger group to which he is financially obligated and are called his own? I’m sure we could make something up, but it would be simpler to take malista as it should be: “his own” are “his household.”

I would actually contend that half the verses in which it is used make no sense as it is traditionally taken; and it makes perfect sense in the other half, where it could go either way. The only thing in the way is the wall of tradition that predisposes us toward a particular interpretation (there’s that VBS messing us up again). 😉

But you were the one that that said this was a point that could be glossed over without being sure about what it said.

I see why you said that; that would seem offensive and annoying if I thought someone else had said that to me. I didn’t mean anything that way. Rather, what I meant is that because John said only that one phrase in passing while talking about something completely unconnected, that phrase is unlikely to be able to clarify a complex issue that’s disconnected from John’s original purpose — and, in fact, if we approach it as though it were intended to clarify our argument we’ll just be confused by it.

John wasn’t dealing here with people who were claiming that God didn’t want to save some people. He was dealing with people who thought they could avoid sinning, and people who didn’t want to confess that they sinned, and people who might worry that confessing their sin wasn’t enough.

And when I said John made a stong point, I was referring specifically to that verse and no others.

But John only mentioned the point in a brief phrase that was apparently (by your interpretation) disconnected from the rest of his argument. To me, a “strong point” means either that he was nearly shouting (which we can’t tell here, although Paul once used obscenity to make a strong point) or that he spent a lot of text making the point (which definitely isn’t here).

How is that a strong point?

-Wm

“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not only ours but…”

There are a variety of options here. “World,” again, can refer to more than just the group to which John’s is speaking. It can also refer to other people of the world who would believe beside the apostles. The second person thus far in Chapter 1 and 2 has referred to the apostles and perhaps the believers with whom he is speaking.

Hence, the others in the whole world are speaking about other out of the whole world, not the whole world as each and every individual in the world.

However, I tend to go the unlimited atonement direction with this as well (even though there are good arguments for limited atonement).

BTW, I’m pretty sure Marshall is an Arminian, so the fact that he agrees with Skeat on the meaning of malista is no small point.

William,

From # 200:

Guzik says it means that there’s not some other Savior for some other men. (This doesn’t mean Christ is a potential savior; it means there’s no other actual or potential savior.) This contradicts your understanding.

I think you missed something here. That is what the first paragraph of his discussion says. The next two paragraphs say this, (which is precisely what I have been arguing):

i. But notice Paul’s point: especially of those who believe. Jesus’ work is adequate to save all, but only effective in saving those who come to Him by faith.

ii. “What God intends for all, he actually gives to them that believe in Christ, who died for the sins of the world, and tasted death for every man. As all have been purchased by his blood so all may believe; and consequently all may be saved. Those that perish, perish through their own fault.” (Clarke)

As far as Faucett goes, he makes this statement: If God is in a sense “Saviour” of unbelievers ( 1Ti 2:4 , that is, is willing to be so everlastingly, and is temporally here their Preserver and Benefactor), much more of believers. He is the Saviour of all men potentially ( 1Ti 1:15 ); of believers alone effectually. Savior of all potentially is what I have been saying all along, and willing to be so everlastingly. I thought the main point we were discussing here was if he was the Savior of all men, was it not? Faucett affirms this as his belief. I don’t see why he is disqualified in your mind because he doesn’t state it is because they need to take some action. We weren’t discussing the specfiics of how they can come to him–only the fact that ALL men are included in this verse as ones He is the Savior of.

Hodge,

Re I Timothy 5:8 ” But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

I have always taken that verse to mean that he is to provide for his relatives in general (meaning relatives that don’t live with you) and especially those that are in his household (those that live under the same roof with you.) I see the Jameison, Faucett and Brown commentary takes it that way.

I see it is translated in different ways as relatives and immediate family, or relatives and those living in the same household. Most translations I checked said it more like the ESV quoted above.

I can’t keep up with all the comments here. I think I need to be several of me to even try!

All of those commentaries specifically said it was food that was being spoken of that was sanctified by the word and prayer.

The commentaries take second place to the text, and there’s no doubt whatsoever that the text starts by putting forbidding marriage and forbidding food on equal footing as a doctrine of demons. The next point the text makes is that all of God’s creation is good, and NOTHING is to be rejected if received with thanksgiving.

The commentaries seem to treat Paul’s invective against forbidding marriage as though it were simply anti-Roman Catholic; but it wasn’t (that religion was entirely unheard-of at the time). To the gnostics, forbidding marriage and forbidding food was connected; and Paul knew that.

True, none of them denied it was marriage–they mostly just ignored that issue and talked about the food–the creature.

This makes them poor commentaries, honestly; they simply ignore a part of the text completely without excuse. The extensive use of the concept of creationin the text is further proof that this is anti-gnostic, by the way.

They didn’t at all say that all creatures included men that were sanctified by the word and by prayer.

I meant that to be a minor point, but I just rewound and found my original post; it looks like I actually claimed that was the only way unbelievers can benefit. Whoops. Wow, that’s bad.

