Dr. Brown Answers Your Questions (including Is the “Sinner’s Prayer” in the Bible?)
Link to Dr. Brown’s Debate with Dr. White Today
You can also comment on Dr. Brown’s debate today with Dr. James White here
145 Comments
Comments are closed.
Dr. Brown Answers Your Questions (including Is the “Sinner’s Prayer” in the Bible?)
Link to Dr. Brown’s Debate with Dr. White Today
You can also comment on Dr. Brown’s debate today with Dr. James White here
Comments are closed.
I think the debate format was just too rushed and had too much information jammed into each segment. It didn’t really leave time for serious and reflective interaction. It would be great if there were a written debate over time between the two of you where you could take time in laying out your point and in responding to the counterpoints.
Great job Dr. Brown! I am continually amazed that White still, after all these years, doesn’t understand the Sovereignty of God as explained by you, Geisler and Hunt. White (Calvanism) has such a small God. I suggested in his chat room that he go to engineering school and design some thing then maybe he will understand. As an enginner (who has gone to seminary), the greatness of the Biblical God is that he doesn’t have to predetermine (make robots) everyone’s actions to utlimately bring about His big plan for evrything. He uses peoples freedom to choose (truth) to workout His plan. As an example, as an engineer I can design some thing with an ultimate boundaries yet allow freedom for its components to act according to the conditions experienced. Makes perfect sense Biblically. Secondly, 1 Jn. 2:2, amazing that White “interprets” the word hilasmos as license to preach totally against every lexicon I have looked at (meaning a means to forgiveness). Lastly, I think the reason White can’t understand the Sovereignty of God as you explain is because he has been so mind trained by Calvanism that he can’t. Good job again!
I’ve clicked the link to listen live and I got the Janet Medford show. Is there a problem with the link?
Bob B, same problem here.
Yes, there’s a glitch in the link today. So sorry! We’ll have it fixed by tomorrow, and the show itself will be up later. (I don’t talk about the debate on the air in my show, though.)
yeah, i went to listen live and i’m getting janet medford. I thouhgt it was just me. I realized on their website that they have different channels with different shows, but under the program guide i was still unable to listen to Dr. Brown
Okay, will be looking forward to the show later! Thanks for clearing that up, God bless.
Thanks, Eric at least I know it’s not user error 🙂 I took this afternoon off to listen to the debate and then DR Brown’s show live for a change.
So did God predetermine that DR Brown’s show would have technical problems today so that I would have an extra hour of quiet time with the word or did He know it would happen and plan to bless me with an extra hour of quiet time accordingly? And which brings more glory to God?
Just food for thought,
I enjoyed the debate and as always I thought DR Brown handled himself extremely well.
Blessings,
Bob B
Dr Brown,
I have the following questions:
How would you rate the importance(Pratical Living) of the book of Proverbs in the Church today?
What will be a good comentary for the book of Proverbs?
How would you rate the acceptance of Jewish roots movements in the American Church?
Thank you Dr Brown, May Yahweh continue to bless you
Joel,
Please email the website with specific questions like this, OK? We need to use this forum for the intended purposes. Bless you!
Joel,
I also would like to see what Dr. Brown recommends, but I have had a graduate course in Proverbs under Dr. Willem VanGemeren, and my two favorites are the commentaries by Bruce K. Waltke and Michael V. Fox. Fox is a liberal, so you have to use discernment, but it is a top notch commentary.
God Bless,
Adam
Dr Brown, I will do that.
Adam great info, Thank you very much.
God Bless
Joel
Adam,
Well, since you joined in here, I’ll answer one question: Waltke is excellent, of course, yes on Fox with caveats; for devotional reading Bridges; for concise, pithy insights, Kidner. Murphy is also excellent in WBC but somewhat critical.
James White says that his “understanding [of 1 John 2:2] is that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all the Christians to which John was writing, and not only them, but for all Christians throughout the world, Jew and Gentile, at all times and places.” The Potters Freedom, 274.
That is the same as saying the “whole world” are the elect. This is also the reason why there is a comparison made between 1 John 2:2 and John 11:49-52. The “children of God scattered abroad,” are deemed to be elect believers, according to White in TPF p. 275. Why then did White explicitly deny, during today’s debate, that he is taking “whole world” as the elect, even laughing it off? I found that strange.
Dr. Brown, I’m now listening to the debate and at the end of the Luke 13:34-35 discussion. Some personal observations:
1. Your presentation was clear and thorough; you exegeted the text itself and then brought other texts, including the Hebrew Scriptures, that was plainly supporttive of your argument. White stated, “All of scripture should speak to this vitally important matter”, and, as such, thus invalidating his argument against your use of other texts.
