Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Jewgrass
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 2/12/2002 4:09 AM (GMT -6)

I'm in the habit of hitting the iron while its still hot, and since the subject of God's glory is currently receiving so much attention, let me attempt to turn the spotlight back to the classic age-old debate of salvation.

Many people think that to believe God is centered around his own glory, it is necessary to adopt a Calvinistic stance on soteriology. However, however this is not the case. The question isn't whether Arminianism is man-centered while Calvinism is God-centered... the question is rather does God choose to be glorified through free-will or election?

This is the question I submit to you. Since I have been reading this board, I have yet to see a satisfying "Arminian-esque" response to the Calvinist juggernaught.

Man is dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1). I have read Boyd himself say that man is like a dead corpse sunk to the bottom of an ocean. Man doesn't seek God (Romans 3:11). We are pulled towards Christ by the Holy Spirit (John 6:44-- notice the Greek word used here for "draw" is only used two other times in the New Testament... both times it is translated into the word "drag"). If man is utterly incapable of choosing Christ or seeking God and the Holy Spirit is said to "drag" men towards him, how could human free-will possibly play any role in salvation? Even faith itself is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8)! If a doctor revives a dead person, does the dead person have any choice in the matter? In the same way, if God revives a dead spirit, why would we assume the dead spirit has any role to play in it? Arminius himself said, "In his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good." Did Arminius have some understanding of salvation of which I have yet to grasp or was his view theologically inconsistant?

I realize there are some scriptures such as 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4 which seem to state God wants everyone to come to heaven. These are passages Calvinists must deal with. However, there seem to be too many Calvinist-sounding passages to simply appeal to the so-called Arminian pillar texts (1 Tim, 2 Pet, Ezekiel 33) and practically ignore all of the scriptures that seem to suggest the Calvinists got it right.

This is a fundamental question. It's not like debating something like tithing... its salvation itself. Calvinism is like a bulldozer... the theology and world-view are highly-developed. If you don't join the crowd, you must oppose it... and if you oppose it, you quite possibly are gonna get run-over. If you disagree with the so-called "doctrines of grace", prove yourself through scripture. I think this discussion would help many people on this board, including myself.

So which is it?

Does God choose to be glorified through free-will? ...or does God choose to be glorified by election?

L'hit,
Jewgrass

"Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn't really know very much." --1 Corinthians 8:2 (New Living Translation)

Edited by - jewgrass on 02/12/2002 09:18:45 AM

Edited by - jewgrass on 02/12/2002 09:33:03 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 2/12/2002 11:17 AM (GMT -6)

Hey, Jewgrass.

*Someone in the back row, where there is a light out, so you can't tell who it is.*

Just WHAT exactly is the meaning of the word glorified in "Does God choose to be glorified through free-will? ...or does God choose to be glorified by election?"

Part of me really wonders whether, if the same thing is meant by both traditionally opposing parties, whether that doesn't represent something intrisically 'odd.' Like, if a party rejecting the view of another should be careful to not swallow the other's presuppositions too. (Like running from a bull but slipping on the cow-pie.)

What is meant by "glorified?"

I've read some on this board who from their explainations seem to feel that their is a 'dificulty factor' in what is truly glorious.
*Just in time for the Olympics!*

Does "glorified" mean that ... (Well, I want to see what YOU have to say.)

Additionally, what verses in scripture that use "glorified" are YOU particularly interested in?

Looking for your response. Thanks for starting this thread.

PoW

still_unsure
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 54

Posted 2/13/2002 5:50 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Jewgrass:

You wrote:

"We are pulled towards Christ by the Holy Spirit (John 6:44-- notice the Greek word used here for "draw" is only used two other times in the New Testament... both times it is translated into the word "drag"). If man is utterly incapable of choosing Christ or seeking God and the Holy Spirit is said to "drag" men towards him, how could human free-will possibly play any role in salvation?"