No, all of God’s creation is good, and He made it to be received with thanksgiving. This making to receive is the major blessing for all men; being able to receive with thanksgiving is the salvation specific for believers. I do believe that the prayer for all men commended to the Church sanctifies all men, and that this is why Paul mentions that we have a living God (a deist could claim that God created for our use, after all); but I don’t think that’s as important to Paul as the goodness of God’s creation.

-Wm

Cheryl,

That translation of “relatives” is made to makes sense of what they perceive malista to be saying, so it’s a bit circular. The word itself just means “his own,” and is in regard to what he possesses (i.e., his household). It can refer to all of his possessions, but Paul then makes what is general more specific (i.e., members of the household). Hence, malista makes much more sense as specifying a general reference to a more limited one.

Take Phil 4:22. Who are “all the saints” that send greetings to the Philippians? Every single believer in the entire world? Or is Paul saying that the believers with him, first his missionary helpers in 4:21, and the church at Rome in v. 22 greets them? I think the latter makes much more sense; and thus, malista specifies that by “all the saints” send their greetings Paul specifically is referring to the saints in Rome. I’m not sure how someone “especially” sends their greetings anyway. I guess you could take it to mean that the Romans were more enthusiastic to greet them, but again, Paul has access to the Roman Christians at this time, not all Christians without exception around the world. It just makes more sense to understand the correct use of the word malista.

William,

The question seems to be if the second part of the verse, “that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth,” refers to only food or to food and marraige both. I tend to read it to be referring only to the food. And the way those commentaries speak on the subject, I believe that is the way they take it too. Also the way some translators have phrased it, it is obvious that is the way they understand it too.

But going beyond that, I just don’t see how your original assertion that this section tells us that God is the Savior of all men because they are sanctified by the word of God and prayer fits in here at all. It says all of God’s creation is good and is not to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. This statement doesn’t seem to me to necessarily apply to other men–that would seem to be a quite awkward reading to me. But it certainly can apply to creatures that are given to be eaten. (And to marraige for that matter if it is indeed included in these instructions.)

William,

I should have reread your last comment again before posting my last one.

You said, I meant that to be a minor point, but I just rewound and found my original post; it looks like I actually claimed that was the only way unbelievers can benefit.

I did think that you meant that the way unbeliever’s were “saved” and were the benificiaries of Him being “the savior of all men” was primarily through the prayers of Christians and the word of God. Now I realize you are saying that was a minor point. Correct?

To be certain I am understanding you now, is it correct that you think that besides that, His salvation to all men is the provision of His creation that He has made for them to receive?

Cheryl, yes; I misspoke originally. The living God saves all men by creating and sustaining, and by making all things acceptable and to be received with thanksgiving. I was incorrect to write as though the unsaved could only be Saved by the living God specifically by being prayed for. That’s a vague and formless “salvation” that doesn’t save one from anything :-/.

Actually, another reading suddenly sprang to my mind. The living God saves not only each man in that way; He also saves all of mankind in that way. This is a more complete salvation, because although individuals often DO fail to give thanks and are thus not able to accept the creation with sanctity, mankind as a whole does accept it because of the specific thanksgiving of God’s called-out ones.

Oh, Hodge — thank you for explaining your caveats on ‘malista’. My Greek isn’t strong enough to harbor useful opinions (I’ve only taken a couple years of classes); the people you cite actually studied contemporary usage in papyri, and that’s very very appropriate.

-Wm

[John 3:16] And I am quite sure I have read somewhere else in these discussions on this site that it is the elect that are referred to as the ones God loves here. Which is why I worded things the way I did.

I’m pretty sure I said that the believers are clearly the recipients of God’s active love here. But that doesn’t mean God doesn’t love the world.

The question is, how is that love directed towards the WHOLE world, and how is it directed towards the individuals in that whole world? God actively loved the whole world, but did He love each of the individuals in it the same? If you assume “love” is a feeling, it may be possible; but if you believe that love informs action, it’s not possible. Let me explain.

How God acted towards the whole world: He gave His Son to save the world.
How God acted towards some individuals: He allowed them to remain in their sins, “condemned already” from before Jesus came.
How God acted towards other individuals: He raised them from their sins, CHANGED by Jesus’ coming.

From this we can see that “the world” is not the same thing as “every human”, because God saved the world and did not save every human. On the contrary, He left some condemned as they had been before. How did He change those people from condemned to not condemned? John 3:20 doesn’t say; it tells you how to judge, and Jesus didn’t come to judge. The nearest answer is in John 3:5-8; we were born of the Spirit at the choosing of the Spirit.

So the loving actions of God are directed at the whole world in general; then He directs those loving actions further, at SOME of the individuals. Others He does not direct loving actions at, and they remain just as they were. For the ones towards whom He directs loving actions, He first causes them to be born again of the Spirit, which changes them from hating the light to loving it; which in turn frees them from just condemnation.

-Wm

William,

Would you clarify something for me please? Do you believe in limited atonement–that Jesus died for only the sins of the elect?

I am not sure if I know what you believe about that. I don’t remember you actually saying. It might help me to understand other things you say better if I was sure on this point.

Cheryl, yes; I do believe in limited atonement, although I also believe “limited atonement” is a poor phrasing that lends itself to misunderstanding. I prefer the terms “definite atonement” or “particular redemption”, both of which mean that Christ’s death was applied to a definite, specific group of individuals, not an indefinite, unknown one.