2. That you quoted scholarly Calvinist authors (including Calvin!), if nothing else, shows that White’s understanding of the text may not be either as accurate or as Calvinist as those listening may think him to be. It does put a question mark in his interpretation of the texts. White mentiioned you were attempting to drive a”wedge” between him and other Calvinists but, the point is, as you have shown, the wedge was already there. Besides, whether or not this is your intention is irrelevant to the debate. The point is, White is in disagreement with many scholarly Calvinists.
3. You made the statement that you were not interpreting the text theologically but exegetically, which was a very good point that I hope was not lost to the listening audience. It is something that I see Dr. Whites fails to do; that is, he objects and brings the texts to bear on his theological presuppositions rather than upon how the text reads.
4. I think White errs in attempting to understand your reasoning because he does so on the basis of his own theological presuppostions. For example, he cannot understand how God can decree something and it not occur according as he decreed it. That is because, he fails to understand that God decreed, prior to decreeing events, mankind to exercise free will even to the point of going against his will, and desires. Another example, White makes the mistake of, first, equating foreknowledge with predestination, that is, he seems to take the position that God foreknows because he decreed and not the opposite, which is God decrees because he foreknows. And, second, he seems to understand decree as causative rather then as passive; that which is done rather than that which is merely known. His erroneous understanding of foreknowledge leaves him incredulous with respect to your interpretation of the Lukan texts in question.
5. One interesting thing White did say: “God has not created purposeless evil”, which statement assumes that God created “purposeful evil”. My point is, he is admitting (even though many Calvinists disagree and the Wesminster Confession has a disclaimer regarding it), God creates evil, that is, sin, moral evil! Evil is evil regardles of whether you call it purposeful or purposeless. Point in fact, if it is “purposeful evil” it is actually a good, at least, from my perspective. However, if you can clarify whether I have misunderstood him, please advise.
Well, I gotta go. Keep up the good Word. The gentlemanly banter between you and Dr. White is, nevertheless, very refreshing.
The issue here is not “limited atonement”, for we all agree that those in hell never had their sins atoned for. The problem is Calvinism’s “limited atonement” or that he only died for the saved. I believe Brown did an excellent job of showing that Christ died for all of mankind. Again, I was very blessed to hear the gospel being preached, once again, on The Dividing Line (thank you, brother Brown).
However, White was also very good at taking the same verses and putting the typical calvinistic twist on many of them. So what we have to do is let scripture interpret scripture. In other words, can we find biblical examples of people who might be lost are could have been lost and yet were told “Christ died for you” (something a 5 point Calvinist would never do). Please consider the following….
1 Corinthians 15:1-3……
“Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: THAT CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS according to the Scriptures….”
Notice that Paul said this to them while they were still lost. This is the gospel they received and by which they were saved. Not something they were taught after they were saved.
Luke 22:14-20……..
And when the hour was come, he sat down, and THE TWELVE APOSTLES with him. And he said unto THEM, “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with YOU before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this, and DIVIDE IT AMONG YOURSELVES: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.” And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, “THIS IS MY BODY WHICH IS GIVEN FOR YOU: this do in remembrance of me.” Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new testament in MY BLOOD, WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU.”
Now who is the “you” in these verses? The 12 apostles, of which Judas was one. Here is a biblical example of both saved (Peter) and lost (Judas) and Jesus saying to both “…my blood, which is shed for you” and “this is my body which is given for you.” What a powerful testimony to Calvinism’s limited atonement if Jesus had said “take this and divide it among yourselves, but don’t give one drop to that reprobate Judas” or “…my blood, which is shed for you. Well, all of you except for Judas.” It seems to me that if the Lord wanted to single out who the blood of Christ was intended for, this would have been the place to do it, but he didn’t.
John 6:32-33…………
Jesus said to THEM, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives YOU the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
Now who are the “them” in this verse? The obstinate, unbelieving Jews. The very ones who “followed him no more”. Did the Father give them bread to eat or not? Jesus said he would. I see an interesting parallel between the feeding of the 5,000 and the sacrifice. Since Jesus already knew who believed and who didn’t, why didn’t he chase off the non-believers before he feed them? Yet we see Jesus feed both the saved and the lost.
In all his epistles to the churches, I cannot find one verse, not one, where Paul told his Christian audience that Jesus did not die for the lost or that he died only for the saved. Yet this is commonly taught behind closed doors among those of the calvinistic persuasion. Jesus told his disciples in Matthew 10:27….
