Thanks for the kind words, and my appreciation to Dr. White for his graciousness and candor as well.
Christophe,
Matthew’s use of Jeremiah 31:15 – As Dr. Brown has demonstrated, there are serious scholars who also agree that Matthew’s use of Jer. 31:15 is simply typological and not prophetic. I respect those scholars who think differently, but I don’t see any other way to handle it, and I would like to see more proof that there are more valid ways to handle it.
Calvinism and God as author/originator of evil:
I said: “And the Calvinist view that God pre-ordains evil sacrifices God’s character on an altar to His sovereignty.”
You said: This is not Calvinist view but only a caricature and misrepresentation of it for the purposes of making a target bigger for Arminaian attack. How is that different I already said many times on this web site so please read my responses.
I’ll give you two quotes from prominent Calvinists that inform my thinking here:
The first is from John Frame:
“The question, though, is whether God merely permits evil, or whether in addition he actually brings evil about in some sense. I think the latter is true. Scripture often says that God brings about sinful decisions of human being…This is a hard teaching, and on one level it makes the problem of evil more difficult. But in another sense, this teaching is reassuring. If evil comes from some source other than God, that would be pretty scary. It would imply that there are forces of evil that are capable of resisting, even overcoming God’s desires. But if evil comes from God, we know that he has a good purpose in bringing it about (Rom. 8:28).”
The second is from John Feinberg’s “No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God” with reference to the portion of God’s eternal decrees referred to as His “undesired will” (pp. 695-96):
“The second part of God’s decree is his decree of all morally evil deeds. Those acts are contrary to God’s moral law, and God doesn’t want us to do these things, but he has decreed that we will do them, anyway. In addition, this part of the decree contains all our choices and acts which, though not covererd by moral precept, are still contrary to God’s best for us…This portion of the decree is typically called God’s permissive will. Theologians use use this locution to safeguard against the idea that God is somehow morally reponsible for evil, since he has decreed it. Though I understand why this label is used, I am hesitant to use it, because it gives the impression that God somehow surrenders control of things when we sin, for example, by letting us do what we want without foreordaining our actions.”
Perhaps you have some nuances to these above quotes that I may not be aware of. That’s cool. But I just want you to know that I arrive at my views on how Calvinism (mis)handles God, the decrees, and evil quite honestly. Frame and Feinberg are representative of mainstream Calvinism and both enjoy a broad audience within Calvinist circles. I don’t see how either of these statements (and you can check the context of both for yourself, especially with Frame) escapes my conclusion.
Myron
These discusions are very fruitful I believe. I’m printing these pages to refer to them some other time.
words like foreordain add confusion in our minds. If it can mean placed in a position ahead of our time but not necessarily God’s delight, then I would agree. God does do this indirectly, as seen in Ezekiel with the Cherubim.
The issue with what Frame has said is the classical issue of direct vs indirect. It’s like the fact that in Exodus, we read that Pharoah hardedned his heart (literally lifted up his heart). Then a couple chapters later in the same book we read that God hardened Pharoah’s heart (once again literally, lifted up Pharoah’s heart). So who hardened Pharoah’s heart? The scriptures teach that if you correct a proud and angry man, they will only hate you. They only harden their heart further. However, when they keep on reject warning, it would be WRONG NOT to bring the judgement that is due. Correct a wise and humble man, and he will love you and become wiser.
The rod of correction (whether literally or a verbal rod of words) that is used to humble someone, is also the same thing that inevitably destroys the proud man.
Dr Brown and Dr White,
Thank you both for the gracious way in which you disagreed with one another.
If someone has already mentioned what follows please forgive the repitition. I have read most of the posts but not all.
Why is it that grace must be irresistable to be grace? A man is unable to move towards God at all because his will is in bondage to sin, in short he is dead in his sin. God by his grace in the gospel call or possibly even in natural revelation free’s the man’s will to be truly free. His eyes are opened. He can now respond in faith, or he can persist in unbelief. If he believes it is not a work that saves him (Romans 4:4-5) but God’s grace… to God be all the glory. And if he persists in unbelief then it is not God’s fault that he does so it is his own, to man be all the shame and blame.
It may be said that in the above hypothesis the freeing of man’s will via the gospel call or even natural revelation would be irresistable grace in that his will is freed apart from anything that the man does. His will is set free by God’s grace alone, but it is resistable in that if the man prefers his bondage in sin he is free to refuse any further grace and to reject what grace has already been given him (Romans 1:18-32)
I am a sinner saved by grace.
My 2c:
I think it is fully right and Biblical to affirm that evil comes from God, but not in the sense that God himself is doing evil. In other words, God sinlessly uses sin and sinful creatures. So these are secondary causes that are directly morally responsible for evil, even though God Himself decrees that it happens.
This conclusion is inescapable when confronted with the Biblical testimony. In Acts 4:26-28 we are told that wicked men did ” whatever [God’s]hand and…plan had predestined to take place.”
Right there, as plain as day, is God not only decreeing that an evil event take place, but that it’s the most evil thing that has ever or will ever be done in history, and that God predestined it to happen (by implication, from eternity past)
So two things are true: 1) God decrees 2) yet men are responsible for their actions.
The truth of one does not eliminate the truth of the other. Both are true simultaneously, though our limited, fallen human minds cannot reconcile it.
This hardly sacrifices God’s character in favor of His sovereignty.
Let us not forget that creating a theodicy is really pointless, for God himself declares that He creates both well being and calamity.
Isa 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.
Amo 3:6 Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?
Lam 3:38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?
If you press this issue near its conclusion you will realize that this viewpoint is the only one that can possibly be of an comfort to those who are actually experiencing evil and suffering. As James said on the debate, if evil has no purpose (that is, if it does not ultimately come from God), then that means evil happens in the universe with no purpose. Purpose-less evil. It happens, and God either allows it or is helpless to stop it, but either way, there was no reason whatsoever for it to begin with. God simply “reacts”, because a He’s a really sharp guy, and is able to manipulate and contort the situation into a good one.
However, if evil has a purpose (which, I think is irrefutable given the few Bible texts I posted), I am greatly comforted because I know my suffering is part of the plan my Heavenly Father, who “works all things together for my good”.
Josh,
Where does it say in the Hebrew that Pharaoh (or God) lifted up his heart? I don’t want to get into a discussion of your larger point here, but I was curious about which verbs you were referring to. As I recall, the three main verbs used are: 1) strengthen; 2) make heavy; 3) harden.
Myron,
Frankly I do not know nor do I follow Frame and Feinberg or their works. I am not even concerned if they are “mainstream” or not. I do know that in both camps they are people who present issues better or worst making them clearer to understand or not.
The issue is not Frame and Feinberg but what the Word of God say. I have provided quite a few Scriptural references that clearly state that God is sovereign over evil. He does not create it but he surely “manages” it.
Again one of many proofs:
“Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?”
Lamentations 3:37 – 38 ESV
Do I need Frame and Feinberg or even Dr.White to understand it? No, it is clear. Do you need Dr.Brown to understand it? No it is clear as well.
That bad needs to be defined. Evil is absence of good, just like darkness is absence of light. God does not have to do anything active to allow evil to occur. All He has to do is withdraw His grace, This is what happened with pharaoh’s heart as his hardness and evil brought about even greater good for Israel and glory for God as evidenced in Romans 9:17.
I think Frame and Feinberg where attempting to point to that but their words came short with fully describing this but I am not sure as I do not follow them.
Best regrads,
SDG
Christophe
Hi Josh,
I don’t think that the nuances of words like “fore-ordain” matter here. Even if there is an agent performing the evil act, God is still on the hook because He ordained it. This violates His holiness (among other things).
As for Pharoah, I acknowledge that there is obvious ambiguity because at different times the Scriptures ascribe the hardening of his heart to Pharaoh and to God. But I think that there are a few cogent answers to this that don’t in any way leave God as the author of Pharaoh’s idolatry:
(1) God’s activity in Pharaoh’s hardening is not referred to until we’re already well into the Exodus narrative. In other words, there is no textual warrant for believing that God was hardening him prior to the point when when the author of Exodus says this. This brings me to my next point…
(2) The first option for understanding God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is as follows. Perhaps God did harden Pharaoh’s heart in space, time, and history (in other words, NOT according to some “eternal decree”). But one need not read into this act unconditional reprobation. God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart could have been occasioned by Pharaoh’s idolatry. Perhaps there’s some point in which sinners have given themselves so completely to evil that God merely turns to using them as instruments because they are so in league with Satan that this is all they are good for. This explanation would fit Pharaoh well being that he continued to vacillate concerning the realease of the Hebrews despite the fact that God was doing undeniable wonders in Egypt through Moses.
(2) Another explanation of the ambiguity between Pharaoh’s/God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (I believe offered by C.S. Lewis, and more in line with what you’ve written above) is as follows: Pharaoh is responsible for the hardening of his own heart because he simply continually rejected God’s lordship, even in the face of undeniable miracles. God, however, is also responsible for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in that He continued to call for Pharaoh’s repentance, even in the face of Pharaoh’s unwillingness. In the latter instance, God’s unrelenting demand for Pharoah’s submission created the condition for Pharaoh’s hardening–a condition which depends on God’s activity.
Again, I’m pretty sure that option 2 is close to what you are getting at above. However, I can’t say that this is even close to what Frame is getting at. Frame is NOT merely speaking to the notion that God creates conditions in space, time, and history that–in cooperation with adverse rebellious human rejetion of God’s will–result in hard hearts. Instead, Frame, like Feinberg, is claiming that it is God who decrees the evil within humankind in His eternal decrees before the foundation of the world. The fact that said evil is actualized through human agents in no way rescues this line of thinking from imputing evil to God. If God decrees human (and demonic) evil, and if said evil will absolutely occur no matter what because of God’s decree, then God’s on the hook for evil. This conclusion is as undeniable as it is unbiblical.
Myron
Xavier said: “I reject Calvinism not so much because of its fallacious view of “once saved always saved”, but simply because of its founder. A murderer and persecutor of those who disagreed with him.”
Xavier rejects Calvinism, not because it teaches once saved always saved, but because it was founded by a murderer who killed those who disagreed with him, yet Xavier holds to and teaches Roman Catholicism, even though the whole Catholic Church was full of murderers and killed those who opposed it.
If Xavier would search out where his doctrines originated he would find that losing ones salvation is not taught in scripture, for Jesus said that he would lose none of his, but would raise them up at the last day. But Xavier would also find that the doctrine of losing ones salvation has roots in Arminianism, which stems from Cassianism , which stems off of Pelagianism.
Both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism {Cassianism & Arminianism & Roman Catholicism] was condemned at the Council of Orange in 529 A. D. Roman Catholicism could be called Pelagianism seeing that their Catechism affirms that man can choose good or evil in his natural state.
I love to hear Calvinists and Arminians try to explain their position without defining their terms. It’s like apples vs oranges, ney apples vs. couches. There is so much we agree on but without defining terms then we speak two different languages.
We agree so much with each other.
Total Depravity -> Men are born dead. Yup both agree. Unconditional Election -> God has an elect. Limited Atonement -> Not all will be saved. Irresistible Grace -> We’ll never make it without His grace. Perseverance of the Saints -> Those that persevere until the end will be saved.
Double Predestination (point 6) – Some will be lost and some saved and that’s how God set it up. Best of all possible worlds (point 7) – okay maybe that’s a stretch.
John Piper helped me understand TULIP and the Calvinist position the best – it’s all about being God-centered and God-glorified.
This is the equation: -Everything God does is glorious. -The more God does the more glory He gets. -God is most glorified if He does everything. (So if God gives people faith to believe, softens hearts so people will live His love, hardens people’s hearts or leaves them to their hardened state, heals whenever He wants and doesn’t heal whenever He wants, sends people He wants to heaven and the people He chooses to hell and just judgment – He is most glorified for His Sovereign purposes.)
It all logically fits. It really does. If you buy in completely to T then logically it’s not a stretch to acknowledge ULIP and maybe even point 6 & 7 with John Piper and Jonathan Edwards, I believe.
Wait, only one problem… it’s not what the Bible means. (My opinion) Have a new believer that doesn’t know anything about Calvinism a Bible and see if they come up with Calvinism. The bottom line is: You have to start with Calvinist definitions to get to a Calvinist system.
So I look forward to Dr. Brown and Dr. White looking at what the definition of faith is. This is where I believe the battle is fought and won. Often whoever gets to define the terms wins the argument.
I have inspired by men like John Fletcher and pray that we may may continue to encourage such a cry for unity. I mean we Christians, especially on these issues, are an embarrassment to the unbelievers. It is a well known fact that some of the most vicious discussions on the internet are Christians arguing out what they believe about Calvinism and Arminianism and what they believe about those that oppose their view.
I urge you brothers to continue, as you have been demonstrating, love, forbearance and a continual desire to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
Brad
“Perhaps God did harden Pharaoh’s heart in space, time, and history (in other words, NOT according to some “eternal decree”).”
Myron,
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…
It has been said so much on the show today and yesterday about simplicity of Arminian doctrine. The extent of hypothetical assertions that you are willing to go to just to avoid God’s obvious sovereignty even over evil is truly staggering and proves the contrary; not simplicity but complexity and ambiguity of Arminian doctrine and theology, at least in above example.
Why not simply let the text speak for it self and let God be God and King be King? That is true simplicity…
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
Hey Everyone!
I think this is a good question to ask. To the Arminians, can you
Hey Everyone!
I think this is a good question to ask. To the Arminians, can you prove that these two statements are self-contradictory:
1. God ordains all evil that takes place.
2. God is all holy.
It would seem that the only way these two statements would be inconsistent is if God ordaining evil is somehow sinful. However, I guess what I would ask is for proof that God ordaining evil is something sinful.
You are incorrect here. Those of us who believe that it is possible for Christians to lose their salvation (conditional perseverance) have solid exegetical ground to stand on concerning the Scriptures.
Also, I question your account of the history of the doctrine of conditional perseverance. Actually, prior to Augustine this view was held by all of the church fathers. Even Calvinist John Jefferson Davis reached this conclusion in an article called “The Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine” (which you can find here: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a133.htm). As a doctrine, perseverance of the saints doesn’t reach its final form until Calvin, or 1500 years into church history. So the notion that one can lose one’s salvation is not rooted in Arminianism at all.
If you’d like a sampling of the statements from the pre-Augustinian church fathers conveying their belief in the possibility that one could fall away from the faith, you may want to check out these two links (same website):
Furthermore, if you going to claim that Arminianism has its roots in Pelagianism and Catholocism, some historical info backing up these claims would be helpful. I’ve never seen such connections.
Myron
“Xavier rejects Calvinism, not because it teaches once saved always saved, but because it was founded by a murderer who killed those who disagreed with him, yet Xavier holds to and teaches Roman Catholicism, even though the whole Catholic Church was full of murderers and killed those who opposed it”
Dear Hershel,
You are bringing up an excellent points. I am not going to discuss how historically incorrect and ignorant are charges against John Calvin regarding Servetus and how slanderous the are against this man of God. What many seem to forget is that this is also slanderous against Holy Spirit that used this man mightily.
Another excellent point that all Arminians should seriously consider is that they find themselves in many, many places on the same side and arm to arm with Roman Catholic Church who is teaching in many places exactly the same things as Arminians do… If that does not concerns the Arminian then I do not know what possibly can concern him or her.
Regards,
SDG,
Christophe
Hershel,
Also, Arminius himself did not believe that a believer could lose his/her salvation. He saw ample biblical evidence for both the perseverance of the saints camp and the conditional perseverance camp. He remained undecided. This further undercuts the notion that Arminius came up with the doctrine of conditional perseverance. While it is true that Arminians and other non-Calvinists are the only folks who can hold to conditional perseverance, it is not true that all Arminians and non-Calvinists do hold to this. Arminius himself did not. If you have evidence to the contrary, let me know.
Myron
Folks,
If you haven’t listened to the show I did on Divine Hardening, I suggest you take a listen. It aired as a repeat show on Monday (two days ago), so you’ll find it listed there.
Christophe,
You said: “Another excellent point that all Arminians should seriously consider is that they find themselves in many, many places on the same side and arm to arm with Roman Catholic Church who is teaching in many places exactly the same things as Arminians do… If that does not concerns the Arminian then I do not know what possibly can concern him or her.”
What exactly are these links between Arminianism and Catholocism? Also, both Calvinists and Arminians share much in common with Catholics. We all believe in the Trinity, Jesus’ atonement for the sins of the world, Jesus’ resurrection, Jesus’ eventual return to judge the world, eternal life for God’s saints, and eternal damnation for the reprobate. And this is just the short list! So Calvinists also share much in common with Catholics!
As I said to Hershel, please try to support these claims of Arminian dependence upon Catholic theology with evidence.
Myron
Another wonderful Line of Fire, Dr Brown.. thank you so much. Looking forward to your visit on Dr Whites Dividing Line program.
I pray any Calvinists tomorrow who might call in to your program would not have a haughty or proud attitude or speech in their conversations with you.
I have experienced such from both sides. Shame on any professing Christians, as of all folks, we have been forgiven much, grace abounding, more than we could ask or think – surely that should make us humble and not puffed up just for knowledge sake.
A wonderful book that is available by a very respected historian, is written by Dr. Tom Nettles. If you or your listeners have not read it, it has doctrine of course, but it accurately demonstrates how many folks we all know of – famous Missionaries were solid Calvinists – how these doctrines produced Godly fruit in their lives. As Dr White frequently says, Theology Matters. It did not make them proud, it did not stifle their evangelism. The book is called By His Grace and For His Glory. Dr Nettles now teaches at Southern Seminary.
Grace to you and Peace, Pat
Christophe,
With reference to the two options I offered to account for Pharaoh’s hardening of his heart AND God’s hardening of his heart you said:
“Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…
It has been said so much on the show today and yesterday about simplicity of Arminian doctrine. The extent of hypothetical assertions that you are willing to go to just to avoid God’s obvious sovereignty even over evil is truly staggering and proves the contrary; not simplicity but complexity and ambiguity of Arminian doctrine and theology, at least in above example.
Why not simply let the text speak for it self and let God be God and King be King? That is true simplicity…”
Christophe, when Scripture claims explicitly that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and in another instance that Pharoah hardened Pharaoh’s heart, that is an instance of ambiguity that Scripture creates (not me). So if I were to simply “let the text speak for itself,” then I would have to back an ambiguous view! You are speaking as if there is no ambiguity implicity in these texts. It is very obvious that there is, hence my offer of two possibilities. Your response would be better suited to a group of Scriptures that aren’t ambiguous (example: If the Scritpures had ONLY ascribed hardening of Pharaoh’s your response would be adequate). As the Scriptures stand, there is ambiguity to account for.
Myron
Wow, I’m sorry Dr. Brown! Funny thing is, before I posted, I thought to myself, “I should probably check this out first.” But nope, I went ahead and posted anyway. :# Somewhere in the back of my mind I thought that I had come across this or something like this when looking into things some time ago. Man was I wrong.