The three are usually used to refer to the same doctrine.

Because of this problem, some people are attempting to replace the term TULIP with GOSPEL:

Grace
Obligatory grace
Sovereign grace
Provision-making grace
Effectual grace
Lasting grace

All of those acrostics are useful, all are flawed in one way or another. There’s one, ROSES, which is used by all three sides (Calvinists, Molinists, and Arminians).

By the way, you believe in Limited Atonement in a different sense: you believe the atonement is Limited in power because it cannot save anyone without some other action (but not limited in scope, because it is intended to be applied to anyone). You reject Definite Atonement, because you believe the atonement was made for an indefinite group.

-Wm

Do Calvinists ever weep about the destiny of those who reject Christ (like Christ wept over Jerusalem) or do they just accept it unemotionally because they figure that God has decreed it and so it must be alright?

Yeah Phil,

They’re heartless. Way to introduce an ad hominem. You might as well ask if Christians ever weep over people from other religions not being accepted into heaven. If God has decreed that they won’t in the Bible, then I guess everyone who believes in Christ’s exclusivity must unemotionally accept it and so it must be alright.

@ Paul Copan

I’m a Calvinist and I’ve never literally wept over the miserable future of those who are perishing. I had assumed that somehow God was comfortable with the idea that certain people would suffer eternally because He had ordained it. I never quite thought of it conscously in those terms, otherwise I would have been ashamed of myself. It was just an undeliberate attitude resulting from my theological position. But your opening post in this thread made me realise that God is in earnest about grieving over the lost and yearning for their repentance.

I cannot reconcile God’s genuine exasperation about unrepentant sinners with the truth that “it does not depend on human will or exertion” (Romans 9:16). The bible seems to teach both sides of this contradiction. Although I can rationally see the truth of both sides, I am ashamed to admit my emotions have become unbalanced and I have not felt God’s grief for the lost.

Michael said in post #12: On John 6 Arminians have no problem understanding these verses in light of prevenient grace. We all agree that without God drawing us we would be unable to find Him of our own accord.

That account absolutely cannot refer to prevenient grace, since that doctrine refers to grace that is given to all, not only to some; and Christ’s teaching in John 6 (and 7) is given expressly to explain why some people did NOT believe. I’m not saying this to disprove prevenient grace, but the concept simply can’t be found in John 6-7. The strongest argument against reading this as prevenient grace appears in John 6:45, but the grammar in other verses appears to describe the drawing of the Father is inevitably resulting in raising up on the last day.

How specifically can you find prevenient grace in this chapter?

-Wm

I’m working through some messages I’d marked as important…

In message #10, Michael said: 1. I think the question is does God really desire that no evil exist given the cost of ensuring this? […] Now do I have two wills?? Or do I simply have desires that conflict and one is stronger then the other. My simple point with this is that in Arminianism God does not have two wills. He has two desires one of which is greater then the other. […] Ultimately Calvinism has to posit some hidden will (or desires) of God which overrides His will revealed in Scripture.

You’re trying to draw a dichotomy that doesn’t exist. Both theologies believe in two wills (or two desires) of God. The difference is what the contents of the greater desire are. To Arminianism the greater good God desires is the free will of man, while to Calvinism the greater good is the revealing of God’s glorious attributes. All three of those goods are (contrary to your claim) revealed in Scripture, so you can’t claim that God kept them utterly secret.

What Calvinists claim is hidden is God’s specific plans. He didn’t share that with us, and it’s not ours to inquire after. This also means that it’s not ours to inquire which people are elect and which aren’t; we are to preach to and pray for all men. Christ, on the other hand, knew from the beginning which men were not believers, and preached directly against them in passages such as John 6. None of the apostles imitated Him in that, not because He was wrong to do that, but because they humbly admitted that He had knowledge that they didn’t.

-Wm

Cheryl, I just wanted to give a positive comment on your post #6 above. I disagree with your conclusion, but you’re giving a constructive exegesis, and I very much appreciate it.

The specific point you make is that The specific reason we are told to pray for kings and all in authority is so, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Your point here is completely true, but it isn’t sufficient to reach your conclusion.

It doesn’t seem to me that Paul is saying to pray for all people groups to be saved.

Again, I agree. But Paul cannot be saying that we should pray for each and every man individually, in some kind of ritual vigil with raised hands (like the Mormons, who research genealogies in order to pray for remote ancestors in order to sanctify them). Rather, we are to not limit our prayers, praying even for people who we would have guessed couldn’t be saved.

After all, there is a very specific reason he listed the people group of those in authority specifically here.

That’s a fair claim, but there’s too little evidence for it; the obvious reading is that we’re praying for all people in order to live a peaceable life, rather than that we’re praying for kings in order to live a peaceable life (and praying for everyone else for some other reason). In fact, your reading would hint that God didn’t want to save kings; rather, we’re only praying for them because we want the government to leave us alone.

It doesn’t seem to me that it follows that the all men referred to elsewhere in this section means all people groups.