“What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.”
There is much regarding the gospel of Calvinism that is kept under the roof.
Come, Lord Jesus.
Dr. Brown, as I listen to Dr. White’s questions to you regarding Jeremiah, it is obvious to me, at least, that Dr. White has no understanding that God decreed men to possess libertarian free will. And he is attempting to understandig your position through the spectacles of his theological presuppositions.
For example, White objects something to the effect that if the texts are read clearly and plainly, then we conclude they do not address the eternal decree.
He also assumes that the Cross of Christ is applicable to every event in history.
Awesome debate! God was glorified in the exchange. I really enjoyed it and learned from it, and will pass this on to others
Dr. Brown, I’m listening to 1 Jn 2:2. His argument confuses what the verse says Jesus is with that which is actualized by what he is.
For example, one can be called a caregiver (not that I am one), however, he is not actually caring unless certain conditions are met, that is, I go to an elderly home and he/she accepts my assistance; there I am caregiving. Does that make sense.
Jesus is the propitiation. It seems whether or not someone is actually propitiated does not change the fact that he is the propitiation, him who turns away God’s wrath.
Does this make sense?
Also, I do not understand his argument when he mentions in Ezekiel 18:23,32, that God would “rather only”. Could you clarify it?
Also, I noticed, in comparing Ezk 18:31 with Ezek 36:26-27, he totally ignores the synergism involved when both are compared and affirmed it as something God alone does; quite deftly…
Dr. Brown, impressive debate, I hadn’t seen such mastery of the Scriptures in any Calvinist/Arminian debate previously; both you and Dr. White displayed what appeared to be years of study and devotion to God’s Word! The style, and irenic finish of the debate was nice, seeing this, it appears you bring out the best in James.
One thing I do appreciate very much, is that you always respond to the other side’s arguments, whether in the debate itself, or on your radio program, I thank you for doing this. Lastly, in the debate, you made several defenses with regards to man’s limited free will. I hope you take the position that man’s free will [isn’t] autonomous. Dr. White believes that this is what the Free Will Theist/Non-Calvinist[1] believes and is in error, as anyone who believes so, is. I do believe that God can however, suspend man’s limited free will, though, rarely[2]. In the past Dr. White has pointed to God’s preventing of Joseph’s brothers from killing him, and has then said something similar to, if not: “so much for the autonomous free will of man.” I would have to look for the instance in which God has done this and if the text indeed does point to this conclusion, I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with it. The only conumdrum I would have is; would this mean that God has indeed gifted us with free will, and has then reneged on His very gift? (Your comments on this?)
P.S. Dr. White has commented in his blog concerning a remark you might have made durring the debate in which the Calvinist’s view of God makes Him appear schizophrenic[3], I slighty recall such a remark and have to say that I completely agree with you. It also appeared that Dr. White admitted that God desired something and decreed the opposite (which would make God morally ambiguous if taken in light of sinful history) durring the cross-examination period of Luke 13:34-35. This is significant, and I was surprised when he admitted it. He gives us an explanation as to why God does such things; so that everything can have a purpose. I commend him with this explanation because he, at the very least offers one but it isn’t a very satisfying one. He says you “made the error of Equal Ultimacy” when you mentioned Double Predestination. I took it as sound logic, if you don’t take the Supralapsarian view, and argue that God extends saving grace only to a some and passes over the rest with, then what God is doing is; by decreeing to pass over them, he is decreeing to damn them, at least in a negative way[4], since outside of God’s election, no one has the power to repent, without any sort of Prevenient Grace [for all], and without God granting everyone repentance, they won’t repent because if man is left in his naturally depraved state after the Fall, he will automatically reject the Gospel (not to mention adding more to his punishment Romans 2:5).
[1] For more on Classical Free Will Theism see: Roger E. Olson;
The Classical Free Will Theist Model of God in: Perspcetives On
The Doctrine Of God: 4 Views. B&H Academic (May 15, 2008)
[2] Ibid., page 151
[3] 4/01/10 -James White:http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/
[4] This appears to be the argument John Wesley made
in his controversial sermon; Free Grace, Paragraph 8: http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/128.htm
Dr. Brown,
I think intercession in Hebrews is with respect to the Cross, that is, Christ intreceded for us via atonement. I do not think it means prayer. Your thoughts?