And Myron, I hear you. And agree with your two points fro the most part. Although, I do think that it is Biblical that God does raise up the evil man in a position of authority for the day of wrath.
And Dr. Brown, I think it would do me good to listen to your message on Divine Hardening as you prescribed.
Myron,
I am glad that you ask about convergence between some of the doctrines of Roman Catholic Church and Arminian. Let me assure that convergence is real and is there…
Just a few points from foundational for Rome Council of Trent:
“If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema. ”
Canon V, Chapter XVI, Session VI – Council of Trent of Roman Catholic Church
“If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.”
Canon XV, Chapter XVI, Session VI – Council of Trent of Roman Catholic Church
“If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.”
Canon XVII, Chapter XVI, Session VI – Council of Trent of Roman Catholic Church
Myron I hope you will not dismiss those canons as well as anathemas that is condemnations to hell. There is more, way more in all of the teachings of Rome which basically are Armininan to the core…
Please think through many implications…
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
Josh,
All clear!
Myron and Cristophe,
Actually, based on the Hebrew usage in the Exodus accounts, and based on the principle that God gives us over to our sin, I actually don’t see any ambiguity in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. What we also don’t know is how God works, as it was pointed out long ago, the same sunlight that hardens the clay melts the wax. Sometimes, a display of love or kindness can produce hardness.
In any case, that part is not fully explained to us, but what is explained makes perfect sense: Pharaoh repeatedly hardened his heart by refusing to yield, then the Lord confirmed him in his sin.
“Christophe, when Scripture claims explicitly that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and in another instance that Pharoah hardened Pharaoh’s heart, that is an instance of ambiguity that Scripture creates (not me). So if I were to simply “let the text speak for itself,” then I would have to back an ambiguous view! You are speaking as if there is no ambiguity implicitly in these texts.”
Myron,
Please forgive me if I am being presumptuous or a simpleton but from my perspective there really is no ambiguity in these texts. I already said why…
If the Lord withdraws His grace from paragraph He has nowhere to go but toward evil and hardness. That’s why both descriptions are correct as they explain the same process.
Grace withdrawn by God resulting in hardening of heart:
“Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may perform these signs of Mine among them,”
New American Standard Bible : S. Ex 10:1
“Then the Lord said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh;…”
New American Standard Bible : Ex 6:1
As a result of grace withdrawn pharaoh hardens his heart:
“But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and adid not listen to them, as the Lord had said”
SDG
Christophe
New American Standard Bible : Ex 8:15
Christophe,
So let me get this straight: The Council of Trent denounces 5-point Calvinism, and Arminians denounce 5-point Calvinism, therefore Arminians are somehow in league with the Catholic Church? Christophe, this is laughable.
As I pointed out above, Calvinists (and Arminians) share with Catholics a belief in the Trinity, Jesus’ atoning death for sins, Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, and eventual return, and eternal life for saints and eternal damnation for sinners. Are Calvinists, then, in league with Rome? Just because Arminians share with Catholics a rejection of Calvinism doesn’t mean that we are into veneration of saints, transubstantian, purgatory, and whole host of other unbiblical things. This is actually want you are trying to convey, and it is poor logic. By the same logic, Calvinists would sign off on all these things by virtue of the orthodox beliefs they share with Calvinists.
Also, when Arminius repudiated Calvinism, he hearkened back to the Scriptures and the pre-Augustinian church fathers. By the by, here are a few early church fathers who Arminius was in line with:
100-165 AD, Justin Martyr: “God, wishing men and angels to follow his will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall certainly be punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably (wicked), but not because God created them so. So if they repent all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God.” (Dialogue CXLi)
100-165 AD, Justin Martyr: “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestinated that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions—whatever they may be.” (First Apology ch.43)
130-200 AD, Irenaeus: “This expression, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God…And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice…If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things and to abstain from others?” (Against Heresies XXXVII, Book 4, Ch. 37)
This is only a sampling of the ways that the early church fathers are in absolute disagreement with what would become 5-point Calvinism. I can provide you with more quotes from the early church fathers on this topic. But here are two quotes from Calvinists concerning the early church fathers and their relationship to what’s now called 5-point Calvinism:
Calvinist Alister McGrath:
“The pre-Augustinian theological tradition is practically of one voice in asserting the freedom of the human will” (McGrath, Justitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 1998, p. 20)
Calvinist Lorraine Boettner:
“It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel…They taught a kind of synergism in which there was co-operation between grace and free will…This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine….he went far beyond the earlier theologians, an unconditional election.” (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pg. 365)
So actually, Arminians are indebted to the Scriptures and the pre-Augustinian church fathers for their beliefs. You attempt to link us to the more unbiblical bits of Catholic theology is absurd. Rejection of 5-point Calvinism is not tantamount to links to Rome. Also, when you look the history of Arminian movements, you don’t find any attempts to “go back to Rome”! Your assertions have no weight to them.
Myron
“If the Lord withdraws His grace from paragraph”
hahaha the marvels of spell checker… 🙂
It should say:
“If the Lord withdraws His grace from pharaoh”
🙂
C.
“Myron and Cristophe,
Actually, based on the Hebrew usage in the Exodus accounts, and based on the principle that God gives us over to our sin, I actually don’t see any ambiguity in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. ”
Dr. Brown,
I do not see either so your issue is with Myron who does see ambiguity.
SDG,
Christophe
Quoting Greg: “Let the little children, who know intermediate Greek & Hebrew, who’ve studied the Institutes, who’ve read Owen, who’ve adored MacArthur, come to me.”
Gosh…what a well thought out biblical defense…how in the world will anyone counter this argument?
I must say…the level of biblical argumentation from the Arminian side reminds me of “Oh yeah? Well what about John 3:16! har har har!”
No much of substance….it’s like nobody ever read anything that ‘s ever been written on this subject…
“So let me get this straight: The Council of Trent denounces 5-point Calvinism, and Arminians denounce 5-point Calvinism, therefore Arminians are somehow in league with the Catholic Church? Christophe, this is laughable.”
Myron,
This is not laughable at all, at least not for the reasons you think… Let me ask you: how much do you know about Roman Catholicism? How much did you study it?
I am asking because I am getting a strong impression that you do not know much about it. So if I am right about the level of tour knowledge about RCC(and I think I am) then it is truly shocking for your to look at this in a matter of minutes and pronounce it as laughable.
I would like to assure you that the commonality and convergence between Rome’s teaching and Arminian teaching as to the nature of God, nature of man, and salvation are way more profound to assert than a casual 30 minute glance with google’s help. We could spend another week on this forum and we would not get to half of it.
So is it laughable? Given your attitude to it perhaps it is…
Regards,
SDG,
Christophe
Based on certain English translations, Myron is right, there does appear to be ambiguity. But there is none when one looks at the Hebrew usage. Thanks Dr. Brown, I’m listening to it now. Awesome! I feel like this is a message every Christian ought to hear. It makes sense of SO MUCH! Great teacher. God Bless you!
Christophe,
All you’ve done with reference to this topic is make unsubstantiated comments about the connection between Arminian thought and Catholicism. When asked to proffer any proof, all you could come up with was a supposed connection based on a common repudiation of 5-point Calvinism. Buddhism also rejects 5-point Calvinism, so are Arminians also in line with Buddhism?
I know a lot about Catholicism, and I know how Arminian thought developed. Aside from adherence to orthodoxy, Arminius was not indebted to any unbiblical things that Catholics advanced. Arminius and those who were in line with him referred to Scripture and the pre-Augustinian church fathers when rejecting Calvinism. By the by, I noticed that you have not interacted with my quotes from the patristics and from the McGrath and Boettner quotes which support the notion that the pre-Augustinian patristics held to the exact opposite of what would become 5-point Calvinism. Tell me, were Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Justin Martyr Catholics as well?
Why don’t you do this: PROVE that Arminius relied on Catholicism to make his points. You’ve offered nothing valid in the way of such proof. You’re just playing the game of negative association. THAT is laughable.
Myron
Hershel,
…the whole Catholic Church was full of murderers and killed those who opposed it.
That’s an over-statement and a half friend. I do not hold to Catholic or Protestant dogma if that’s what your implying. Then again, not everyone who currently holds to these traditions is a “murderer” or “killer”.
…losing ones salvation is not taught in scripture, for Jesus said that he would lose none of his, but would raise them up at the last day.
So how do you interpret the following?
I am the r true vine, and my Father is s the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away…If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. John 15.1-2, 6
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Mat 7.19; 3.10
What about Jesus’ parable of the Talents in Mat 25.14-30? A parable directed at believers where faithful stewardship in this life will result in being given greater responsibility and stewardship in the age to come. Yet, to those who are not faithful “even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’” [vv. 29-30]
Or his warning that even the elect can be led astray by “false christs” and prophets [Mat 24.24]?
What about Paul’s metaphor regarding the grafting in of Gentiles into the olive tree [the new Israel of God, Gal 6.16]? Where it appears that God will not spare anyone who does not continue to believe, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.
For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Mat 11.21
Christophe,
I am not going to discuss how historically incorrect and ignorant are charges against John Calvin regarding Servetus and how slanderous the are against this man of God. What many seem to forget is that this is also slanderous against Holy Spirit that used this man mightily.
I have quoted Calvin himself extensively and one of the first man to condemn his involvement in the “Servetus affair”, Sebastian Castellion. I fear for anyone who believes the Holy Spirit was working “mightily” through this man or anyone else who may have been involved in the persecution and execution of other “Christians” across the ages. Calvin was not the only Protestant or Catholic involved.
I implore you to please read the following article and compare the claims the writer makes regarding this sad episode:
Farel [Calvin’s henchman] walked beside the condemned man, and kept up a constant barrage ofwords, in complete insensitivity to what Servetus might be feeling. All he had in mindwas to extort from the prisoner an acknowledgment of his theological error[which readers of this magazine know was not an error at all but Jesus’ own truth about GOD] — a shocking example of the soulless cure of souls. After some minutes of this, Servetus ceased making any reply and prayed quietly to himself. When they arrived at the place of execution, Farel announced to the watching crowd:
‘Here you see what power Satan possesses when he has a man in his power. This man is a scholar of distinction, and he perhaps believed he was acting rightly. But now Satan possesses him completely, as he might possess you, should you fall into his traps.’ [Well did Jesus say, “Those who kill you will think that they are doing God a service”!]
Calvin had thus murdered his enemy, and there is nothing to suggest that he ever repented of his crime. The next year he published a defense in which further insults were heaped upon his former adversary in most vindictive and intemperate language
Concerning what I’ve said about the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart:
I have not questioned WHETHER God did it, just HOW God did it. That’s where the ambiguity is for me. Contra Calvinism, I don’t think that God hardened Pharaoh (a) unconditionally and (b) before the foundation of the world. As I’ve maintained, I believe it happened in space, time, and history, and I’m only dealing with HOW it happened. And I plan to listen to Dr. Brown’s message to get more insight!
Myron
“I know a lot about Catholicism”
Myron,
Apparently not enough. I was on the inside for a long and time so I guess is your knowledge versus my knowledge and my experience…
“When asked to proffer any proof, all you could come up with was a supposed connection based on a common repudiation of 5-point Calvinism”
If you think that Calvinism is exhaustively defined by 5 points you are in for further discovery Myron.
“Tell me, were Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Justin Martyr Catholics as well? ”
According to Rome they were…and by the way they can provide a plenty of their quotes that taken out of context can be plausible.
I of course do not believe they were Roman Catholics as Rome really developed later. That is one of the reason I will not follow your suit and start quoting fathers as I could easily do to prove my side because I know that there are quotes for your side, even better than you have provided so this is a waste of time unless one is willing to read fathers at depth…
“Why don’t you do this: PROVE that Arminius relied on Catholicism to make his points. You’ve offered nothing valid in the way of such proof.”
The interaction was both ways and I do not have to prove to you anything, especially given your cavalier attitude to this matter and tons of material than needs to be discussed and reviewed. Do your own homework as I did.
Respectfully,
Christophe
Myron and Christophe, am I detecting a little bit of pride–some false humility? Christophe you seem to be treading on almost personal attacks.
Myron,
All clear!
Josh,
Yes, for some odd reason, almost no English translations distinguish between the words used, even though the differences between them are so clear.
Ya, I agree. I wonder why? Maybe you should work to produce a better translation Dr. Brown. You think God might have that in mind for you?
Christophe (and Josh, tangentially),
You have made claims that you have not backed up. It’s that simple. If I quote Calvinists authors and early church fathers, they are either out of context (which you haven’t proven) or in league with Rome. If I demonstrate faulty logic, you claim that you don’t have to prove anything. Either demonstrate that there is a connection between Arminian thought and Roman Catholcism, or leave it alone. That’s all I’ve asked for, and you’ve failed to provide the evidence. It seems like you’re claiming guilt by association, but you haven’t even come close to presenting ANY association.
Josh – Thanks for the admonition.
Myron
Hey Everyone!
I think that John Piper’s argument is relevant here. Piper actually argues that the first time that Moses goes to Pharoah, God hardens him in his sin. He quotes an important text in Exodus 4:21:
Then the Lord said to Moses, “When you go to return to Egypt, see that you do all the wonders that I placed in your hand before Pharoah. However, I will harden his heart and he will not send the people away.
Now, when we turn the page, and go to chapter 5, on the very next page we find:
Now, after this, Moses and Aaron went and said to Pharoah, “Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel: Send my people away, so that they may have a festival to me in the desert.” Then Pharaoh said, “Who is the Lord that I would obey him and thus send Israel away. I do not know the Lord, and also, I will not send Israel away.
Now, one has got to ask the question. Since God says that he would do this back in 4:21, before Moses and Pharaoh ever meet, and this is the first scene with Moses and Pharaoh after 4:21, how can someone say that 5:1-2 is not the fulfillment of 4:21? If that is the case, then God is hardening Pharaoh’s heart from the beginning.
Also, what about the instances where Pharaoh is said to harden his own heart? There is an interesting phrase that occurs in those passages. For example, Exodus 8:15:
But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
There is a problem here, and it is simply that God never said that Pharaoh would harden his own heart! This is also true of texts which talk about Pharaoh’s heart “being hardened,” such as Exodus 7:22. The only thing that God had ever said was back in 4:21, and that is that he would harden Pharaoh’s heart. What Piper suggests, and I think he is right, is that God was behind even Pharaoh hardening his own heart.
Also, I think something that has to be brought up here is what follows Paul’s discussion of hardening in Romans 9 is an objection. After saying that God has mercy on whom he wills, and hardens whom he wills [v.18], Paul then goes on to raise a possible objection in verse 19:
Therefore, you will say to me, “Why does he still find fault? For who resists his will?”
The problem is that the hardening of Pharaoh is simply God giving him over to his own stubbornness, then Paul has a ready made answer to this objection. He can just say, “No, you misunderstand. Pharaoh was acting sinfully, and God was simply handing him over to his own stubbornness.” In fact, Paul *doesn’t* go on to say that, but instead goes on to say, “who are you, O man, to answer back to God,” making the problem all the worse for him.
Thus, because I would agree with John Piper, I would disagree that Pharaoh was simply being handed over to his own stubbornness, as it would not seem to fit either text.
God Bless, Adam
No problem. I don’t pretend to have arrived and figured everything out. I love to learn. So, I’m always looking forward to hearing people out . . . if its from God. If what they say is true, I believe that God has made us in such a way that if our hearts are humbled before Him and teachable, the truth will resonate with us. We will be satisfied in the end.
Hershel,
Two points in response to your last post.
1) Those who condemn Reformed theology on the basis of the Servetus situation are silly and shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Hopefully you can see here that the vast majority arguing against Calvinism haven’t resorted to such tactics.
2) You claim that Arminianism is Semi-Pelagian. I would encourage you to read up on Arminianism as this is not true. Two professor’s from Covenant Theological Seminary (Robert Peterson & Michael Williams) have written a book called “Why I Am Not An Arminian”. In it they fairly state that Arminianism is not Semi-Pelagianism. They think a better designation for it is Semi-Augustinianism. If you read the best from the Arminian side you will never conclude it’s Semi-Pelagian.
Steve
Brennon,
“This, however, is simply a misconception. God does know what will happen at all times with certainty. HOWEVER, this does not mean that the things that happen are necessary. God may know I would choose to write this comment here, but God knowing that does not mean He determined (see made necessary) that I would do this. It simply means He knew what I would freely choose to do in this given situation. However, if I had chosen not to write this comment, God would have know that beforehand as well.”
My point is your decision is made before you make it. If God knows your decision, then you will always make that decision. By virtue of God’s omniscience of events, your decision is determined…just not by God. This is why many people who want to hold to libertarian freedom have to hold to Middle Knowledge.
“That’s all I’ve asked for, and you’ve failed to provide the evidence.”
Myron,
That is not true. I did provide an evidence but not all of the evidence there is. I have provided three quotes from Council of Trent that clearly line up with Arminian position.
You may not like it, you may dismiss it but please do not reduce Calvinism to just five points and do not ask of me to provide further evidence from the plethora of RCC teachings contained in encyclicals, papal bulls and councils. This is simply beyond the scope of this casual discussion. You refuse to see how complex RCC teaching is as you also oversimplify Reformed Theology.
I have no need to have a last voice nor do I need to convince you. I have simply signaled many issues with Arminianism. You can dismiss them all as you do or you can spend more required time to check them that’s your choice but please do not proclaim a victory just because I simply have no time and no intentions to spend another 20 hours here typing quotes that you will dismiss any way a priori.
Regards,
Christophe
Adam, it seems to me that the clearest explanation of Exodus 8:15 is the last 10 words of that verse. God may not have said to Moses that Pharoah would “harden” his heart yet, but He DID say that Pharoah would “not send the people away.” God does not harden an already soft heart, He only may confirm/strengthen and already hard heart indirectly, because it is JUST that He would correct the proud/stubborn man. The same mercy is extended to him as to everyone else. But if He choses to reject prior warning and advice, then it is RIGHT for God to judge and inevitably further stiffen and already stiff-necked man. See Dr. Brown, I’m learnin’.
Dr. brown, I thought this might help the discussion about pharoh:One of the great jewish Rabbis explained the reason for g-d hardening the heart of pharoh. He said something fascinating, the problem was that g-d to give pharoh free to choose to obey g-d and send the jews out,the problem was however that pharoh was forced into listening to g-d because of the ten plauges that he received, so without g-d hardening his heart pharoh would have no free will,since he would be forced to send them out due to his sufferiing. So g-d hardened his heart to counteract the fact that he was suffering from the ten plauges so at this point it was a fair ballgame! In other words now he had perfect free will.
With regard to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart no less an authority than R.C. Sproul teaches that God’s hardening of his heart was passive not active. Here’s what Dr. Sproul says about passive hardening:
“Passive hardening involves a divine judgment upon sin that is already present. All that God needs to do to harden the heart of a person whose heart is already desperately wicked is to ‘give him over to his sin.’ We find this concept of divine judgment repeatedly in Scripture…. All that God has to do to harden people’s hearts is to remove the restraints. He gives them a longer leash. Rather than restricting their human freedom, he increases it. In a sense he gives them enough rope to hang themselves. It is not that God puts His hand on them to create fresh evil in their hearts; he merely removes His holy hand of restraint from them and lets them do their own will.”
Seeking Disciple,
Thanks for the kind words, and my appreciation to Dr. White for his graciousness and candor as well.
Christophe,
Matthew’s use of Jeremiah 31:15 – As Dr. Brown has demonstrated, there are serious scholars who also agree that Matthew’s use of Jer. 31:15 is simply typological and not prophetic. I respect those scholars who think differently, but I don’t see any other way to handle it, and I would like to see more proof that there are more valid ways to handle it.
Calvinism and God as author/originator of evil:
I said: “And the Calvinist view that God pre-ordains evil sacrifices God’s character on an altar to His sovereignty.”
You said: This is not Calvinist view but only a caricature and misrepresentation of it for the purposes of making a target bigger for Arminaian attack. How is that different I already said many times on this web site so please read my responses.
I’ll give you two quotes from prominent Calvinists that inform my thinking here:
The first is from John Frame:
“The question, though, is whether God merely permits evil, or whether in addition he actually brings evil about in some sense. I think the latter is true. Scripture often says that God brings about sinful decisions of human being…This is a hard teaching, and on one level it makes the problem of evil more difficult. But in another sense, this teaching is reassuring. If evil comes from some source other than God, that would be pretty scary. It would imply that there are forces of evil that are capable of resisting, even overcoming God’s desires. But if evil comes from God, we know that he has a good purpose in bringing it about (Rom. 8:28).”
(found at http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2008/08/20/interview-with-john-frame-on-problem-of/)
The second is from John Feinberg’s “No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God” with reference to the portion of God’s eternal decrees referred to as His “undesired will” (pp. 695-96):
“The second part of God’s decree is his decree of all morally evil deeds. Those acts are contrary to God’s moral law, and God doesn’t want us to do these things, but he has decreed that we will do them, anyway. In addition, this part of the decree contains all our choices and acts which, though not covererd by moral precept, are still contrary to God’s best for us…This portion of the decree is typically called God’s permissive will. Theologians use use this locution to safeguard against the idea that God is somehow morally reponsible for evil, since he has decreed it. Though I understand why this label is used, I am hesitant to use it, because it gives the impression that God somehow surrenders control of things when we sin, for example, by letting us do what we want without foreordaining our actions.”
Perhaps you have some nuances to these above quotes that I may not be aware of. That’s cool. But I just want you to know that I arrive at my views on how Calvinism (mis)handles God, the decrees, and evil quite honestly. Frame and Feinberg are representative of mainstream Calvinism and both enjoy a broad audience within Calvinist circles. I don’t see how either of these statements (and you can check the context of both for yourself, especially with Frame) escapes my conclusion.
Myron
These discusions are very fruitful I believe. I’m printing these pages to refer to them some other time.
words like foreordain add confusion in our minds. If it can mean placed in a position ahead of our time but not necessarily God’s delight, then I would agree. God does do this indirectly, as seen in Ezekiel with the Cherubim.
The issue with what Frame has said is the classical issue of direct vs indirect. It’s like the fact that in Exodus, we read that Pharoah hardedned his heart (literally lifted up his heart). Then a couple chapters later in the same book we read that God hardened Pharoah’s heart (once again literally, lifted up Pharoah’s heart). So who hardened Pharoah’s heart?
The scriptures teach that if you correct a proud and angry man, they will only hate you. They only harden their heart further. However, when they keep on reject warning, it would be WRONG NOT to bring the judgement that is due. Correct a wise and humble man, and he will love you and become wiser.
The rod of correction (whether literally or a verbal rod of words) that is used to humble someone, is also the same thing that inevitably destroys the proud man.
Dr Brown and Dr White,
Thank you both for the gracious way in which you disagreed with one another.
If someone has already mentioned what follows please forgive the repitition. I have read most of the posts but not all.
Why is it that grace must be irresistable to be grace? A man is unable to move towards God at all because his will is in bondage to sin, in short he is dead in his sin. God by his grace in the gospel call or possibly even in natural revelation free’s the man’s will to be truly free. His eyes are opened. He can now respond in faith, or he can persist in unbelief. If he believes it is not a work that saves him (Romans 4:4-5) but God’s grace… to God be all the glory. And if he persists in unbelief then it is not God’s fault that he does so it is his own, to man be all the shame and blame.
It may be said that in the above hypothesis the freeing of man’s will via the gospel call or even natural revelation would be irresistable grace in that his will is freed apart from anything that the man does. His will is set free by God’s grace alone, but it is resistable in that if the man prefers his bondage in sin he is free to refuse any further grace and to reject what grace has already been given him (Romans 1:18-32)
I am a sinner saved by grace.
My 2c:
I think it is fully right and Biblical to affirm that evil comes from God, but not in the sense that God himself is doing evil. In other words, God sinlessly uses sin and sinful creatures. So these are secondary causes that are directly morally responsible for evil, even though God Himself decrees that it happens.
This conclusion is inescapable when confronted with the Biblical testimony. In Acts 4:26-28 we are told that wicked men did ” whatever [God’s]hand and…plan had predestined to take place.”
Right there, as plain as day, is God not only decreeing that an evil event take place, but that it’s the most evil thing that has ever or will ever be done in history, and that God predestined it to happen (by implication, from eternity past)
So two things are true: 1) God decrees 2) yet men are responsible for their actions.
The truth of one does not eliminate the truth of the other. Both are true simultaneously, though our limited, fallen human minds cannot reconcile it.
This hardly sacrifices God’s character in favor of His sovereignty.
Let us not forget that creating a theodicy is really pointless, for God himself declares that He creates both well being and calamity.
Isa 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.
Amo 3:6 Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?
Lam 3:38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?
If you press this issue near its conclusion you will realize that this viewpoint is the only one that can possibly be of an comfort to those who are actually experiencing evil and suffering. As James said on the debate, if evil has no purpose (that is, if it does not ultimately come from God), then that means evil happens in the universe with no purpose. Purpose-less evil. It happens, and God either allows it or is helpless to stop it, but either way, there was no reason whatsoever for it to begin with. God simply “reacts”, because a He’s a really sharp guy, and is able to manipulate and contort the situation into a good one.
However, if evil has a purpose (which, I think is irrefutable given the few Bible texts I posted), I am greatly comforted because I know my suffering is part of the plan my Heavenly Father, who “works all things together for my good”.
Josh,
Where does it say in the Hebrew that Pharaoh (or God) lifted up his heart? I don’t want to get into a discussion of your larger point here, but I was curious about which verbs you were referring to. As I recall, the three main verbs used are: 1) strengthen; 2) make heavy; 3) harden.
Myron,
Frankly I do not know nor do I follow Frame and Feinberg or their works. I am not even concerned if they are “mainstream” or not.
I do know that in both camps they are people who present issues better or worst making them clearer to understand or not.
The issue is not Frame and Feinberg but what the Word of God say. I have provided quite a few Scriptural references that clearly state that God is sovereign over evil. He does not create it but he surely “manages” it.
Again one of many proofs:
“Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?”
Lamentations 3:37 – 38 ESV
Do I need Frame and Feinberg or even Dr.White to understand it? No, it is clear. Do you need Dr.Brown to understand it? No it is clear as well.
That bad needs to be defined. Evil is absence of good, just like darkness is absence of light. God does not have to do anything active to allow evil to occur. All He has to do is withdraw His grace, This is what happened with pharaoh’s heart as his hardness and evil brought about even greater good for Israel and glory for God as evidenced in Romans 9:17.
I think Frame and Feinberg where attempting to point to that but their words came short with fully describing this but I am not sure as I do not follow them.
Best regrads,
SDG
Christophe
Hi Josh,
I don’t think that the nuances of words like “fore-ordain” matter here. Even if there is an agent performing the evil act, God is still on the hook because He ordained it. This violates His holiness (among other things).
As for Pharoah, I acknowledge that there is obvious ambiguity because at different times the Scriptures ascribe the hardening of his heart to Pharaoh and to God. But I think that there are a few cogent answers to this that don’t in any way leave God as the author of Pharaoh’s idolatry:
(1) God’s activity in Pharaoh’s hardening is not referred to until we’re already well into the Exodus narrative. In other words, there is no textual warrant for believing that God was hardening him prior to the point when when the author of Exodus says this. This brings me to my next point…
(2) The first option for understanding God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is as follows. Perhaps God did harden Pharaoh’s heart in space, time, and history (in other words, NOT according to some “eternal decree”). But one need not read into this act unconditional reprobation. God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart could have been occasioned by Pharaoh’s idolatry. Perhaps there’s some point in which sinners have given themselves so completely to evil that God merely turns to using them as instruments because they are so in league with Satan that this is all they are good for. This explanation would fit Pharaoh well being that he continued to vacillate concerning the realease of the Hebrews despite the fact that God was doing undeniable wonders in Egypt through Moses.
(2) Another explanation of the ambiguity between Pharaoh’s/God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (I believe offered by C.S. Lewis, and more in line with what you’ve written above) is as follows: Pharaoh is responsible for the hardening of his own heart because he simply continually rejected God’s lordship, even in the face of undeniable miracles. God, however, is also responsible for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in that He continued to call for Pharaoh’s repentance, even in the face of Pharaoh’s unwillingness. In the latter instance, God’s unrelenting demand for Pharoah’s submission created the condition for Pharaoh’s hardening–a condition which depends on God’s activity.
Again, I’m pretty sure that option 2 is close to what you are getting at above. However, I can’t say that this is even close to what Frame is getting at. Frame is NOT merely speaking to the notion that God creates conditions in space, time, and history that–in cooperation with adverse rebellious human rejetion of God’s will–result in hard hearts. Instead, Frame, like Feinberg, is claiming that it is God who decrees the evil within humankind in His eternal decrees before the foundation of the world. The fact that said evil is actualized through human agents in no way rescues this line of thinking from imputing evil to God. If God decrees human (and demonic) evil, and if said evil will absolutely occur no matter what because of God’s decree, then God’s on the hook for evil. This conclusion is as undeniable as it is unbiblical.
Myron
Xavier said: “I reject Calvinism not so much because of its fallacious view of “once saved always saved”, but simply because of its founder. A murderer and persecutor of those who disagreed with him.”
Xavier rejects Calvinism, not because it teaches once saved always saved, but because it was founded by a murderer who killed those who disagreed with him, yet Xavier holds to and teaches Roman Catholicism, even though the whole Catholic Church was full of murderers and killed those who opposed it.
If Xavier would search out where his doctrines originated he would find that losing ones salvation is not taught in scripture, for Jesus said that he would lose none of his, but would raise them up at the last day. But Xavier would also find that the doctrine of losing ones salvation has roots in Arminianism, which stems from Cassianism , which stems off of Pelagianism.
Both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism {Cassianism & Arminianism & Roman Catholicism] was condemned at the Council of Orange in 529 A. D. Roman Catholicism could be called Pelagianism seeing that their Catechism affirms that man can choose good or evil in his natural state.
I love to hear Calvinists and Arminians try to explain their position without defining their terms. It’s like apples vs oranges, ney apples vs. couches. There is so much we agree on but without defining terms then we speak two different languages.
We agree so much with each other.
Total Depravity -> Men are born dead. Yup both agree.
Unconditional Election -> God has an elect.
Limited Atonement -> Not all will be saved.
Irresistible Grace -> We’ll never make it without His grace.
Perseverance of the Saints -> Those that persevere until the end will be saved.
Double Predestination (point 6) – Some will be lost and some saved and that’s how God set it up.
Best of all possible worlds (point 7) – okay maybe that’s a stretch.
John Piper helped me understand TULIP and the Calvinist position the best – it’s all about being God-centered and God-glorified.
This is the equation:
-Everything God does is glorious.
-The more God does the more glory He gets.
-God is most glorified if He does everything.
(So if God gives people faith to believe, softens hearts so people will live His love, hardens people’s hearts or leaves them to their hardened state, heals whenever He wants and doesn’t heal whenever He wants, sends people He wants to heaven and the people He chooses to hell and just judgment – He is most glorified for His Sovereign purposes.)
It all logically fits. It really does. If you buy in completely to T then logically it’s not a stretch to acknowledge ULIP and maybe even point 6 & 7 with John Piper and Jonathan Edwards, I believe.
Wait, only one problem… it’s not what the Bible means. (My opinion) Have a new believer that doesn’t know anything about Calvinism a Bible and see if they come up with Calvinism. The bottom line is: You have to start with Calvinist definitions to get to a Calvinist system.
So I look forward to Dr. Brown and Dr. White looking at what the definition of faith is. This is where I believe the battle is fought and won. Often whoever gets to define the terms wins the argument.
I have inspired by men like John Fletcher and pray that we may may continue to encourage such a cry for unity. I mean we Christians, especially on these issues, are an embarrassment to the unbelievers. It is a well known fact that some of the most vicious discussions on the internet are Christians arguing out what they believe about Calvinism and Arminianism and what they believe about those that oppose their view.
I urge you brothers to continue, as you have been demonstrating, love, forbearance and a continual desire to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
Brad
“Perhaps God did harden Pharaoh’s heart in space, time, and history (in other words, NOT according to some “eternal decree”).”
Myron,
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…
It has been said so much on the show today and yesterday about simplicity of Arminian doctrine. The extent of hypothetical assertions that you are willing to go to just to avoid God’s obvious sovereignty even over evil is truly staggering and proves the contrary; not simplicity but complexity and ambiguity of Arminian doctrine and theology, at least in above example.
Why not simply let the text speak for it self and let God be God and King be King? That is true simplicity…
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
Hey Everyone!
I think this is a good question to ask. To the Arminians, can you
Hey Everyone!
I think this is a good question to ask. To the Arminians, can you prove that these two statements are self-contradictory:
1. God ordains all evil that takes place.
2. God is all holy.
It would seem that the only way these two statements would be inconsistent is if God ordaining evil is somehow sinful. However, I guess what I would ask is for proof that God ordaining evil is something sinful.
God Bless,
Adam
Articles that remind us of our agreement:
Charles Simeon (Calvinist) and John Wesley (Arminian)
http://callitgrace.blogspot.com/2009/08/charles-simeon-meets-john-wesley.html
John Fletcher – Equal Check to Phariseeism and Antinomianism
How both the emphasis of Calvinism and Arminianism are needed
http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_fletcher/An%20Equal%20Check.htm
Charles Finney on how God uses Calvinism and Arminian emphasis to accomplish his purposes in revival
http://www.gospeltruth.net/1868Lect_on_Rev_of_Rel/68revlec12.htm
Hershel,
You are incorrect here. Those of us who believe that it is possible for Christians to lose their salvation (conditional perseverance) have solid exegetical ground to stand on concerning the Scriptures.
Also, I question your account of the history of the doctrine of conditional perseverance. Actually, prior to Augustine this view was held by all of the church fathers. Even Calvinist John Jefferson Davis reached this conclusion in an article called “The Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine” (which you can find here: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a133.htm). As a doctrine, perseverance of the saints doesn’t reach its final form until Calvin, or 1500 years into church history. So the notion that one can lose one’s salvation is not rooted in Arminianism at all.
If you’d like a sampling of the statements from the pre-Augustinian church fathers conveying their belief in the possibility that one could fall away from the faith, you may want to check out these two links (same website):
For the first and second century church fathers: http://www.achurchinfortcollins.org/eseh2.php#firstandsecond
For the third and fourth century church fathers:
http://www.achurchinfortcollins.org/eseh.php#thirdandfourth
Furthermore, if you going to claim that Arminianism has its roots in Pelagianism and Catholocism, some historical info backing up these claims would be helpful. I’ve never seen such connections.
Myron
“Xavier rejects Calvinism, not because it teaches once saved always saved, but because it was founded by a murderer who killed those who disagreed with him, yet Xavier holds to and teaches Roman Catholicism, even though the whole Catholic Church was full of murderers and killed those who opposed it”
Dear Hershel,
You are bringing up an excellent points. I am not going to discuss how historically incorrect and ignorant are charges against John Calvin regarding Servetus and how slanderous the are against this man of God. What many seem to forget is that this is also slanderous against Holy Spirit that used this man mightily.
Another excellent point that all Arminians should seriously consider is that they find themselves in many, many places on the same side and arm to arm with Roman Catholic Church who is teaching in many places exactly the same things as Arminians do… If that does not concerns the Arminian then I do not know what possibly can concern him or her.
Regards,
SDG,
Christophe
Hershel,
Also, Arminius himself did not believe that a believer could lose his/her salvation. He saw ample biblical evidence for both the perseverance of the saints camp and the conditional perseverance camp. He remained undecided. This further undercuts the notion that Arminius came up with the doctrine of conditional perseverance. While it is true that Arminians and other non-Calvinists are the only folks who can hold to conditional perseverance, it is not true that all Arminians and non-Calvinists do hold to this. Arminius himself did not. If you have evidence to the contrary, let me know.
Myron
Folks,
If you haven’t listened to the show I did on Divine Hardening, I suggest you take a listen. It aired as a repeat show on Monday (two days ago), so you’ll find it listed there.
Christophe,
You said: “Another excellent point that all Arminians should seriously consider is that they find themselves in many, many places on the same side and arm to arm with Roman Catholic Church who is teaching in many places exactly the same things as Arminians do… If that does not concerns the Arminian then I do not know what possibly can concern him or her.”
What exactly are these links between Arminianism and Catholocism? Also, both Calvinists and Arminians share much in common with Catholics. We all believe in the Trinity, Jesus’ atonement for the sins of the world, Jesus’ resurrection, Jesus’ eventual return to judge the world, eternal life for God’s saints, and eternal damnation for the reprobate. And this is just the short list! So Calvinists also share much in common with Catholics!
As I said to Hershel, please try to support these claims of Arminian dependence upon Catholic theology with evidence.
Myron
Another wonderful Line of Fire, Dr Brown.. thank you so much.
Looking forward to your visit on Dr Whites Dividing Line program.
I pray any Calvinists tomorrow who might call in to your program would not have a haughty or proud attitude or speech in their conversations with you.
I have experienced such from both sides. Shame on any professing Christians, as of all folks, we have been forgiven much, grace abounding, more than we could ask or think – surely that should make us humble and not puffed up just for knowledge sake.
A wonderful book that is available by a very respected historian, is written by Dr. Tom Nettles. If you or your listeners have not read it, it has doctrine of course, but it accurately demonstrates how many folks we all know of – famous Missionaries were solid Calvinists – how these doctrines produced Godly fruit in their lives. As Dr White frequently says, Theology Matters. It did not make them proud, it did not stifle their evangelism. The book is called By His Grace and For His Glory. Dr Nettles now teaches at Southern Seminary.
Grace to you and Peace,
Pat
Christophe,
With reference to the two options I offered to account for Pharaoh’s hardening of his heart AND God’s hardening of his heart you said:
“Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…
It has been said so much on the show today and yesterday about simplicity of Arminian doctrine. The extent of hypothetical assertions that you are willing to go to just to avoid God’s obvious sovereignty even over evil is truly staggering and proves the contrary; not simplicity but complexity and ambiguity of Arminian doctrine and theology, at least in above example.