I was looking through my concordance and it actually listed 8 instances of Helkuo or Helko (Strong's #1670). You are right that it indicates "to drag" in most uses in the NT. If we use the definition "to drag" for John 6:44, don't we also need to use it for John 12:32? I'm not a universalist so I must disqualify that as a proper rendering. Unless of course, "all men" doesn't mean all men.

I am no expert in Greek so I must trust that the translators of my Bible had a reason to use "draw" instaed of "drag" for these passages. I must assume there is precedent for this definition.

Regarding Epesians 2:8, I was once told that the "gift of God" reffered to in this verse is salvation, not faith. Something to do with the Greek phrase being neuter and "faith" being feminine. Regardless, there are more explicit texts that say what you claim this one does so I won't dispute that saving faith is God's gift. My question would be " How does God 'increase our faith' ?" Is it through some divine fiat or mystical intervention? Or is it by faithfulness and dependability and trustworthiness? And love?

Scripture does declare election and predestiny, what we need to determine is if it refers to individual or corporate election? I feel it is the latter. So, is God glorified by free will or election? Both, methinks.

blessings

Edited by - still_unsure on 02/13/2002 10:52:54 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 2/13/2002 3:22 PM (GMT -6)

Great to revisit an old, but very important, doctrinal issue. I’ll take a crack at it. It’s important to consider this question from a broad perspective – not just consider it with a view toward a few particular verses. So I’ll start broadly.

The Calvinist View As most Calvinists freely admit, if there isn’t anything in the human subject which explains why they are or are not saved, then the ultimate explanation for why any person is or is not saved must lie in God. And, note, this explanation must have nothing whatsoever to do with the person. God chooses who will and will not be saved, based on nothing other than his desire to save or not save someone. This is the classic Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election.

God’s Univeral Love. As Arminians have argued, however, this view is problematic from a scriptural perspective. Scripture uniformly teaches that God loves everyone and thus desires all to be saved. Though his people have always had trouble accepting it, Scripture consistently portrays God’s love as univer-sal and impartial (Acts 10:34, cf. Deut. 10:17–19; 2 Chron. 19:7; Job 34:19; Isa. 55:4–5; Mark 12:14; John 3:16; Rom. 2:10–11; Eph. 6:9; 1 Pet. 1:17). The Lord explicitly tells us he is not arbitrary or unfair (Ezek. 18:25). He "does not willingly afflict, or grieve anyone" (Lam. 3:33). He takes no delight in the destruction of any wicked person but rather desires all to repent (Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11). Peter tells us that God is patient "not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9, emphasis added). Paul tells us God "desires everyone to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4, emphasis added). He desires to be "the Savior of all people" (1 Tim. 4:10) and thus, in the words of John, Christ died as "the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). It was because "God so loved the world [that] he gave his only Son." And he did this "so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

This central motif of Scripture, a motif that reflects the very character of God, is undermined for the sake of a logical inference in the classic Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election. Calvinists infer that grace is incompatible with choosing for or against God and thus further infer that God unilaterally chooses who will or will not be saved. Nothing in Scripture explicitly teaches this, however. When a logical inference contradicts an explicit, unambiguous, pervasive teaching of Scripture, we must question the premise from which the inference is made or the logic of the inference itself.

Is a Gift that is Accepted Less of a Gift? The problem, I submit, lies in the premise. The conclusion that we cannot attribute our salvation to God’s grace if we have to choose is mistaken. A gift is not less of a gift because it is accepted. For example, a woman recently donated several million dollars to help some Minnesotans who had been devastated by spring floods. Would we not consider it absurd if someone claimed that her gift was not really a gift because the unfortunate victims of this flood chose to accept it?

So it is, I submit, with God’s offer of salvation. The sacrificial gift is offered to all and is no less a gift because we must choose to accept it.

Is Faith a Work? Scripture seems to confirm this perspective. Throughout both the Old and New Testaments we find the Lord pleading with people to make a choice to accept his offer of salvation and enter into a covenantal relationship with him. The motif is succinctly expressed in Deuteronomy when the Lord, after laying out the terms of his covenant, challenges the people of Israel:

See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your God…then you shall live…. But if your heart turns away and you do not hear… I declare to you today that you shall perish… I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live… (Deut. 30:15–20).