Nelson commented:
Well said, Nelson. One of the reasons why historical theology is useful in discussions or debates is because it helps to locate a person on the conceptual landscape. Think of it this way. Within the house of evangelicalism there are at least two soteriological rooms that are seperate from one another, like the non-Calvinist room and the Calvinist room, each having different groups inside. Oftentimes people in room #1 talk with or engage people in room #2, but they do so from within their own rooms, which makes it difficult at times to discern the location of the other person in the other room. Are you talking to someone in the center of that other room that represents the mainstream? Are you talking to someone in that other room that is close to your room but still in that other room? Or are you talking to someone on the far side of the other room among the extremists? In other words, are you talking to someone who is a part of the tin foil hat crowd in the far corners of the other room?
The way to turn on the lights in the other room is to bring up historical theology, and compare and contrast what different men believe in that other room. It is usually the kooks that want to avoid historical theology because bringing up that area exposes where they are conceptually. These people often want to “stick with the bible” and not discuss history, even though they themselves often use historical labels themselves for their opponents, such as Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, Arminian, semi-Remonstrants, Molinists, etc.
Consider now the Matthew 23:37 text and Brown’s appeal to many mainstream Calvinistic interpretations of that passage. He turned on the historical lights, as it were, and it immediately exposed White’s location as being in the fringe corners of the Calvinistic room. If you read prominent Calvinists in the past concerning their interpretation of that text, they do not hesistate at all to affirm that Jesus desired to save some who were not saved. They do not create false either/or dilemmas, like White, and argue that the “context” is only about judgment, not also about Jesus’ compassionate lament to gather the masses of the city of Jerusalem. Observe the both/and not either/or view of Walter Chantry, a Reformed Baptist, that Brown quoted as follows:
“That these people are about to be consumed by the wrath of God is the main intent of Christ’s statement. He is pronouncing a curse upon them. Yet, in the midst of sentencing them, Jesus expresses his love of them and a desire that they would repent and believe. He reminded these very people, who would soon perish, that they had been repeatedly invited to come to him. He assured them that even at that moment he desired them to freely partake of his saving mercy. In verse 37, our Lord said, ‘I would have gathered you, but you would not’. The Saviour sincerely desired their conversion. He wanted to gather Jerusalem into his saving and protecting grace, but they spurned his sincere invitation and refused to turn.”
The same both/and is in Carson, whom Brown quoted as follows:
And again in Carson:
Both of these men recognize the element of wrathful judgment in the passage, but not to the exclusion of Jesus’ desire to gather these people to obedience to the gospel, and thus to salvation. White, contrary to his claims, is not on the same page as these men, which is why he posits the judgment vs. salvation either/or dilemma. White’s interpretation of the passage is so solitary and unusual in terms of church history that he is all by himself. He seems to be arguing that Jesus wanted to “gather” them to preach the message of the Kingdom to “the children,” but this doesn’t involve a saving desire to bring them in to the Kingdom by means of the preaching. That makes no sense. If Jesus wanted to preach to them, wasn’t he seeking to gather them under his saving wings by means of that preaching? Why else do you preach to people and lament while judging when they disobey?
In criticism of Brown, he should not have backed away in the debate from the notion that “gathering” involves salvation. These people were about to perish eternally as a result of the judgment, and the “gathering” concept is the antithesis of that perishing, which is salvation safety. Even the Calvinist writers that Brown quoted all made that connection.
Wingfootone,
The issue here is not “limited atonement”, for we all agree that those in hell never had their sins atoned for
I would caution on this statement. This is contrary to 1 John 2:2. This is to fall into the category mistake that atonement = justification or that they are co-equal and the same. This will dislodge the object of faith, which is indeed the atonement – see Rom 3:24-25.
The imputation of our sins (the whole world) to Christ happened to Jesus when God made him sin for us, at the Cross. However, the imputation of Jesus’s righteousness does not happen to the whole world, only those that believe that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for their sins, gets a hold of Jesus and hence, gets a hold of the righteousness that is alien to the sinner.
LPC
Troubler of Israel,
Thanks for your comments and your criticism of me at the end. In point of fact, the reason I “backed away” from the notion that “gathering” involved salvation is actually because I never made the argument in the first place (although there is certainly truth to it). Dr. White basically put those words in my mouth as if I had made the argument, hence my responses.
Why, then, didn’t I make the argument if it is, in fact, logical? Simply because I was looking for an absolute minimalist view that could not be refuted: What Jesus so ardently desired to happen did not happen, and Jerusalem and “her children” were destroyed — something that Dr. White agreed was the case, wrongly attributing it, of course, to “desiring” it only through the preaching of the prophets.
