Why wouldn't the ultimate cause of Lydia's attendance of what Paul was saying God? If it is God then how could it have also been her own will as the ultimate cause of her attendance to Paul?

Hey Narnian,

Narnian: It says that "the Lord" opened her heart to respond to Paul message. This seems to indicate that she was unable to repond until her heart was opened and it was not Lydia that opened it.

Now, I can see that the mere fact that her heart was opened does not mean that she had to choose to respond to Paul, but it does seem to indicate an inablity until her heart was at least open first by God.

If you're going to take scripture that literal, you should approach all scripture with this approach...and that simply won't go over well, obviously. I think you're reading into it what Luke never meant to say. Ask yourself the question: When Luke penned those words to Theophilus, do you really think that what he was trying to say was, "Yup, it was God who opened her heart. She couldn't have made sense out of anything Paul was saying until God opened her heart. Lydia was absolutely unable to understand anything. But, see, God opened her heart. She didn't have much say about it, because it's God who opens the heart, and only those hearts He chooses. The rest of the people are just out of luck"? Hey, that's what it comes down to in Calvinism. Sorry, but it's the truth, and a sad one at that.

Doesn't the simple, more common sense approach, to Luke's writing lead us to think that he was probably just saying in his own way that Lydia had a heart for God, and God gave her some revelation? I mean, why make more out of it than that. It's just not there to go much further than that with what Luke wrote. Of course it's God who gives revelation and who opens our hearts. So what. That's nothing new. But doesn't the whole message of the Bible also resonate with God appealing to mankind to respond to the reality of God, His love and His grace? Isn't there something of the make up of man (made in God's image) that calls for a bit of one-on-one between God and man when it comes to God's calling? How is it we are so capable of removing everything...EVERYTHING about man's ability to reason and think through anything that has to do with the gospel? Yes, I know, the things of God are foolish to men. I'm not denying that mankind left to himself would find the things of God foolish. Of course he will. Mankind wants things his way. But what we fail to realize...and this is very important...is that just because the things of God are foolish to men does NOT mean that Paul was saying mankind can't reason or think though about those things. Non-believers do this every day. What they can't do, however, is obtain the revelation about what they are thinking about unless God gives them the necessary help to get the revelation. Now think about that for a moment. God just doesn't zap people with revelation without explaining it to them in terms they can understand, in reason they can rationalize and with the process with which they can think. He EXPECTS the non-believer, or the person who hasn't excepted the work of Christ into their lives, to reason and think about spiritual things. But it is always God who ministers the spiritual aspect of spiritual things to men. None of this, however, has anything to say about Calvinism or anything like that. It's just God being God to a fallen people. That's all.

Lydia was not a numb human being, incapable of understanding anything Paul said unless God revealed EVERYTHING to her--the logic and rationality of what Paul said. Let's not make Lydia, or any one else for that matter, incapable of doing those things that are made in God's image. I think that misses the mark so badly, because it does injustice to the very thing God demands of us: Come now, let us reason together. Sheesh, we're human beings. Wev'e got a mind, some intelligence. Yeah, revelation is needed to drive the spiritual truths home, for sure. But let's not do away with the facilities God has given us in order to protect God, to make sure He gets all the glory. He really doesn't need to worry about that since no one is in any position to claim the glory for themselves.

Well, I've gone on long enough. I just think that it's high time we relax a bit on the reality of who man is and what he is capable of (and is supposed to do!), and who God is and what He's supposed to do.

Starkman

Post Edited (Starkman) : 1/16/2006 7:57:29 PM (GMT-6)

Narnian: Why wouldn't the ultimate cause of Lydia's attendance of what Paul was saying [be] God? If it is God then how could it have also been her own will as the ultimate cause of her attendance to Paul?

Tom: Good question Narnian. [Hmmm. A ‘lion’ avatar. Lion. But kind too, like a lamb. Hmmm. Lion and lamb. Lion-lamb? No way!] Anyhow, causation is a complicated deal—for both determinists and indeterminists. But I’d begin by asking you what you mean by ‘ultimate’. I’d agree that God’s influence and Lydia’s free choice can’t each be ‘ultimate’ in the same sense. But depending on what you mean by ‘ultimate’, an indeterminist could agree that God’s influence is ultimate. Indeterminists agree that apart from God taking the initiative to pursue us and move upon our hearts convicting us of sin and extending grace, no one of us would be able to choose his way into a saving relationship with God. Where God is concerned, we can only choose ‘in response to’ divine initiation. That’s just the nature of personal relationships. Each has a part to play which the other cannot perform and without which a mutual relationship could not arise. In the case of personal relationships between God and other persons, God in fact takes the initiative. It’s in this sense that God is ultimately responsible for the relationship we call salvation. His offer is a necessary cause of any personal relationships he has with people. But that influence isn’t by itself a sufficient cause. Persons have choices to make that God doesn’t unconditionally determine. And those choices are equally necessary to the relationship, though not by themselves sufficient. So where the saving relationship is concerned, there just is no one sufficient cause (if the causes we’re considering are particular “choices”) that brings about a relationship between God and a person. There are necessary causes which when combined form a sufficient cause for the relationship.

Lee: But we still can't open our heart, even when we want too, that is the question, and the problem...

Tom: Jesus says, “Behold I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears and opens, I will….” Why OF COURSE we can open our lives to Christ if we want to. Our wanting to is in fact a necessary cause of Christ’s entering our life. Of course, Christ has to knock. That’s also a necessary cause of his entering. Without his knocking there’s no question that we’d be unable to drag him in by the sheer force of our wills alone. But without our wanting to open our lives to him there’s no question that he’d be unable to kick the door down. It’s a relationship that’s determined and defined by BOTH of us. We CAN do our part. He CAN do his part. We CAN’T do his part. And he CAN’T do our part. Salvation is a work of synergy that happens when each does what only each can do.

I'm not even hoping for agreement on this by my deterministic friends. I only want to demonstrate that there are non-deterministic explanations of these texts. If you find deterministic explanations preferrable, that's great!

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 1/20/2006 11:49:11 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 1/20/2006 7:32:07 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 1/21/2006 2:10:15 PM (GMT-6)

TGB: If I were to suggest to you that the following is true: Jesus stands at the door and knocks; if any sinner hears and opens, Jesus will come in and fellowship with him, would you agree this is a false statement?

Lee: Yes, I agree, only I would also hold that unbelievers are not able to open their hearts.

Tom: Yes, you agree? With what? You maintain that unbelievers are unable to open their hearts. So I understand you to be saying that <Jesus stands at the door and knocks, if any sinner hears and opens the door, Jesus will come in and fellowship with him> is a false statement since it attributes to the sinner the ability to determine his own ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in response to Jesus. See, what you believe is this: <Jesus stands at the door and knocks, and if Jesus opens up any sinner’s heart Jesus will then come in and fellowship with him.> You believe Jesus determines the sinner’s response, or at best that Jesus determines how the sinner determines his response.

We have fundamentally different understandings of what salvation is, how God saves people and relates to the world, the sort of freedom we possess, and what makes us morally responsible before God. In fact, Lee, the more I reflect on it the more convinced I am that there is almost no theological connection between us. Some could examine our beliefs and come to the conclusion that we belong to completely different religions and they wouldn’t be entirely off the mark, so far apart and so crucial the distance there is between us on these issues. We center our faith on the same EVENTS (creation, incarnation, cross, and resurrection) but there the similarity ends, for we INTERPRET these events in very different, even contradictory ways. When it comes to providence for example, you and the Muslim share precisely the same worldview. When I engage Christian determinists over their view of providence I might as well be dialoguing with a Muslim. But some determinists feel they’re talking to non-Christians or heretics when the engage me over this same issue, so I guess we're even! Maybe we should be honest and just admit that we really do belong to two different religions and call our discussions interfaith dialogues. What d’ya think?

Is this that far from your own convictions Narnian? Are you of the opinion that open theists have crossed the line and are no longer Christian in their experience and worldview?

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 1/21/2006 11:53:01 PM (GMT-6)

So, if I understand your logic, Lydia's heart being open was because of her choice because she really had a heart for God. Did John the Baptist also choose to be filled with the Spirit while in the womb? Did God determine that this would happen or did John? Does God just determine some of the things that happen and we have to decide which ones so that only the prophetic ones are determined?

I stated elsewhere that there is a verse that might support your position that John determined to be filled with the spirit by choosing Christ and leaping in the womb. in Hosea 12:2 we find:

The LORD also has a dispute with Judah,
And will punish Jacob according to his ways;
He will repay him according to his deeds.
In the womb he took his brother by the heel,
And in his maturity he contended with God.

Post Edited (spenlake) : 1/21/2006 8:07:41 PM (GMT-6)

Spen: So, if I understand your logic, Lydia's heart being open was because of her choice because she really had a heart for God.

Tom: I guess you’re addressing me Spen. OK…you take me to be saying:

a) Lydia’s heart was open

b) because she choose to open her heart, and she chose to open her heart

c) because she really had a heart for God.

I’m not even sure what these three mean when you put them together, but I’m pretty sure it’s not my view. My view is pretty simple: Lydia embraced the gospel because God offered it to her. Looking at her story, it’s clear she’s a seeker with a history. God’s been working in her life and heart for some time. She’s been responding to what information she has, and as she’s responded to God’s overtures she’s opened up. When she hears the gospel she’s ready, and she receives Christ. None of it could have happened without God pursuing her. But God’s pursuing her had to be embraced favorably by her. Since God’s necessary part is also necessary to any free response we might give, it’s entirely proper to say “God opens up our hearts.”

I don’t know what else to say to clarify myself.

Spen: Did John the Baptist also choose to be filled with the Spirit while in the womb?

Tom: Obviously not. But neither do I think Luke attributes soteriological functions to John’s prenatal infilling. Not sure how familiar you are with the debate surrounding Luke’s Pneumatology (between, say, Bob Menzies, Gordan Fee, Max Turner, and others over a distinctive Lukan pneumatology), but there’s a distinct tradition in Judaism which saw the Spirit as the source of prophetic inspiration and did so without reading soteriological assumption into such activity. It’s pretty clear that Luke’s writing in this tradition. So there’s no need to assume Luke would view John’s prenatal infilling as implying consciousness, cognition, or free will (that’s not possible in the womb so far as we can tell). And without those elements being active, there’s no question of this infilling being soteriological in nature. So saying John didn’t have any say-so in his prenatal infilling doesn’t mean adult persons responding to the Spirit in the gospel don’t have to determine their own response.

Spen: I stated elsewhere that there is a verse that might support your position that John determined to be filled with the spirit by choosing Christ and leaping in the womb.

Tom: I don’t think John’s making his own choice to be filled with the Spirit in his mother’s womb.

Spen: In Hosea 12:2 we find:

The LORD also has a dispute with Judah,
And will punish Jacob according to his ways;
He will repay him according to his deeds.
In the womb he took his brother by the heel,
And in his maturity he contended with God.

While you may explain to me why this passage is not what it seems…

Tom: I wouldn’t do that. But I probably would argue that what it seems to be saying is something different that what you would argue it seems to be saying.

Spen: …this appears to be an incident where God is holding Jacob responsible for actions he took in the womb, implying that even then Jacob was a moral agent.

Tom: See, that’s not at all what the passage seems to me to be saying. When I read it I see Jews (Jacob in the openning of the passage) being punished for their ways, being repaid according to their deeds. Real “ways” and “deeds.” You equate these “ways” and “deeds” with the infant Jacob's grabbing Esau’s heel at birth and wrestling with an angelic being as an adult. But that doesn’t make sense of the words used or the context. Hosea is addressing the Jews of his day, Jacob’s descendents. And of course Israel is referred to as ‘Jacob’. There’s an obvious play on words. The Jews of Hosea’s day are just as conniving and contentious as Jacob was during his entire life. But the Jews of Hosea’s day aren’t being held accountable for Jacob’s own actions or being punished because they’re guilty for what he did. The text says they’re being judged for “ways” and “deeds”; words not easily equated with Jacob’s infant heel-grab or angel-wrestling. Instead, Israel’s own ways and deeds are as conniving as their father Jacob’s. They're just as bad as he was.

Spen: This impurity was genetic and impacted Judah as Jacob's descendent. If this is the case and Jacob was morally responsible for what he did in teh womb, it would support your contention for Lydia in that John the Baptist was also a moral agent, like Lydia, for leaping at the coming of His Christ while still in the womb.

Tom: Now I’m not sure if you were even addressing me or Lee or somebody else. Sorry. But for the record, I don’t think Jacob was morally responsible for what he did in the womb, nor do I think John’s prenatal infilling has any soteriological functions whatsoever.

Tom

Tom:  She’s been responding to what information she has, and as she’s responded to God’s overtures she’s opened up. When she hears the gospel she’s ready, and she receives Christ. None of it could have happened without God pursuing her. But God’s pursuing her had to be embraced favorably by her. Since God’s necessary part is also necessary to any free response we might give, it’s entirely proper to say “God opens up our hearts.”

May peoples serve you,And nations bow down to you;Be master of your brothers,And may your mother’s sons bow down to you.

Mal 1:1 The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi.
2 "I have loved you," says the LORD. "Yet you say, 'In what way have You loved us?' Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" Says the LORD. "Yet Jacob I have loved;

How much of the Calvinist/Arminian debate is just partisan politics?

If you look at either, I'm feeling that you will find pastoral moderations and counsel, like in that Canon of Dordt where it advises to first neither despair nor presume for oneself, and second to not presume either about other people. Seems to me, in the highly polemical 1600s the pastor writing that knew to FOCUS on that part of God's sovereignty that ACTUALLY touched the individual, and to AVOID the speculative and merely theoretical part that would lead one away from Christ and towards merely oneself or party-spirit.

From teaching at colleges affiliated with the Wesleyan, Nazarene and Free Methodist denominations, the same feels true of Arminians.