The arguments made in verses 5-7 seem to indicate that “all people groups” is a plausible reading, though. Why else would “one God and one intermediator” be significant to Paul’s argument? He’s not trying to establish the doctrine of God’s oneness; rather, he’s proving that humanity is essentially one before God rather than being broken up into groups that…

PART I:

Hello all. I’m just catching up after being away from the routine for over a week, and I’m now getting around to all of your responses. I’ll try to hit the key points as I see them and then get back to “divine exasperation” and “divine disbelief.” Be prepared. This will be a lengthier post!

Phil, I appreciate your honesty regarding (lack of) concern for the everlastingly-lost. Indeed, as we read the Scriptures, distress and dismay at the lostness of unbelievers is theologically (not just personally) warranted, though I don’t really see how that could be so if Calvinism is true. Yet Jesus himself was distressed and downcast at the shepherdless multitudes. Paul was in anguish that many of his Jewish brothers and sisters were resistant to Christ, and he wishes he could be cut off for them (Rom. 9:1-3; 10:1). I get the impression when I read a lot of Calvinists that Paul shouldn’t be so distressed since God decreed their hard-heartedness and condemnation. To the non-Calvinistic outsider, Paul appears to be more concerned about their final separation than God does. Hmmm….

PART II:

William, as for John 3:16, your discussion regarding the feeling-vs.-action distinction actually goes against what we see in Matthew 5; at chapter’s end we see God’s perfect love directed toward friend and enemy alike and demonstrated in sunshine and rain provided for the just and the unjust (action). And surely this extends to the genuine offer of salvation, not merely being limited to common grace. After all, earlier in the chapter, Christ calls on his disciples show enemy-love without distinction or selectivity, just as God does. What’s more, Jesus himself does this from the cross (“Father, forgive them”) when he prays for those hostile religious leaders who have sought to crucify him—even if they do not in the end repent. (Yes, Jesus prays for his own in John 17, but he prays for his enemies on the cross! So does Stephen when he is being stoned as well as Paul regarding his hard-hearted Jewish kin in Romans 9-10.) Matthew 5 earlier speaks of those who are peacemakers and reconcilers, resembling their heavenly Father the peacemaker and a reconciler; surely this includes the opportunity for reconciliation with a view to salvation (just as God offers reconciliation to his enemies, according to Romans 5).

As for John 6:44-45 and the act of “drawing” (prevenient grace), Jesus *earlier* in this text says that a response is required (receiving, believing) if one is to be raised up on the last day: “everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (v. 40). (See Ben Witherington’s comments on this passage in John’s Wisdom.) So the text itself assumes a response to God’s invitation/influence.

PART III:

As for 1 Timothy 2, I. Howard Marshall (Pastoral Epistles, 425-7) states that there, first, is no justification for minimizing or weakening God’s “willing” to being a mere desire which conceals God’s real purpose to save a limited group of the elect, and there is equally no guarantee that this purpose will necessarily be realized. Second, limiting “all” to “all kinds of people” goes against the very elitist salvation Paul is opposing—that salvation is only reserved for some. In some ways, Calvinism is akin to the proto-Gnosticism that Paul was battling—that salvation is only for an “elite few.” That flies in the face of the spirit of the New Testament’s teaching against this incipient Gnosticism—that salvation in Christ is truly available to all, not just sufficient to cover their sins [“definite atonement”].

Hodge, on 1 Jn. 2:2, where Jesus is said to be the atoning sacrifice for the “whole world,” note that this phrase is found only one other time in 1 John: “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” It seems quite clear that the world for whom Christ died is the *same* world—namely, all individuals without exception who are in bondage to Satan—not merely “all kinds of people in the world.” Again, John (like Paul above) is opposing a proto-Gnosticism here, which opposes an elitist salvation for a (s)elect few (“not only for our sins, but also for the sins of the whole world”).

PART IV:

Hodge, you say, “To me, the compatiblist understanding makes sense of all texts and lets them speak for themselves; but the Arminian understanding has to simply believe that certain texts that seem rather explicit in their grammar and logic MUST mean something else, even though we don’t have a consistent exegesis in determining what that other interpretation might be.” To the contrary, as I keep reading the Scriptures, I am struck by how a compatibilist understanding of the text foists an unwieldy grid upon the Scriptures that must simply dismiss (“reinterpret”) many Old Testament texts (which, it should be noted, inform the New Testament texts on hardening, blindness, not hearing, etc.); I find the spirit of those texts is so utterly incompatibilist! When God tells of all he did for Israel and that it did not even enter his mind that they would act in certain ways, that he expected fruit, that he hoped for repentance and obedience, doesn’t this suggest that God’s initiating grace for salvation (not just common grace) is freely being resisted rather than “rigged” by God? When I let the “texts speak for themselves,” I find that the spirit of these vast tracts of Old Testament texts (and the basis for discussion in the New) does not strike me as “Calvinistic.” After all, genuine repentance is legitimately expected and provided for. The far fewer favored “Calvinistic” texts are the tail that wags the broader biblical corpus. When text after text is continually reinterpreted as being “that’s not what it really means,” I think, “System overload.”

PART V:

Again, consider the following passages with me. Do you not feel the weight of their plain meaning? These texts are far from “compatibilistic.”

• Genesis 4:6-7: “Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching in the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” (Should God rightly expect Cain to do the right thing?)
• Deuteronomy 10:16: “So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.” (Does God rightly expect Israel to repent and not be stiff-necked?)
• Isaiah 5:1-7: “Let me sing now for my well-beloved a song of my beloved concerning His vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill. He dug it all around, removed its stones, and planted it with the choicest vine. And He built a tower in the middle of it and also hewed out a wine vat in it; then He expected it to produce good grapes, but it produced only worthless ones. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between Me and My vineyard. What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones? So now let Me tell you what I am going to do to My vineyard: I will remove its hedge and it will be consumed; I will break down its wall and it will become trampled ground. I will lay it waste; it will not be pruned or hoed, but briars and thorns will come up. I will also charge the clouds to rain no rain on it. For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel and the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; For righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress.” (WHO is to blame for Israel’s fruitlessness? Despite the plain language of such texts, the Calvinist answer must be “God.”)

PART VI:
• Isaiah 63:8-10: “For He said, ‘Surely, they are My people, Sons who will not deal falsely.’ So He became their Savior. In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the angel of His presence saved them; In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them, and He lifted them and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit; Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them.” (Notice the sense of expectation: God expects sons who will not deal falsely—and this is how the book of Isaiah begins.)
• Isaiah 66:4: So I will choose their punishments and will bring on them what they dread. Because I called, but no one answered; I spoke, but they did not listen. And they did evil in My sight and chose that in which I did not delight.” (Is God really expecting an answer if he hardened them so that they couldn’t?)
• Jeremiah 5:3: “O LORD, do not Your eyes look for truth? You have smitten them, but they did not weaken; you have consumed them, but they refused to take correction. They have made their faces harder than rock; they have refused to repent.” (Should God expect truth? Yes. In fact, he’s smiting them so that they will, but they refused to repent. They are first self-hardened, and God’s attempts can’t break through. God can further harden them if he chooses—that is, turn them over to the desires of their heart and withdrawing gracious influences.)

PART VII:

• Jeremiah 8:4-7: “You [Jeremiah] shall say to them, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Do men fall and not get up again? Does one turn away and not repent? Why then has this people, Jerusalem, turned away in continual apostasy? They hold fast to deceit, They refuse to return. I have listened and heard, they have spoken what is not right; No man repented of his wickedness, saying, ‘What have I done?’ Everyone turned to his course, like a horse charging into the battle. Even the stork in the sky knows her seasons; and the turtledove and the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration; but My people do not know The ordinance of the LORD.”’” (Again, like the texts from Isaiah 63—cp. ch. 1 as well—Israel should know better [like storks and other birds] indicate that repentance is rightly expected, but it doesn’t come. Not God’s fault!)
• Ezekiel 18:23-32: “Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked? Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies…. Therefore, repent and live.” (It surely looks like God longs for Israel’s repentance, but it is up to Israel to respond to God’s grace; God has done all that he can.)
• Revelation 2:21-22: “I gave her time to repent; and she does not want to repent of her immorality. Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds.” (Who is responsible for not repenting? Apparently all provisions are there; Jezebel does not WANT to. Those who consort with her will be judged UNLESS they repent. It’s up to HUMANS to respond to God’s initiating grace for salvation, which we see is routinely resisted.)

PART VIII:

As to the matter of a two-tier hardening (first human, then divine), this is a common feature simply assumed by Scripture, and our reading of the New Testament should take the Old Testament’s understanding into account. God makes repentance genuinely available; people resist; God judges (often in the form of hardening hearts by withdrawing his influence/grace). I’ll give four key texts to ponder:
• Psalm 81:10-16 (notice the grace given to Israel with the genuine opportunity to repent/obey, Israel’s refusal, and God’s hardening of Israel [“I gave them over to the stubbornness of their heart”]): “‘Hear, O My people, and I will admonish you; O Israel, if you would listen to Me! Let there be no strange god among you; nor shall you worship any foreign god. I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you up from the land of Egypt; open your mouth wide and I will fill it.’ But My people did not listen to My voice, And Israel did not obey Me. So I gave them over to the stubbornness of their heart, to walk in their own devices. Oh that My people would listen to Me, that Israel would walk in My ways! I would quickly subdue their enemies and turn My hand against their adversaries. Those who hate the LORD would pretend obedience to Him, and their time of punishment would be forever. But I would feed you with the finest of the wheat, and with honey from the rock I would satisfy you.”

PART IX:

• Jeremiah 5:21-25 (notice the blindness/deafness—not of God’s doing, since God legitimately expects obedience): “‘Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see; who have ears but do not hear. Do you not fear Me?’ declares the LORD. ‘Do you not tremble in My presence? For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, an eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it. Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail; though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it. But this people has a stubborn and rebellious heart; they have turned aside and departed. They do not say in their heart, “Let us now fear the LORD our God, who gives rain in its season, both the autumn rain and the spring rain, who keeps for us the appointed weeks of the harvest.” Your iniquities have turned these away, and your sins have withheld good from you.’” (Isn’t this the point of Isaiah 59:1-2 as well? “Behold, the LORD’S hand is not so short that it cannot save; nor is His ear so dull that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.” It’s not God’s power, but the iniquity of the people that prevents them from being forgiven/saved/heard. God has furnished all the resources to rightly expect his people to obey, but they refuse; so God must judge or turn them over to their stubborn hearts [divine hardening].)

PART X:

• Deuteronomy 32:6-21: “Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you. Remember the days of old, consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you, your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For the LORD’S portion is His people; Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance. He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of a wilderness; He encircled him, He cared for him, He guarded him as the pupil of His eye. Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, that hovers over its young, He spread His wings and caught them, He carried them on His pinions. The LORD alone guided him, and there was no foreign god with him. He made him ride on the high places of the earth, and he ate the produce of the field; and He made him suck honey from the rock, And oil from the flinty rock, Curds of cows, and milk of the flock, with fat of lambs, and rams, the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the finest of the wheat—and of the blood of grapes you drank wine. But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked—you are grown fat, thick, and sleek; then he forsook God who made him, and scorned the Rock of his salvation. They made Him jealous with strange gods; with abominations they provoked Him to anger. They sacrificed to demons who were not God, to gods whom they have not known, new gods who came lately, whom your fathers did not dread. “You neglected the Rock who begot you, and forgot the God who gave you birth. The LORD saw this, and spurned them because of the provocation of His sons and daughters. Then He said, ‘I will hide My face from them, I will see what their end shall be; for they are a perverse generation, sons in whom is no faithfulness. They have made Me jealous with what is not God;…

PART XI:

…they have provoked Me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. (Why the divine jealousy about idolatry if Israel can’t turn away from it anyway? It strikes me as divine play-acting.)
• Jeremiah 17:21-25, 27: “’Thus says the LORD, ‘Take heed for yourselves, and do not carry any load on the sabbath day or bring anything in through the gates of Jerusalem. You shall not bring a load out of your houses on the sabbath day nor do any work, but keep the sabbath day holy, as I commanded your forefathers. Yet they did not listen or incline their ears, but stiffened their necks in order not to listen or take correction. But it will come about, if you listen attentively to Me,’ declares the LORD, ‘to bring no load in through the gates of this city on the sabbath day, but to keep the sabbath day holy by doing no work on it, then there will come in through the gates of this city kings and princes sitting on the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they and their princes, the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and this city will be inhabited forever….But if you do not listen to Me to keep the sabbath day holy by not carrying a load and coming in through the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates and it will devour the palaces of Jerusalem and not be quenched.’” (The problem is not that God stiffened the Israelites’ necks; they stiffened their own and refused correction intended for their well-being.)

PART XII:

• Jeremiah 18:6-11: “‘Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?’ declares the LORD. ‘Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel. At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.’”’” (Notice in the famous “potter passage” in Jeremiah 18, cherished but seemingly misapplied by Calvinists in the setting of Romans 9-11—a positively ignores the context of Jeremiah 18: God declares that he has the prerogative to relent from divinely-promised calamity [as he did with Nineveh in Jonah] if people genuinely repent—OR to judge when people turn away from God. )

Those are a few comments on the recent interactions we’ve had. I’ll be out of commission for another couple of weeks as the EPS annual meeting, the EPS apologetics conference, and SBL are coming up. (I am presenting at all three and am president of EPS. So this is my busiest time of year!)

Paul, God bless your ministry! Thank you for taking the time to respond. I’m also glad you posted an interpretation with each of the prooftexts you gave; I often mess up by not providing exegesis, merely the prooftext. Needless to say, the exegesis is where things turn.

I expect to respond to those exegeses in the near future.

-Wm

Thanks very much, William. I appreciate your encouragement–and the opportunity to interact with you and other gracious-spirited Calvinistic brothers and sisters at this blogsite.

Grace and peace to you.

Paul

First, in John 3:16 I wasn’t intending to allege a feeling-versus-action; rather, I was attempting to point out to you that the action the verse ACTUALLY pointed to wasn’t a claim of universal salvation, but rather was a claim of limited salvation (only the ones who believe). The verse doesn’t specify whether God predestined salvation, of course, I’m not claiming that; but neither is it appropriate to say that the verse is about God extending His salvation to everyone in the world. The next verses make it clear that some people (in the world) are excluded from the salvation.

I hope you’ll fully deal with this before jumping to Matthew 5, which is thoroughly out of context, since Mat 5 is about the perfect fulfillment of the Law, not about being saved from the Law. When you do jump, please ground your objection in more than speculation (that “surely this extends to the genuine offer of salvation”).

Just about every claim you make about Jesus’ request for his enemies’ forgiveness from the cross is wrong (the target was the soldiers who were mentioned before and after, not the religious leaders); but whether wrong or right, Jesus’ request for forgiveness didn’t save any of them.

“(Yes, Jesus prays for his own in John 17, but he prays for his enemies on the cross! So does Stephen when he is being stoned as well as Paul regarding his hard-hearted Jewish kin in Romans 9-10.)”

As Jesus says, we are to pray for and bless those who persecute us. The especial goal of our prayer should be their salvation. But Jesus didn’t pray with that goal, and sometimes even spoke to people in a way that indicated that He didn’t expect them to be saved. He commanded us not to do that, but He Himself did.