Again, thanks for the comments.
Dr. Brown,
It is predestined that you should have this debate LOL.
Seriously, this is a much better debate and you made some good points. For example Dr. White’s complaint that you might have embraced Molinism (which I do not care if you do) is irrelevant to the debate. His surprise as if you were in that camp to me is quite besides the point. I felt sorry for him that he had to bring this issue up.
Secondly when you mentioned or alluded to the fact that God showed hurt and showed sadness in the death of the wicked is point of fact truly shows the Sovereignty of God. I prefer the Glory of God here rather than his so called Sovereignty. This is close to the Lutheran view. For us the Glory of God is shown full well in his condescension, in his humility, for example in allowing his Son, the holy one to be handled by sinful men, – Mary, Joseph, the Magis , by Simeon etc. In other words, his Glory is manifested through his mercy towards sinners, his enemies. In his apparent weakness, that is where God truly shows his Glory.
Arguing from the smaller to the greater, if Jesus commanded his disciples to love their enemies, would not God himself do the same?
Dr. White being a Calvinist tilts the equation towards God’s justice and for me I do concede that God does bring his wrath on those who have spurned his mercy. At the same time, God’s mode of operation is to tilt towards mercy over judgement. This is the reason therefore that it is that when people wind up in perdition it was not because God failed to be merciful, his mercy was rejected, consequently it is the other side of mercy that is received, his judgement.
This philosophy that says for one to have a powerful God, one must attribute to him the purposeful intention of predestining others to damnation I do not find compelling. For It gives and drives me to the notion that God and Allah are the same, after all the latter loves to kill his enemies, does he not?
It is because that God is merciful, that there is forgiveness in him that causes us to fear him, making us revere him.
LPC
Wow, Nelson B and wingedfooted no 1 made such educational and useful comments! Thank you so much for that.
Dr Brown, I liked the comment you made on your show in reply to the British youth leader. Loved the mud study analogy! I think it’s a better use of time to introduce ‘da yoot’ to Biblical narrative, songs etc., than to give them yet more of the reality TV dross that is already a part of their lives. Whatever goes into a young mind is there as a foundation for years and years. I go to an old folks’ home with our church — lots of them have dementia, but they have a good understanding of the Bible stories they heard as children. With their memories, it seems that what goes in first stays in for much longer. Consequently, the lady who leads the sessions is able to share the gospel with them.
Happy Easter/Resurrection Sunday
Dr. Brown,
I see. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
LPC,
Yes, the Glory of God!
Anthy,
Great point about young minds!
Several observations from someone who falls between the two views:
1) As someone who holds to middle knowledge, I’m not sure about what point the molinism comment by Dr. White was intended to make. Perhaps someone could help me there.
2) For “gathering” in Luke we see that it can refer to the elect, as the term is used in Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27. Then we can see clues in Luke that it would refer to potential believers. If Jesus is the “hen” and wishes to gather “her chicks” we must then assume that Jesus wishes to gather his “children” (potential believers=chicks). It seems odd that Jesus would wish to gather rebellious folks under his wings without them becoming something other than rebellious folks.
3) The way the two wills were described from a Calvinist perspective makes me ask the question: “If God’s prescriptive will is the ‘Holy Will of God’ then why on earth would God not decree his ‘Holy Will’?” In other words, since God *could* decree exactly as his prescriptive will desires, then why would He not do this? This seems to be an incredibly important question to me. What in his “good pleasure” is different than His “holy will?” I don’t see how traditional Calvinism sufficiently answers this…perhaps someone can help out.
4) Dr. Brown, to critique your position…I think that we do see God electing specific people (to salvation and to damnation). If I have 5 oranges, and I decide to eat one and leave four of them, I am choosing one for digestion… and by default four for mercy. It seems that with election, by choosing some for mercy, it leaves some as being chosen for hell (again, the basis of this can be debated between the two sides). How would you respond to the “flip side of the coin” argument with election without resorting to some sort of open theism?
5) As a compatiblist, I think that many libertarian free will proponents (though I know you actually promote limited free will Dr. Brown), could understand more of the reformed position if they understood the difference between compatiblism and fatalism. In the same way, I think that Calvinists should learn the difference between molinism and other middle knowledge views.
It was a great debate, and I really got a lot out of both debates. A BIG thank you to both gentlemen who participated. It was a blessing to be able to listen.
I don’t know why I’m so drawn to Genesis, especially the first 9 chapters. I just cannot get enough of it. Thank you for your program today. Blessings. J.
Caveman (post of April 2, 2010 at 12:45 pm),
I don’t see how your point about election is really a challenge for Dr. Brown (the Arminian position). Both sides believe in election. The big disagreement between the two sides is the basis of election. There is no problem with God choosing to have mercy on those who accept his offer of forgiveness in faith and choosing to punish those who continue in sin and refuse to repent and refuse God’s mercy. But there is a huge problem with seeing this as unconditional, all the more so when the Calvinist view also believes that God unconditionally decreed each sin of each person and the rejection of his mercy by those he chooses to go to Hell. I do not see where the question of open theism arises at all in this.
One other note: those who believe in the normal concept of free will (= libertarian free will) typically believe it is limited. As for the difference between compatibilism and fatalism, I don’t think it is so much an issue of misunderstanding as simply disagreeing. We typically think that compatibilism either logically entails fatalism even if it does not recognize this, or we think that if there is a concrete distinction between compatibilism and fatalism, it is largely “a distinction without a difference.”
Nelson,
You say of Jn 2:2, “For example, one can be called a caregiver (not that I am one), however, he is not actually caring unless certain conditions are met, that is, I go to an elderly home and he/she accepts my assistance; there I am caregiving. Does that make sense.”
What you say does make some sense, however you could not be actually be the caretaker OF A PERSON IN PARTICULAR, even if you’re a caretake generally, unless you actually take care of the person. Do you see?
You say, “Dr. White has no understanding that God decreed men to possess libertarian free will.”
To be fair what he is saying that the Scripture precludes this idea altogether. This is true or not, of course, based on the text of Scriptures.
Arminian, thank ya for the kind response. If I might offer some thoughts:
1) I’d like to clarify my statement related to election and the basis. I agree with you that it is conditional (but for different reasons than you, unless you hold to middle knowledge). I also agree that the debate is in the basis of election… but where open theism can come in is with the idea of foreknowledge. Either a) one believes in alternative possible worlds (middle knowledge view) or b) this is the only possible world (traditional view). If “b” is the position of any given arminian, then aren’t you essentially saying God knows the only possible series of events S, thus person A will necessarily do X,Y,Z without fail or deviation…otherwise God’s knowledge was incorrect. No person can act differently than was foreknown. Thus the decree to create a world in which this foreknowledge comes to be assumes the lack of ability of the creatures to do anything but S. The creatures were just as limited with the foreknowledge view as with the compatiblist or fatalist view. Open Theism gets around this by saying God does not indeed have such knowledge which cannot be “shown wrong” by free actions of men. I hope that clarifies what I mean. I apologize for any lack of clear writing (and I might have made it worse with my ramblings above haha, so I apologize in advance).
Harold,
Because of time constraints, I was unable to respond to all the points re the meaning of hilasmos in 1 John 2:2, but suffice it to say even a cursory glance at the lexicons and commentaries (or even the translation notes in the NET) indicates that this is a difficult word to translate. That so many theological points were being read into it in the debate — wrongly so, of course, in my view — without recognizing the lexical challenges was quite a surprise to me. The LXX to Lev 25, however, points us in a helpful direction, as I mentioned in the debate, and also undermines the position Dr. White was trying to espouse.
Harold,
1. I don’t understand the point you are trying to make when you say, “you could not be actually be the caretaker OF A PERSON IN PARTICULAR, even if you’re a caretake generally, unless you actually take care of the person.” Please clarify.
2. Also, I’m not sure I understand your comment about White and free will. Are you saying White believes man as libertarian free will but also believes the Bible does not affirm libertarian free will?
Sorry, Harold, maybe the discussion is going beyond my mental abilities…
Dr. Brown,
I wanted to advise you of a really good book I just read on the history of the predestination controversy in the USA. Here’s the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195174275/ref=nosim/librarythin08-20
A very interesting narrative is with respect to how the doctrine of Calvinistic predestination affected the people: “a few were driven to suicidal despair. This was the pathological version of predestinarian ‘melancholy’ that ministers knew was an affliction among their flocks…Yet despite the clergy’s attempts to show the irrationality of suicide, mini-epidemics of ‘self-murder’ still afflicted New England periodically” (p.64).
Thye author also makes an enlightening remark, which I tend to agree with: “Historian Elaine Pagels once speculated that the doctrine of original sin had endured for 1,600 years because ‘people often would rather feel guilty than helpless.’ So too with the doctrines of destiny: many people would rather believe that a wise God predetermines everything – even unpleasant things – than contemplate the alternative” (p.12).