Why not simply let the text speak for it self and let God be God and King be King? That is true simplicity…”
Christophe, when Scripture claims explicitly that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and in another instance that Pharoah hardened Pharaoh’s heart, that is an instance of ambiguity that Scripture creates (not me). So if I were to simply “let the text speak for itself,” then I would have to back an ambiguous view! You are speaking as if there is no ambiguity implicity in these texts. It is very obvious that there is, hence my offer of two possibilities. Your response would be better suited to a group of Scriptures that aren’t ambiguous (example: If the Scritpures had ONLY ascribed hardening of Pharaoh’s your response would be adequate). As the Scriptures stand, there is ambiguity to account for.
Myron
Wow, I’m sorry Dr. Brown! Funny thing is, before I posted, I thought to myself, “I should probably check this out first.” But nope, I went ahead and posted anyway. :# Somewhere in the back of my mind I thought that I had come across this or something like this when looking into things some time ago. Man was I wrong.
And Myron, I hear you. And agree with your two points fro the most part. Although, I do think that it is Biblical that God does raise up the evil man in a position of authority for the day of wrath.
And Dr. Brown, I think it would do me good to listen to your message on Divine Hardening as you prescribed.
Myron,
I am glad that you ask about convergence between some of the doctrines of Roman Catholic Church and Arminian. Let me assure that convergence is real and is there…
Just a few points from foundational for Rome Council of Trent:
“If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema. ”
Canon V, Chapter XVI, Session VI – Council of Trent of
Roman Catholic Church
“If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.”
Canon XV, Chapter XVI, Session VI – Council of Trent of
Roman Catholic Church
“If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.”
Canon XVII, Chapter XVI, Session VI – Council of Trent of
Roman Catholic Church
Myron I hope you will not dismiss those canons as well as anathemas that is condemnations to hell. There is more, way more in all of the teachings of Rome which basically are Armininan to the core…
Please think through many implications…
Regards,
SDG
Christophe
Josh,
All clear!
Myron and Cristophe,
Actually, based on the Hebrew usage in the Exodus accounts, and based on the principle that God gives us over to our sin, I actually don’t see any ambiguity in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. What we also don’t know is how God works, as it was pointed out long ago, the same sunlight that hardens the clay melts the wax. Sometimes, a display of love or kindness can produce hardness.
In any case, that part is not fully explained to us, but what is explained makes perfect sense: Pharaoh repeatedly hardened his heart by refusing to yield, then the Lord confirmed him in his sin.
“Christophe, when Scripture claims explicitly that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and in another instance that Pharoah hardened Pharaoh’s heart, that is an instance of ambiguity that Scripture creates (not me). So if I were to simply “let the text speak for itself,” then I would have to back an ambiguous view! You are speaking as if there is no ambiguity implicitly in these texts.”
Myron,
Please forgive me if I am being presumptuous or a simpleton but from my perspective there really is no ambiguity in these texts. I already said why…
If the Lord withdraws His grace from paragraph He has nowhere to go but toward evil and hardness. That’s why both descriptions are correct as they explain the same process.
Grace withdrawn by God resulting in hardening of heart:
“Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may perform these signs of Mine among them,”
New American Standard Bible : S. Ex 10:1
“Then the Lord said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh;…”
New American Standard Bible : Ex 6:1
As a result of grace withdrawn pharaoh hardens his heart:
“But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and adid not listen to them, as the Lord had said”
SDG
Christophe
New American Standard Bible : Ex 8:15
Christophe,
So let me get this straight: The Council of Trent denounces 5-point Calvinism, and Arminians denounce 5-point Calvinism, therefore Arminians are somehow in league with the Catholic Church? Christophe, this is laughable.
As I pointed out above, Calvinists (and Arminians) share with Catholics a belief in the Trinity, Jesus’ atoning death for sins, Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, and eventual return, and eternal life for saints and eternal damnation for sinners. Are Calvinists, then, in league with Rome? Just because Arminians share with Catholics a rejection of Calvinism doesn’t mean that we are into veneration of saints, transubstantian, purgatory, and whole host of other unbiblical things. This is actually want you are trying to convey, and it is poor logic. By the same logic, Calvinists would sign off on all these things by virtue of the orthodox beliefs they share with Calvinists.
Also, when Arminius repudiated Calvinism, he hearkened back to the Scriptures and the pre-Augustinian church fathers. By the by, here are a few early church fathers who Arminius was in line with:
100-165 AD, Justin Martyr: “God, wishing men and angels to follow his will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall certainly be punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably (wicked), but not because God created them so. So if they repent all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God.” (Dialogue CXLi)
100-165 AD, Justin Martyr: “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestinated that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions—whatever they may be.” (First Apology ch.43)
130-200 AD, Irenaeus: “This expression, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God…And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice…If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things and to abstain from others?” (Against Heresies XXXVII, Book 4, Ch. 37)
This is only a sampling of the ways that the early church fathers are in absolute disagreement with what would become 5-point Calvinism. I can provide you with more quotes from the early church fathers on this topic. But here are two quotes from Calvinists concerning the early church fathers and their relationship to what’s now called 5-point Calvinism:
Calvinist Alister McGrath:
“The pre-Augustinian theological tradition is practically of one voice in asserting the freedom of the human will” (McGrath, Justitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 1998, p. 20)
Calvinist Lorraine Boettner:
“It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel…They taught a kind of synergism in which there was co-operation between grace and free will…This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine….he went far beyond the earlier theologians, an unconditional election.” (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pg. 365)
So actually, Arminians are indebted to the Scriptures and the pre-Augustinian church fathers for their beliefs. You attempt to link us to the more unbiblical bits of Catholic theology is absurd. Rejection of 5-point Calvinism is not tantamount to links to Rome. Also, when you look the history of Arminian movements, you don’t find any attempts to “go back to Rome”! Your assertions have no weight to them.
Myron
“If the Lord withdraws His grace from paragraph”
hahaha the marvels of spell checker… 🙂
It should say:
“If the Lord withdraws His grace from pharaoh”
🙂
C.
“Myron and Cristophe,
Actually, based on the Hebrew usage in the Exodus accounts, and based on the principle that God gives us over to our sin, I actually don’t see any ambiguity in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. ”
Dr. Brown,
I do not see either so your issue is with Myron who does see ambiguity.
SDG,
Christophe
Quoting Greg:
“Let the little children, who know intermediate Greek & Hebrew, who’ve studied the Institutes, who’ve read Owen, who’ve adored MacArthur, come to me.”
Gosh…what a well thought out biblical defense…how in the world will anyone counter this argument?
I must say…the level of biblical argumentation from the Arminian side reminds me of “Oh yeah? Well what about John 3:16! har har har!”
No much of substance….it’s like nobody ever read anything that ‘s ever been written on this subject…
“So let me get this straight: The Council of Trent denounces 5-point Calvinism, and Arminians denounce 5-point Calvinism, therefore Arminians are somehow in league with the Catholic Church? Christophe, this is laughable.”
Myron,
This is not laughable at all, at least not for the reasons you think… Let me ask you: how much do you know about Roman Catholicism? How much did you study it?
I am asking because I am getting a strong impression that you do not know much about it. So if I am right about the level of tour knowledge about RCC(and I think I am) then it is truly shocking for your to look at this in a matter of minutes and pronounce it as laughable.
I would like to assure you that the commonality and convergence between Rome’s teaching and Arminian teaching as to the nature of God, nature of man, and salvation are way more profound to assert than a casual 30 minute glance with google’s help. We could spend another week on this forum and we would not get to half of it.
So is it laughable? Given your attitude to it perhaps it is…
Regards,
SDG,
Christophe
Based on certain English translations, Myron is right, there does appear to be ambiguity. But there is none when one looks at the Hebrew usage.
Thanks Dr. Brown, I’m listening to it now. Awesome! I feel like this is a message every Christian ought to hear. It makes sense of SO MUCH! Great teacher. God Bless you!
Christophe,
All you’ve done with reference to this topic is make unsubstantiated comments about the connection between Arminian thought and Catholicism. When asked to proffer any proof, all you could come up with was a supposed connection based on a common repudiation of 5-point Calvinism. Buddhism also rejects 5-point Calvinism, so are Arminians also in line with Buddhism?
I know a lot about Catholicism, and I know how Arminian thought developed. Aside from adherence to orthodoxy, Arminius was not indebted to any unbiblical things that Catholics advanced. Arminius and those who were in line with him referred to Scripture and the pre-Augustinian church fathers when rejecting Calvinism. By the by, I noticed that you have not interacted with my quotes from the patristics and from the McGrath and Boettner quotes which support the notion that the pre-Augustinian patristics held to the exact opposite of what would become 5-point Calvinism. Tell me, were Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Justin Martyr Catholics as well?
Why don’t you do this: PROVE that Arminius relied on Catholicism to make his points. You’ve offered nothing valid in the way of such proof. You’re just playing the game of negative association. THAT is laughable.
Myron
Hershel,
That’s an over-statement and a half friend. I do not hold to Catholic or Protestant dogma if that’s what your implying. Then again, not everyone who currently holds to these traditions is a “murderer” or “killer”.
So how do you interpret the following?
What about Jesus’ parable of the Talents in Mat 25.14-30? A parable directed at believers where faithful stewardship in this life will result in being given greater responsibility and stewardship in the age to come. Yet, to those who are not faithful “even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’” [vv. 29-30]
Or his warning that even the elect can be led astray by “false christs” and prophets [Mat 24.24]?
What about Paul’s metaphor regarding the grafting in of Gentiles into the olive tree [the new Israel of God, Gal 6.16]? Where it appears that God will not spare anyone who does not continue to believe, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.
Christophe,
I have quoted Calvin himself extensively and one of the first man to condemn his involvement in the “Servetus affair”, Sebastian Castellion. I fear for anyone who believes the Holy Spirit was working “mightily” through this man or anyone else who may have been involved in the persecution and execution of other “Christians” across the ages. Calvin was not the only Protestant or Catholic involved.
I implore you to please read the following article and compare the claims the writer makes regarding this sad episode:
http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2009/09/his-ashes-cry-out-against-john-calvin.html
All,
Concerning what I’ve said about the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart:
I have not questioned WHETHER God did it, just HOW God did it. That’s where the ambiguity is for me. Contra Calvinism, I don’t think that God hardened Pharaoh (a) unconditionally and (b) before the foundation of the world. As I’ve maintained, I believe it happened in space, time, and history, and I’m only dealing with HOW it happened. And I plan to listen to Dr. Brown’s message to get more insight!
Myron
“I know a lot about Catholicism”
Myron,
Apparently not enough. I was on the inside for a long and time so I guess is your knowledge versus my knowledge and my experience…
“When asked to proffer any proof, all you could come up with was a supposed connection based on a common repudiation of 5-point Calvinism”
If you think that Calvinism is exhaustively defined by 5 points you are in for further discovery Myron.
“Tell me, were Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Justin Martyr Catholics as well? ”
According to Rome they were…and by the way they can provide a plenty of their quotes that taken out of context can be plausible.
I of course do not believe they were Roman Catholics as Rome really developed later. That is one of the reason I will not follow your suit and start quoting fathers as I could easily do to prove my side because I know that there are quotes for your side, even better than you have provided so this is a waste of time unless one is willing to read fathers at depth…
“Why don’t you do this: PROVE that Arminius relied on Catholicism to make his points. You’ve offered nothing valid in the way of such proof.”
The interaction was both ways and I do not have to prove to you anything, especially given your cavalier attitude to this matter and tons of material than needs to be discussed and reviewed. Do your own homework as I did.
Respectfully,
Christophe
Myron and Christophe, am I detecting a little bit of pride–some false humility? Christophe you seem to be treading on almost personal attacks.
Myron,
All clear!
Josh,
Yes, for some odd reason, almost no English translations distinguish between the words used, even though the differences between them are so clear.
Ya, I agree. I wonder why? Maybe you should work to produce a better translation Dr. Brown. You think God might have that in mind for you?
Christophe (and Josh, tangentially),
You have made claims that you have not backed up. It’s that simple. If I quote Calvinists authors and early church fathers, they are either out of context (which you haven’t proven) or in league with Rome. If I demonstrate faulty logic, you claim that you don’t have to prove anything. Either demonstrate that there is a connection between Arminian thought and Roman Catholcism, or leave it alone. That’s all I’ve asked for, and you’ve failed to provide the evidence. It seems like you’re claiming guilt by association, but you haven’t even come close to presenting ANY association.
Josh – Thanks for the admonition.
Myron
Hey Everyone!
I think that John Piper’s argument is relevant here. Piper actually argues that the first time that Moses goes to Pharoah, God hardens him in his sin. He quotes an important text in Exodus 4:21:
Then the Lord said to Moses, “When you go to return to Egypt, see that you do all the wonders that I placed in your hand before Pharoah. However, I will harden his heart and he will not send the people away.
Now, when we turn the page, and go to chapter 5, on the very next page we find:
Now, after this, Moses and Aaron went and said to Pharoah, “Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel: Send my people away, so that they may have a festival to me in the desert.” Then Pharaoh said, “Who is the Lord that I would obey him and thus send Israel away. I do not know the Lord, and also, I will not send Israel away.
Now, one has got to ask the question. Since God says that he would do this back in 4:21, before Moses and Pharaoh ever meet, and this is the first scene with Moses and Pharaoh after 4:21, how can someone say that 5:1-2 is not the fulfillment of 4:21? If that is the case, then God is hardening Pharaoh’s heart from the beginning.
Also, what about the instances where Pharaoh is said to harden his own heart? There is an interesting phrase that occurs in those passages. For example, Exodus 8:15:
But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
There is a problem here, and it is simply that God never said that Pharaoh would harden his own heart! This is also true of texts which talk about Pharaoh’s heart “being hardened,” such as Exodus 7:22. The only thing that God had ever said was back in 4:21, and that is that he would harden Pharaoh’s heart. What Piper suggests, and I think he is right, is that God was behind even Pharaoh hardening his own heart.
Also, I think something that has to be brought up here is what follows Paul’s discussion of hardening in Romans 9 is an objection. After saying that God has mercy on whom he wills, and hardens whom he wills [v.18], Paul then goes on to raise a possible objection in verse 19:
Therefore, you will say to me, “Why does he still find fault? For who resists his will?”
The problem is that the hardening of Pharaoh is simply God giving him over to his own stubbornness, then Paul has a ready made answer to this objection. He can just say, “No, you misunderstand. Pharaoh was acting sinfully, and God was simply handing him over to his own stubbornness.” In fact, Paul *doesn’t* go on to say that, but instead goes on to say, “who are you, O man, to answer back to God,” making the problem all the worse for him.
Thus, because I would agree with John Piper, I would disagree that Pharaoh was simply being handed over to his own stubbornness, as it would not seem to fit either text.
God Bless,
Adam
No problem. I don’t pretend to have arrived and figured everything out. I love to learn. So, I’m always looking forward to hearing people out . . . if its from God. If what they say is true, I believe that God has made us in such a way that if our hearts are humbled before Him and teachable, the truth will resonate with us. We will be satisfied in the end.
Hershel,
Two points in response to your last post.
1) Those who condemn Reformed theology on the basis of the Servetus situation are silly and shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Hopefully you can see here that the vast majority arguing against Calvinism haven’t resorted to such tactics.
2) You claim that Arminianism is Semi-Pelagian. I would encourage you to read up on Arminianism as this is not true. Two professor’s from Covenant Theological Seminary (Robert Peterson & Michael Williams) have written a book called “Why I Am Not An Arminian”. In it they fairly state that Arminianism is not Semi-Pelagianism. They think a better designation for it is Semi-Augustinianism. If you read the best from the Arminian side you will never conclude it’s Semi-Pelagian.
Steve
Brennon,
“This, however, is simply a misconception. God does know what will happen at all times with certainty. HOWEVER, this does not mean that the things that happen are necessary. God may know I would choose to write this comment here, but God knowing that does not mean He determined (see made necessary) that I would do this. It simply means He knew what I would freely choose to do in this given situation. However, if I had chosen not to write this comment, God would have know that beforehand as well.”
My point is your decision is made before you make it. If God knows your decision, then you will always make that decision. By virtue of God’s omniscience of events, your decision is determined…just not by God. This is why many people who want to hold to libertarian freedom have to hold to Middle Knowledge.
“That’s all I’ve asked for, and you’ve failed to provide the evidence.”
Myron,
That is not true. I did provide an evidence but not all of the evidence there is. I have provided three quotes from Council of Trent that clearly line up with Arminian position.
You may not like it, you may dismiss it but please do not reduce Calvinism to just five points and do not ask of me to provide further evidence from the plethora of RCC teachings contained in encyclicals, papal bulls and councils. This is simply beyond the scope of this casual discussion. You refuse to see how complex RCC teaching is as you also oversimplify Reformed Theology.
I have no need to have a last voice nor do I need to convince you. I have simply signaled many issues with Arminianism. You can dismiss them all as you do or you can spend more required time to check them that’s your choice but please do not proclaim a victory just because I simply have no time and no intentions to spend another 20 hours here typing quotes that you will dismiss any way a priori.
Regards,
Christophe
Adam, it seems to me that the clearest explanation of Exodus 8:15 is the last 10 words of that verse. God may not have said to Moses that Pharoah would “harden” his heart yet, but He DID say that Pharoah would “not send the people away.”
God does not harden an already soft heart, He only may confirm/strengthen and already hard heart indirectly, because it is JUST that He would correct the proud/stubborn man. The same mercy is extended to him as to everyone else. But if He choses to reject prior warning and advice, then it is RIGHT for God to judge and inevitably further stiffen and already stiff-necked man.
See Dr. Brown, I’m learnin’.
Dr. brown, I thought this might help the discussion about pharoh:One of the great jewish Rabbis explained the reason for g-d hardening the heart of pharoh. He said something fascinating, the problem was that g-d to give pharoh free to choose to obey g-d and send the jews out,the problem was however that pharoh was forced into listening to g-d because of the ten plauges that he received, so without g-d hardening his heart pharoh would have no free will,since he would be forced to send them out due to his sufferiing. So g-d hardened his heart to counteract the fact that he was suffering from the ten plauges so at this point it was a fair ballgame! In other words now he had perfect free will.
With regard to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart no less an authority than R.C. Sproul teaches that God’s hardening of his heart was passive not active. Here’s what Dr. Sproul says about passive hardening:
“Passive hardening involves a divine judgment upon sin that is already present. All that God needs to do to harden the heart of a person whose heart is already desperately wicked is to ‘give him over to his sin.’ We find this concept of divine judgment repeatedly in Scripture…. All that God has to do to harden people’s hearts is to remove the restraints. He gives them a longer leash. Rather than restricting their human freedom, he increases it. In a sense he gives them enough rope to hang themselves. It is not that God puts His hand on them to create fresh evil in their hearts; he merely removes His holy hand of restraint from them and lets them do their own will.”