You then claim that Joh 6:44-45 teaches prevenient grace; but it can’t, because John 6:45 says that everyone who hears and learns from God comes to Christ, which makes it irresistible. (It’s also arguably true that v44 intends to say that everyone…

(Maybe I should edit my replies in a separate editor, so I can do a character-count. Anyhow, I was saying:)

You then claim that Joh 6:44-45 teaches prevenient grace; but it can’t, because John 6:45 says that everyone who hears and learns from God comes to Christ, which makes it irresistible. (It’s also arguably true that v44 intends to say that everyone drawn by God will be raised up on the last day by Christ, which would make it saving rather than prevenient grace; but I admit it’s possible that the pronoun is unclear.)

You also point out that a response is required in John 6; but you can’t be so ignorant about Calvinistic teaching as to think that they teach that no response is required. Rather, they teach that the response starts with God’s action in drawing, teaching, calling, and giving us to Christ. Once God does those things, we always respond and will certainly be raised on the last day; until He does them, we cannot.

And don’t forget that John says that Christ said these things because He knew specifically which people would never believe.

-Wm

Hi All!
It really amazes me that Arminian’s just haven’t read the other side. I think Paul Copan and Lane Craig are great thinkers, but fail when it comes to foreknowledge and Salvation.
1. Middle knowledge does not work, its a guessing game of what could happen.
2. Scripture is clear, man has freewill because he is a created creature, the Potter shapes the clay (Rom 9).

Therefore God sovereignly establishes our nature and will act freely out of it. You cant have independent natures, totally free.

If one wants to read good interpretations of 2 Peter 3;9, 1 Tim 2;4 and John 3;16 they should read,

(a) The Potter Freedom; by Jame R white
(b) The Foundations of Grace; by Steven Lawson
(c) A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith; by Robert Reymond.

As for John 3;16
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send his Son into the world, but that the world through him might be saved.” (John 3; 14-17)

As we saw, Moses only saved the Chosen people of God, Israel when he lifted up his pole. The people God so loved, the world, are his chosen people through out the world.

This can be proved from John 6;33 “For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

Then four verse latter John 6;37 says Speaking of those chosen from eternity,
“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and the ones who come to me I will by no means cast out.” The Fathers will for the Son coming down was do lose none that the Father had given him from eternity. (John 6;39).

Never has atonement been for every person who has ever lived, and nor did Jesus at the cross die for all in John 3;16.

As I’ve shown else where, there is no word in the…

But here we will just use bullet points!
1.In the beginning there was God from all eternity alone but complete in the Trinity.
2. God had an eternal purpose in himself, which was influence by no other object.

3. God decided to create a world and individuals according to his blueprint and eternal purposes.In God’s mind, only as a concept and idea, God decided the identity, structure and nature of every individual. He designed and fashioned every detail about us (Rom 9;21). You are a creation of God.

4. For God does all things according to the counsel of his will (Eph 1;11) and has this “Righteous” right to do this (Rom 9;14).

5. God fashions in his mind from the same lump of material, vessels for honor and vessels for dishonor. Does not the Potter have the power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor (Rom 9;21-22 & Prov 16;4 “The Lord has made all for himself, Yes even the wicked for the day of doom”. The meaning of “the same lump” means that it has no identity or structure, form, or destiny until God fashions it. “Your eyes saw my substance, being yet formed. And in your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me.” (Psalm 139;16)

6. God does not look into another world to see what independent creatures will do, for there is no world. No one has lived or acted, we act according to how we have been created. God knows because he decrees his blueprint of reality (Rom 9;11). Foreknowledge does not mean to foresee, but to foreknow.

7. From eternity God chose a group of people to be in Christ (Eph 1), that is the complete Bride of Christ, and predestined them to come to faith in him.Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus according to the good please of his will. (Eph 1;4). For Whom He Foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son,…

To many of us when we read the Old Testament we see a God who did not mess about with peoples sins. At times he got very angry and poured out his wrath on people. Many Christians today believe that God is some how different today, he is just love, and loves every one. This understanding gives the interpretation that we have two different God’s or one God who has changed his character. Both off these views are wrong .God does not change in character or forget about justice.

What do we mean when we hear the word “Wrath of God”? The Wrath of God is a disposition in God that is against sin. It is a Holy anger that will not tolerate injustice and sin. God’s anger is not driven by wild irrational emotions, but by his perfect nature of Holiness. Does the Bible teach that, once Jesus went to the cross, God’s wrath was appeased for every person on the planet? That now all that remains is a God who blazes love on the earth? Many would say “Yes” but this is not true, God’s wrath is still alive in the New Testament Scriptures.

1.Yes, it is true God has a general Love for his creation, and looks after his creation with many blessings.
2. But it is also true that he has a Salvation Love, distinct for those who believe in his name, and are called according to his purposes (Rom 8;30).
3. And it is also true that God’s wrath remains on much of the earth/people.

Some Theologians, namely “Wesleyans” have taught a concept called “Prevenient Grace”, meaning that at the cross a Grace came that appeased God’s wrath for all people and weakened the power of sin, (that keeps us a slave to coming to Christ), so that all humanity can now freely just accept Christ. The problem with this teaching is, it’s not in the Bible. Unbelievers are still locked in their sin nature unable to come to Christ, unless he draws them and gives birth to them from above (John 3;8).