Hi Lucius,
You said, “In the past Dr. White has pointed to God’s preventing of Joseph’s brothers from killing him, and has then said something similar to, if not: “so much for the autonomous free will of man.” I would have to look for the instance in which God has done this and if the text indeed does point to this conclusion, I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with it. The only conumdrum I would have is; would this mean that God has indeed gifted us with free will, and has then reneged on His very gift?”
I know you wanted Dr. Brown’s scholarly advice. But hope you don’t mind my uneducated comment.
I think the implications of White’s remark is not at all supported by the text. God did not at all go against Joseph’s brothers’ free will (Gen 37). One of the brothers, Reuben, wasn’t too keen on killing Joseph in the first place so he presented the rest with what they all thought was the better idea, that is, instead of killing him, sell him into slavery. Maybe God placed the idea in Reuben’s head but the texts don’t suggest it. In any case, Reuben wanted to save his brother, and, apparently, they finally were all willing to do it – for profit!.
The texts assume free will. For White to ask where is free will here is forcing notions into the narratives that are obviously not only absent but implicitly – if not explicitly – denied.
Where is it in the text said that God changed their minds or took over their wills in order to do what He wanted? Read the narrative. They first intended to do kill him but then agreed to sell him into slavery (motivated by financial gain). Simple, no?
White has a way of confusing the issue…
Anyway, that’s my unscholarly take.
Nelson,
Thanks so much for the link. I wasn’t familiar with the book, but it’s OUP and obviously a serious work. Of course, I’m not inclined to agree with Elaine Pagels, but her quote is quite interesting.
How would you like to engage in a little project? As you listen to the debate (both parts, or just yesterday’s), would you make note of any time it seems to you that Dr. White is characterizing our side in exaggerated terms? I’m sure he feels that he was giving a fair representation of things (just as I was, when I referred to his view as having, in some ways, a “schizophrenic God”), but when he speaks, says, of “the almighty will of man” or caricatures the God we speak of as weak and helpless (or, whatever), I’d like to isolate those sentences. Can you do it?
Dr. Brown,
SURE!! Thanks for giving me a project!!! I’ll start 2nite!
Dang, I’m sure excited…
Nelson,
Ha! Glad to hear you’re stoked. My goal, of course, is to see where either of us can be accused of caricaturing the other’s views unfairly.
You can email me the results privately, OK?
Dr Brown an excellent example of two Christians looking at the same texts, desiring to exegete them, but being convinced by their respective theological presuppositions, as to how to read and understand each passage. Fair and wonderful exchange.
Thank you so much for taking time out of your busy
schedule to have those debates.
I continue to respect and admire you and continue to pray
with and for you and am a Calvinist.
Pat Quick
Nelson,
Simply to clarify:
You may be a caretaker in general, but I could’nt call you my cartaker unless you actually took care of me. I was just pointing out the difference between being a caretaker that takes care of people and being my caretaker. So if you never took care of me, I might tell someone that you’re a caretaker, but I would be wrong to say you’re MY caretaker, because you’re not taking care of me.
So it would be one thing if the text said Jesus were the propitiation for sins in general, but it refers to a particular audience of which He actually is the wrath-taker (propitiation). My only point was that whoever the audience is for whom Jesus is their wrath-taker, He really does take their wrath for them.
Now, if Jesus were said to be a wrath-taker of sin in general, that would be one thing. But the text says that He IS the wrath-taker FOR THEM, not maybe for them, but for them. And if one is the wrath-taker for someone, then that person actually bears that person’s wrath for him in his place for the wrath of his sin. (Just as if you were really my caretaker, that would mean that you actually take care for me.)
Does that make sense?
Pat Quick,
Bless you, sir! Thanks for your affirmation and prayers. We are on the same team, standing for the glory of the same God!
Dr. Brown,
I will look into the text that you mentioned as it is in the origional language, reading what I can about it from what resources I can. (Although I’ve memorized a little hear and there, I have not yet begun to seriously study NT Greek, but I am ernest to pursue a knowledge of the Greek NT.)
I’ll also check out the LXX refference you mentioned.
Any suggestions would be apreciated.
Thanks.
Dr. Brown, you got it…
I was considering White’s comment about God “creates purposeful evil” remark. I’ve seen other remarks from Calvinists stating “God created sin”.
I went back to the Genesis account and I can’t find what day God did this? According to Calvinism, God must have become very “creative” after he rested on the seventh day.
White mentions that God has a prescriptive will (what he says he desires) and a secret decreed will (what he really desires). So what we have in the battle of Armageddon is not a war of good verses evil, but rather a battle between God’s revealed will and God’s secret decreed will. Also, White’s comment had me to reflect on 1 Corinthians 10:13….
“There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”
Now if God has secretly decreed every sin I commit, then what means of escape did he provide?
White seemed to be offended by Brown’s comment about “robots”. However Calvinists often quote Ezekiel 36:26 “I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.”
I’ve never read it in this sense, but Calvinism gives this the notion of “re-programming”. This is nothing short of a binary system of 1s and 0s. The 1s will come to him and the 0s can’t. There is still no “free will”. The 1s are programmed to come and the 0s are programmed not to. There is no “choice” on the part of the 1s or 0s. The end result is fixed by the programmer.
Brown quoted 1 John 4:8 and 4:16… “God is love”. According to Calvinism, God is “hate” too. And it is also unconditional.
1 John 4:19 says “We love Him (God), because He first loved us.”
Now with the “light” of Calvinism, we know the Lost can say….
“We hate Him (God), because He first hated us.”
He who has ears, let him hear.
Nelson Banuchi,
I’ll assume that you have heard Dr. White’s argument previously, where do you think it is that he gets the notion aforementioned? That is, that God vanquished their free will? I glanced through the latter portion of Genesis, the lot concerning the account in question, and could not find the text that James uses to support his assertion. Well, perhaps it just isn’t there at all! I might listen to his debate with Faith & Roger Forster on Predestination[1] again, to re-hear his assertion and see what text he cites (if he cites one). If you know where I may find him using the argument please let me know, the only other similar argument he made (that I can recall) was in Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views[2]. I appreciate your comment (Proverbs 27:17).
-Lucius de Cristo
[1] Unbelievable, date of program August 1, 2008:
http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable
[2] Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.
Dave Hunt & James R. White; Multnomah Books,
(February 4, 2004). I haven’t read the book since
last year so I cannot cite the page number:
http://www.amazon.com/Debating-Calvinism-Five-Points-Views/dp/1590522737
wingedfooted1,
I just wanted to say that I feel your objections to calvinism.
I would like to give you a few answers that might be helpful for you to understand further what is being said.
You say,
“I was considering White’s comment about God “creates purposeful evil” remark. I’ve seen other remarks from Calvinists stating “God created sin”.”
White did not say that God creates evil, in that He brings evil into existence, but rather that God creates evil in the sense that He controls all evil that happens in such a way that it all has a purpose. Also check out Isa 43.
For the evidence of Scripture see Isaiah 45:7, Job 2:10, and Lamentations 3:38 for examples. This is NOT to say that God is doing evil, ABSOLUTELY NOT. Rather, this does mean that when God has evil happen, He always causes good with it. If God did not have the ability to do this, then how can he actually cause, “all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.”
As to 1 Corinthians 10:13, God does make a way. He always makes a way of escape for us so that we may escape. So from our view He provides the way. I think the issue actually lies in the issue of “programing”.
So as to the idea of programing, this is by no means what any Calvinist I know says. I understand that people take what Calvinists say to mean that, but let me briefly explain why that is actually contrary to how Calvinists understand the Bible.
Now, as to the Hate issue, I just simply do not think the Bible teaches that God has to make us hate Him for us to hate Him. God never has to make us dead to Him, because WE’RE LIKE THAT ALREADY.
Romans 3:10-18 says, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
The understanding is found in the passage that you quoted, “I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.”
Notice, this does not say I will remove your mind and give you one I’ve reprogrammed. The issue with us sinners before conversion is not that we have the wrong information, but that we can’t feel the goodness of God. Our problem is that we are in the terrible condition of not seeing the awesomeness and tasting the goodness of God. What we need according to scripture is not to make a decision to do so. That doesn’t solve our problem of not seeking for God, that wouldn’t allow us to see and taste the goodness of God. We need new taste-buds to taste the goodness of God and a new heart to feel how incredible God is.
So it is not at all a matter of God re-programing our mind, but one of changing our nature from being one of cold, dead, and unfeeling stone to one of a warm, living, and sensitive heart. This is what God must do for us to love Him. This is not like making us love Him, *never*. Rather, it is allowing us to love Him. He makes us alive so that we can (Ezekiel 37; cf. Ephesians 2).
Thanks
Blessings, Harold.
I appreciate the kind responses.
You said “He makes us alive so that we can…”
I don’t want to falsely accuse you, so just for clarification, are you promoting the calvinistic notion of “regeneration precedes faith”?