We see that whether the children of Israel are blessed or cursed depends on what they choose to do. God graciously offers them life and pleads with all of them to accept it. But they are individually and col-lectively free to choose death. In my view, every passage that portrays the Lord or one of his spokespersons pleading with people to believe in the Lord, to obey his decrees, to not resist the Holy Spirit and/or to repent of their sins is suggesting the same thing. So is every passage that depicts people as morally responsible for their decisions. They are suggesting that it is ultimately up to people as morally responsible agents to choose to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation. (A few of the verses which express the moral responsibility of people to choose to believe on the Lord are Josh 24:15; Num. 14:11; Ps. 78:22; 106:24; Matt. 21:32; Mark 1:15; John 1:7, 12; 3:15-18; 5:46-47; 11:25-26; 16:9; 16:30-31; 19:35; 20:27; 20:31; Acts 10:43; 14:2; 16:31; 19:9; 28:24; Rom. 10:10-14; 16:26; 1 Pet. 2:7; I John 5:10; Jug 1:5. On the moral responsibility of people to choose to obey God, see e.g. Ex 19:5; 34:11; Deut. 11:27, 32; 27:10; 30:10; 1 Sam. 12:14-15; 15:19-22; 1 Kings 3:14; Jer. 7:23; 11:3-7; 22:3-5; 40:3; Dan. 9:11; Matt. 19:17; 28:20; John 14:15, 23-24; 15:10; Acts 7:39; 2 Thess. 1:8; 3:14; Heb. 5:9; 1 Pet. 4:17; 1 John 2:3; 3:22-24; 5:3; Rev. 3:3. In fact, the Lord frequently tested Israel to see whether or not they would choose to obey him (e.g. Judges 3:10). On the moral responsibility of people to choose not to resist God, harden their hearts or grieve the Holy Spirit, see e.g. 1 Sam. 6:6; 2 Chron. 36:12-13; Ps. 95:8; Isa. 1:19-20; 63:10; Acts 7:51; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 3:8, 15; 4:7; Rev. 3:20.)

The fact that Scripture sees no conflict between this emphasis on human choice and the graciousness of God’s offer suggests that there is no conflict. And this implies that anyone who concludes that there is a conflict between grace and free choice is drawing unwarranted inferences from the biblical teaching on grace and/or the need for human choice.

Along these same lines, Scripture never portrays a choice to receive a gift from God as a "work." When New Testament authors stress that salvation is not arrived at by "works," as first century Jews they are referring to works of the law. They are saying that God’s righteousness does not come by external obedience to the law, as some Jews of their day supposed. God’s righteousness cannot be earned. It can only come as a gift (Rom. 4:4–16). But the New Testament nevertheless also teaches that the gift must be accepted. One must choose to place their trust (faith) in God’s gracious provision.

If a person is not made righteous before God, the New Testament does not teach that this was because God decided to pass them over. They stand condemned before God solely on the grounds that they refused to place their trust in Christ. If they are hardened against God, it is because of their unbelief…" (Rom. 11:20, cf. 10:3; 11:7, 25). This doesn’t imply that they are less righteous or less intelligent than those who choose to accept the gift, as Calvinists suggest. It only implies that out of the moral center of their being these people chose to resist the Holy Spirit and refused to submit to Christ as Savior and Lord (e.g. Isa. 63:10; Luke 7:30; Acts 7:51; Heb. 3:8, 15; 4:7).

Is the Work of the Holy Spirit Irresistible? Here's the BIGGIE. Christians have usually believed that because we are slaves to sin and to Satan (Jn 8:34, Rom 6:16) we could never choose to accept God’s offer of salvation unless God graciously enabled us to do so. Doesn’t this view conflict with the idea that we are self-determining agents in the process of salvation? No.