As scripture says,
“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor…

Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to me unless it has been granted by My Father.” (John 6;65)

We can clearly see that this idea of Prevenient Grace does not exist in scripture.

If it did, then what sense would John 3;36 mean,
“He who believes in the Son has ever lasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

1.Did the Cross-appease all of God’s wrath? No, but he did die for the world!
2. Did the Cross give us a kind of Grace that weakens the enmity against God, that makes us resists him, from our sin natures to be free to just accept him? No
3.Does there just exist now a God of love who is not angry with anyone? No

Every one quotes John 3;16 “For God so Loved the World”, but how does this relate to John 3;36?
Clearly,
1.Those that Believe, have God’s salvation Love on them.
2. And those who don’t his wrath still remain’s on them.

We will now look at a few more passages that talk about God’s wrath and then go back to the subject of Prevenient Grace. We see God’s wrath in two main ways, one in divine punishment, and another in letting people undo themselves to their own destruction. In their suffering and immorality, they show the wrath of God. In the Old Testament God showed his wrath on Sodom and Gomorrah, and with the flood, wiping out wickedness by divine justice.

We also see God’s wrath in the New Testament, Romans 1;18-28,
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness…For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Even through they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and…

Pretty hard to answer; when the word count is so small, cant paste my answer in. Sorry, it looks a mess.

[…] Paul Copan, “Divine Exasperation”, surveys biblical passages that express God’s exasperation with sinful, human resistance to God’s grace, revealing “God’s legitimate expectation of spiritual fruitfulness, repentance, or obedience. That is, what hinders their repentance is not God’s withholding grace so that they cannot repent. Indeed, abundant grace has been given that justifies the expectation of repentance—even if God in his foreknowledge knows it is not forthcoming. Despite God’s initiating grace, humans continue to “resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51)—to grieve him (Ephesians 4:30) and quench him (1 Thessalonians 5:19). God commands all people without exception to repent (Acts 17:30); so presumably God’s initiating grace is available for all to do so.” This entry was posted in Determinism, Free Will, General, Grace, Monergism & Synergism, Providence, Reprobation, Sovereignty of God. Bookmark the permalink. ← Gordon C. I. Wong, “Make Their Ears Dull: Irony in Isaiah 6:9-10″ […]

Looks like I clean forgot to respond. Well, Paul has a long turnaround time too, so I’m only being fair to him! 🙂 Seriously, though, I apologise and hope I haven’t missed my opportunity to interact.

Again, consider the following passages with me. Do you not feel the weight of their plain meaning? These texts are far from “compatibilistic.”

Almost none of those passages address compatibilism or incompatibilism in any way. Think about it… If compatibilism is true, it’s perfectly fine to say that humans are responsible for their responses to God, because human responsibility is COMPATIBLE with divine determination. So you finding pages and pages of verses stressing human responsibility doesn’t combat compatibilism in any way.

Honestly, it’s hard for me to understand why incompatibilists find this so hard to accept.

A text which is “far from compatibilistic” would either deny human responsibility, or deny divine sovereignty, or specify some area in which they’re not active together. Fortunately, some of your passages can reasonably be taken this way, so you certainly haven’t wasted your time. But this means that I’ll be passing some of the passages by. So let me know if I missed your point with any passage.

-Wm

First, Genesis 4:6-7 and Deuteronomy 10:16, the texts simply show that humans are responsible. That’s perfectly compatible with compatibilism.

Isaiah 5:1-7 is, I think, a more worthy choice for you. First, though, your objection is completely without weight:

(WHO is to blame for Israel’s fruitlessness? Despite the plain language of such texts, the Calvinist answer must be “God.”)

Compatibilism’s answer is “man is to blame for man’s actions taken according to man’s desires.” You can argue with that if you want, and particularly you can try to show that it leads to contradiction — but you can’t simply contradict a Calvinist about his own beliefs and expect to be believed.

And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between Me and My vineyard. What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones? So now let Me tell you what I am going to do to My vineyard: I will remove its hedge and it will be consumed…

This verse is a challenge to compatibilism because it specifically claims that God expected the vinyard to produce good grapes, which given the metaphor one would expect to mean that God expected Israel to meet the requirements of the covenant of the Land. The major problem with reading is that God told all Israel, at the end of Deuteronomy, that they would fail to meet the covenant, and would have to be scattered. So God couldn’t have “expected” in the sense of “not foreknowing failure”; and there’s no other sense that’s obviously visible in this passage. I think that it’s sufficient to interpret this passage as appealing to fair judgement: God presents what He’s actually done for Israel, and Israel responds by admitting that this SHOULD have been sufficient but they still disobeyed. God’s case here is stronger than the metaphor pretends, and Christ presents a more…

(I knew it: I went over length. Here’s the rest, and then I’ll discuss in another post.)

…God’s case here is stronger than the metaphor pretends, and Christ presents a more complete case when He expands it to include the priests as tenders of the vinyard who execute the messengers (prophets) the owner (God) sends.

I’m made a strong claim, though. I said there’s no other sense in which “expected” could be taken. Let me try to post this, and then I’ll try to interact with that claim fairly to your point of view.

-Wm