I agree that Scripture teaches that believers choose to place their trust in Christ only because the Father "draws them" and the Spirit enables them (John 6:44, 65; 1 Cor. 12:3; Eph. 2:8). But I, along with other Arminians, deny that the Father draws us and the Spirit enables us in an irresistible manner. God graciously makes it possible for us to believe. But he does not make it necessary for us to believe. It is one thing to claim that without the Holy Spirit we cannot believe and quite another to say that with the work of the Holy Spirit we must believe. Scripture affirms the former but not the latter.

In our view, Scripture denies that the Holy Spirit works irresistibly by insisting that God’s love is universal; by placing the responsibility for deciding for or against God on the person, not on God; and by explicitly informing us that people can and do resist the Holy Spirit (e.g. Isa. 63:10 Acts 7:51; Heb. 3:8, 15; 4:7, cf. Eph. 4:30).

The fact that the Lord is frequently grieved, frustrated, and even amazed at how "stiff necked" people are toward him suggests the same (e.g. Exod. 34:9; 33:3,5; Deut. 9:6, 13; 10:16; 31:27; Judges 2:19; 2 Kings 17:14; 2 Chron. 30:8; 36:13; Ne 9:16; Isa. 46:12; 48:4; Jer. 7:26; Hos. 4:16).

Calvinism thus seems mistaken in claiming that people who affirm self-determining free will cannot consistently affirm the Protestant doctrine of sola gratia.* There is no merit in accepting a gift, especially if even the ability to accept the gift is itself a gift. We can thus consistently affirm that God desires all to be saved and that everyone who is saved is saved solely by God’s grace while everyone who is not has only themselves to blame.

So, in the end Jewgrass, I’d say that God is "glorified" BOTH by saving us by sheer grace AND by granting us free will in the process.

Blessings
Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Jewgrass
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 2/14/2002 3:25 AM (GMT -6)

I really appreciate the feedback I've received. I am currently in a bible study with 5 calvinists... and when I say Calvinists, I mean staunch Calvinists... one's even a hard-determinist. Since I'm the only Arminian in the group, I feel like I've been going through the furnace. Its pretty rough.

still unsure: you're right about the Greek word. I was merely repeating stuff that had been told to me by Calvinists which I hadn't looked up. Thanks a lot for the insight.

Doc: Thanks for the time you put into this post. I wrote all the scripture references down and am about to look them all up. This has cleared up a lot for me.

I appreciate it.

--Jewgrass

"Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn't really know very much." --1 Corinthians 8:2 (New Living Translation)

Jewgrass
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 2/14/2002 10:05 AM (GMT -6)

POW:

quote:

Just WHAT exactly is the meaning of the word glorified in "Does God choose to be glorified through free-will? ...or does God choose to be glorified by election?"

I'm pretty much playing of the previous thread between Doc and Mephi. It is my conviction that the ultimate goal of God through creation is glorification. Calvinists play off this theme extensively and say that God "arbitrarily" chooses and "unconditionally elects" simply for his glory. It is for his glory he allows (or even forces depending on who you ask) evil. I affirm this glory-centered priority but without all of the implications of Calvinism. God loves the world, but the ultimate motivation for free-will, spiritual warfare, and salvation is for God's name to be glorified. Calvinists try to say that there is no free-will in election and this exalts God's glory. My current belief is salvation is possible through both the grace of God and the will of man (to play off the title of the Pinnock book). God is glorified through free-will.

--Jewgrass

"Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn't really know very much." --1 Corinthians 8:2 (New Living Translation)

Jewgrass
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 2/19/2002 4:17 AM (GMT -6)

Any thoughts on this question:

If sinful man cannot (will not) please God, how could they ever grasp onto faith in Christ? This is essentially the only question that still makes me hesitate to completely say "NO" to Calvinism.

--Jewgrass

"Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn't really know very much." --1 Corinthians 8:2 (New Living Translation)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 2/19/2002 12:23 PM (GMT -6)

Jewgrass, to mix things up, see my post here:
Post 02/18/2002:11:13:15PM on the "Bringin' Up Old Stuff: Natural Evil Revisited" thread.

PoW

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:21 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual