#1 || 09·08·10··17:39 || David

Oh, now I’m jealous. I’ve only got the first season.

#2 || 09·08·11··09:14 || Manfred

My wife (of 31 years) must not love me. I don't have ANY "Get Smart" DVDs :-(

As the recent Batman's Joker might say, regarding this colum, "Why so nasty?" towards Arminianism. The quote at the end from Sproul nails that answer - BECAUSE IT'S HERESY! What a pitiful god they serve.

#3 || 09·08·11··11:42 || Jeff Peterson

Here's how my prior denomination (confessionally Arminian) handles the Fall and Redemption (from their Art. of Faith and Practice):

The Fall. We believe that our first parents did not remain in the happy state of their original creation, but, being deluded through the subtlety of Satan, voluntarily disobeyed the positive command of God, and thus were alienated from God and incurred upon themselves and their posterity the sentence of death both physical and spiritual. Even the earth was cursed because of Adam's sin. In consequence of this act of disobedience, the entire human race has become so corrupted that in every heart there is by nature that evil disposition which eventually leads to responsible acts of sin and to just condemnation. Also through the fall of Adam, people have become so completely ruined that they have neither will nor power to turn to God and if left to themselves would remain in their sin forever.

Gen. 3:13, 16-17; Isa. 64:6; Rom. 7:7ff.; 1 John 1:8

c. His Redemption. We believe that God has provided redemption for everyone through the mediatorial work of Christ, who voluntarily offered Himself on Calvary as a perfect sacrifice for sin, the just suffering for the unjust, bearing sin's curse and tasting death for everyone.

John 10:17-18; Acts 4:12; 1 Tim. 1:15, 2:5-6; Tit. 2:11-12; Heb. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:18

Then they say with regard to faith and regeneration:

a. Repentance. We believe that genuine repentance is a necessary attitude and act of one’s will that makes it possible for a holy and just God to forgive one's sins. As an attitude it involves a knowledge of, a change of mind toward, and a godly sorrow for sin; a proper reverence for God's holiness; and a surrender to God. As an act it means confessing and forsaking sin. Repentance is one's appropriate response to the grace of God in conviction. As a fruit of repentance, insofar as possible where sin has been committed against another, restitution should be made.

Ps. 51:3-4; Prov. 28:13; Isa. 6:1-5, 55:6-7; Matt. 3:2 and 8, 4:17; Luke 13:3, 15:18, 18:13, 19:8; John 16:8-11; Acts 11:18; Rom. 2:4, 10:9-10; 2 Cor. 7:9-10; 2 Tim. 2:25

b. Faith. We believe faith must accompany repentance and is the act of the will whereby one embraces the promises of God and appropriates to oneself personally the provisions of God's grace. It is resting in the completeness and adequacy of the atoning merit of Christ's sacrifice as the sole ground and hope of salvation. Faith must be active throughout the life of the believer and must manifest itself in obedience and good works.

Acts 13:38-39, 16:31; Rom. 4:3, 5:1; Eph. 2:8-10; Heb. 11:6; James 2:17

c. Justification and Regeneration. We believe that when the requirements of repentance and faith have been met, God justifies and regenerates the sinner. Justification is a judicial act absolving from guilt and punishment and restoring to divine favor. Justification has to do with the changing of the sinner's standing before God. Regeneration has to do with the changing of the sinner's nature through the impartation of divine life. Regeneration is a spiritual quickening, a new birth. This experience is witnessed to by the indwelling Holy Spirit who produces in the heart a desire to do the will of God.

John 3:3 and 5, 5:24; Acts 22:10; Rom. 5:1 and 9, 4:4-5, 8:16 and 33; 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:1; 2 Pet. 1:4

Christ's death didn't save anybody, per this - it just opened the door for everybody and gave them the ability to walk through. Although I still don't know why you would even NEED the new birth if you're already alive enough to walk through by exercising your will and "believing" and "repenting." If one doesn't need to be regenerated to use one's will, then I don't see the point of "regeneration" per their statements. I don't see how they really separate regeneration and justification, then, when you get down to it.

#4 || 09·08·11··14:08 || David

Manfred,
   I don’t think I’ve been nasty, just logical.

Jeff,
   That statement sounds worse than Arminian. It sounds Semipelagian — although I’m not sure where the line between them is drawn, precisely. This is why I say that:

We believe that when the requirements of repentance and faith have been met, God justifies and regenerates the sinner.

#5 || 09·08·12··12:58 || Deacon Godsey

Before commenting, I'd like to post two passages that I believe will be - & should be - instructive for healthy, Christ-like interaction between parties who approach this topic from differing viewpoints. First:

"...In our open hand we must hold more loosely & graciously those doctrines that are important but secondary (like predestination), in that godly, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving Christians who have prayed & studied fervently disagree over them...I (Driscoll) do not come to this discussion without opinions, but I do not limit my scope of fellowship to others with my personal beliefs. I enjoy many great friendships with Arminian brothers & sisters from whom I learn a great deal & with whom I partner for the sake of the Gospel..."Mark Driscoll, RELIGION SAVES + 9 OTHER MISCONCEPTIONS (Crossways Books, Wheaton, IL: Re:LIT, 2009), p.75.

Second:

" In December 20, 1784 John Wesley recorded in his Journal that he had the satisfaction of meeting Charles Simeon. However, it was Simeon who preserved the account of that conversation...

Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; & I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; & therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will as you a few questions...

Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

'Yes,' says the veteran, 'I do indeed.'

And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; & look for salvation solely through the blood & righteousness of Christ?"

'Yes, solely through Christ.'

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?'

'No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.'

Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?'

'No.'

What, then, are you to be upheld every hour & every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?

'Yes, altogether.'

And is all your hope in the grace & mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

'Yes, I have no hope but in Him.'

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold & as I hold it; & therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms & phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree." quoted by J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1961), 13-14.

If we can agree to dialogue in the spirit of these two examples, then I - an admitted non-Calvinist who is still working things through with the help of a committed Calvinist friend from college days gone by - will be happy to share my thoughts. If we cannot agree to move forward in that spirit, I'll withhold further comment & save us all the unnecessary tension.

Respectfully,

Deacon Godsey
Omaha, NE

#6 || 09·08·12··14:15 || David

Mr Godsey,
   No daggers here (the Packer book is excellent). I’m just pointing out what I see. I understand that these can be difficult things to work through. I think it took me nearly ten years to cross over.
   Since then, however, I have come to see the doctrines of grace as doctrines I must hold in the “closed hand,” they are that essential to the gospel. That doesn’t mean I can’t be respectful of those who disagree, even while dogmatically asserting my own views.
   So, if you think you can show me the logic I’m missing, you’re welcome to give it a shot.

#7 || 09·08·12··15:05 || Deacon Godsey

Okay...we'll give it a shot.

As it relates to issue #1, I don't think you're "missing" logic. I think you're statements are perfectly logical, when taken within the construct of five-point Calvinism & within the scope of the particular strand of "Arminian" or non-Calvinistic thinking you presented in your original post.

For example, if you believe that election is primarily/necessarily an "individual" issue, & you interpret the passages in question through the TULIP filter, I think I'd agree with the logic of your statement. If, however, one doesn't think of election as "individual," but rather sees it in "corporate" terms, the entire premise itself seems off-kilter from the beginning, so the issue of logic becomes somewhat of a mute point.

Then, of course, comes the issue of biblical interpretation. Again, viewed through the TULIP filter, I agree, there are big biblical problems with the passages you referenced. From my perspective, however, I don't see those passages as being problematic at all, because I interpret them differently. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't want to get in to what those interpretations are, as that will likely get us nowhere; I'm just trying to address the issue of "logic" & how what seems perfectly illogical & problematic from perspective "A" isn't necessarily inherently illogical from perspective "B."

As for issue #2...again, your perspective is perfectly logical when viewed from a TULIP perspective (it would seem that "T" & "I" would be the most relevant sources of tension here, but I could be wrong.) When viewed from a different biblical & philosophical perspective, however, the view in question isn't illogical at all.

Clearly, there are major interpretive & philosophical issues involved, which would be counter-productive to try & tackle in this discussion. Again, I'm simply trying to address the specific issue of logic & show that, if Calvinism is assumed, then you're correct - there are biblical & logical problems to consider; if, however, Calvinism is NOT assumed, & one views the issue through a different interpretive/philosophical grid, those apparent problems disappear.

#8 || 09·08·12··19:17 || David

I haven’t interpreted anything through “the TULIP filter,” at least not at this stage. These are the problems I faced when I was still a Calvinism-hating synergist.
   In any case, I don’t see how an assumption of Calvinism can be read into either of my questions. I’m asking questions that go straight to logic, and have nothing to do with theology. Anyone, of any or no religion, ought to answer these questions the same.

On predestination:
   I don’t think the corporate election theory makes any biblical sense at all, but let’s assume it does. My statement still stands: “If God looked ahead and saw who would believe, if who would believe could be seen, then those individuals were already predestined — by whatever cause — to believe.” That’s not predestination. To predestine is to be the predetermining cause. It is not simply looking ahead and giving the nod to whatever was already to be.

On choosing to believe:
   You’re saying that if I don’t assume Calvinism, that makes sense. I’m saying that in no universe does that make sense. No one ever chooses to believe anything. It’s impossible. Steve Hays wrote:

Belief is not a matter of choice. Acting on a belief is a matter of choice, but belief is essentially involuntary, although we can do certain things to cultivate or undermine a belief by what evidence we avoid or expose ourselves to.

If we “choose” to believe something, then that’s a classic case of make-believe.

#9 || 09·08·13··08:24 || Deacon Godsey

Okay...we'll just have to agree to disagree on the whole.

Specifically, I agree that "predestination" is not looking ahead & "giving the nod" to whatever was already to be. But this is where it devolves to our differing views of election, interpretation of the verses in question, etc., which we won't get into. My comments about your TULIP filter dealt with those Biblical interpretation issues, not the "logic" side of things which, as I've said, I agree with.

Regarding issue #2, again, you, Steven Hays & I will just agree to disagree. When it comes to art, music, beauty & other intangibles, for example, belief is chosen all the time. To be sure, one's immediate reaction to something might be involuntary, but eventually personal preference, opinion - and yes, belief, as to something's value, intention, purpose, etc. - is chosen.

Take the theological differences we have in question. Why do we have those differences? Because we're instinctively hard-wired to believe them? Of course not. (To me, that seems little more than a form of philosophical naturalism.) We hold the views, opinions, beliefs that we do because we have both seen the evidence, prayerfully & thoughtfully weighed it out & have CHOSEN to believe one thing or the other.

This is why I believe your TULIP filter is indeed a part of the equation, though I'm happy to be wrong in this regard. It seems that holding to TULIP doctrines - while not directly involved from a content perspective - provides a good "launching pad" for holding the philosophical perspective that "belief is not a matter of choice" & that "...Confronted with evidence, and given understanding, we are helpless to deny anything."

Faith, in many respects & circumstances, seems itself to be a consciously CHOSEN belief in a given reality or outcome, sometimes BECAUSE of the evidence in question, & sometimes IN SPITE of or DIRECTLY IN THE FACE OF that same evidence.

The disciple of Jesus who gets cancer & has all the evidence in the world to say they have only "x" number of months to live can CHOOSE to BELIEVE that evidence doesn't have the final say & that, despite the medical evidence involved, GOD can & will heal them.

Because you believe in the TULIP, however, you might likely go back to the idea that, for the person in question, their very belief in God wasn't something they "chose" (because they were incapable of doing so), nor was it something they could deny, once given understanding (given the elect's inability to ultimately reject the grace of "understanding" God is giving them.)

If, on the other hand, you don't view things through the TULIP construct, it seems more likely that the concept of human choice in matters of belief is less problematic.

I'm not saying one automatically equals the other - clearly, a person who holds this philosophical view doesn't necessarily have to be a Calvinist - but I am saying that, if you're a Calvinist, you almost HAVE to agree with the philosophical concept in question. Thus, making your logic - as I said - perfectly sound, from that point of view.

Again, I could be completely wrong & will be happy to admit it. I'm also happy to cheerfully agree-to-disagree...

Thanks for the good conversation.

#10 || 09·08·13··10:39 || David

You’re not paying attention, or you’re stubbornly ignoring what I have plainly stated: this has nothing to do with TULIP, or any theology. I have plainly stated that I came to these conclusions even while hating Calvinism. Yet you insist that I’m only projecting my Calvinism. Because I’m so patient, though, I’ll try this one more time.

On predestination:
   It does not depend on your view of election. Election and predestination are not the same thing. The question here is, What is predestination? You’ve given no positive answer; indeed, you’ve made no attempt to do so.

On choosing to believe:
   You wrote,

We hold the views, opinions, beliefs that we do because we have both seen the evidence, prayerfully & thoughtfully weighed it out & have CHOSEN to believe one thing or the other.

#11 || 09·08·13··12:20 || Deacon

So much for the "no daggers."

I'm sadly reminded, again, of the futility of this forum/format for normal conversation that doesn't drift into one ditch or another. I'm sure the regular visitors to your site enjoy the format, but I just find it...draining.

I will gladly take my leave.

#12 || 09·08·13··14:05 || David

Excuse me, what daggers? I’ve given you a forum to discuss two simple propositions which you’ve skirted like a politician. Frankly, you’ve been condescending and insulting. All you’ve said is that if I wasn’t a Calvinist, I’d understand. It seems your request for open dialogue was disingenuous; all you really wanted was monologue. You’ve made not the slightest attempt to address the issues I raised, and when I point that out, you get miffed and take your ball and go home. It’s too bad, because I really would like some serious, adult answers.

#13 || 09·08·13··17:57 || Deacon

David,

1. I can honestly say that, from my heart, I believe my motives were pure in my earlier posts, with no intention to be disingenuous or establish a monologue of any kind. I actually made intentional efforts towards expressing the opposite attitude, but if it didn't come across that way, please accept my sincerest apologies.

2. It is not my intention to skirt issues at all; I'm just trying to stay focused on the main issue at hand. Again, if it appears otherwise, I sincerely apologize. With that in mind, to be as clear as I can be: I simply disagree with your assessments - as you disagree with mind - & I'm okay with that. I believe I made it clear why that's the case, but you disagreed with those reasons as well, which I'm also totally fine with.

3. I believe I did provide serious, thoughtful, adult answers to your positions, they simply weren't positions you agreed with. That, in & of itself doesn't make them lake any inherent sincerity or disqualify them as lacking adulthood.

4. As for daggers, I believe your previous posting is ample evidence for the very verbal daggers you assured me wouldn't be brought out in our discussion. Despite my intentionally refraining from attacking you on a personal level, you've addressed me as "disingenuous", accused me of "taking my ball home," claimed my answers weren't "adult" enough for you, while previously having stated how "patient" you were being with my apparent intellectual inferiority & sarcastically challenging my position on belief & encouraging me to "see how that goes for you." I fail to see how any of those statements can be seen as anything other than verbal "daggers," but again...that could just be me, & I sincerely apologize if I'm misreading your thoughts & comments.

#14 || 09·08·14··09:06 || David

Deacon,
   I don’t believe you’ve been intentionally disingenuous, and I’m sorry I put it that way. It does seem, however, that you haven’t intended to give any straight answers. You have not made any positive statement defining predestination, nor have you attempted to demonstrate the ability to choose to believe. You’ve only asserted that it is so. I admit to using rhetorical sarcasm (and see no harm in it), but my challenge to try choosing not to believe something you now believe was not at all sarcastic. I am quite serious; if you can choose to believe one thing, then you can choose to turn around and believe another. I am simply saying, “prove it.” Don’t just assert, support your assertions.
   It will not do to brush off my propositions as the products of Calvinistic bias. You insist on doing so, even though I’ve twice plainly stated that these views predate my assent to Calvinism. All you’ve done is say that if I was not a Calvinist, I wouldn’t be so confused. I interpret that to mean, “Since I can’t refute your statements, I’ll just discredit you.”

Now, if you’d care to demonstrate your sincere desire to interact with the issues I’ve raised, please tell me:

1. What does “predestine” mean?
2. Can you demonstrate (rather than simply assert) the ability to choose to believe? What is something you now believe that you could voluntarily cease believing?

#15 || 09·08·14··11:35 || Deacon Godsey

David,

1. Again, I agree with your definition of "to predestine" when it comes to God (i.e. to actively predetermine something to come to pass.) I also agree with the LOGIC of your view that, if predestination occurs individually, it is something that occurs passively on the part of the individual in question (i.e. they have been predestined to course "a" or "b" due to a cause outside of themselves; in this case, God, depending - as I understand it - on your view of "single" or "double" predestination.) My disagreement is not with the logic, but the premise itself, which gets us away from the issue at hand (logic) & into the issue of theological assertions & biblical interpretation. As I've said before, I believe in the biblical concepts of predestination & election, as they're clearly stated in scripture & unavoidable. My difference, however, as you know, is that I don't view those concepts the same way you do. Since that has nothing to do with the issue of "logic" that we were originally discussing, I thought it best not to go into the details, since we both know where it would go from that point. But since you'd like me to state my opinion outright: as I mentioned before, at this time I hold to the "corporate" view of election, & that it was God's predestined plan to send Jesus to die on the cross, pay the penalty for sin, achieve reconciliation between God & man, to establish the Church as the "new Israel," to give each believer the gift of the Holy Spirit, to form each believer into the image of Christ, etc. I'm always willing to admit being wrong, & I know there are numerous disagreements we would have in this regard, which, as I've said, I'm okay with. If we both agree to the content of the exchange I originally cited between Wesley & Simeon, I think we're both brothers in the Kingdom, despite having differing views on other important-but-ultimately-secondary issues. But again, I agree with your logic in this regard.

2. RE: Belief/Choice...as I mentioned earlier, I think exercising faith & the conscious decision to "choose" to "believe" something in spite of the weight of physical evidence at hand would be one example. I think one's belief - or non-belief - in God (elohim God, not Yahweh God, if you see what I mean) is another great example of how people can consider the available evidence & make the conscious choice to either believe or not believe in His or Its existence. Some people simply don't want Him/It to exist, so they choose to believe the evidence to be either inconsequential or in downright opposition to the possibility. You & I, on the other hand, have seen the same (& likely more) evidence (in light of His personal involvement in our lives), but have chosen to believe in Him, even though we cannot "prove" His existence outright. But as you know, this is where we start potentially getting away from "logic" & into theological interpretation, philosophical views about "free will" & man's ability - or inability - to choose to believe in/follow God, etc.

Anyway, getting back to the second part of question #2...I agree, your proposition to think of "something you now believe that you could voluntarily cease believing" seems quite convincing. But simply because this would be difficult to do "in reverse," doesn't logically necessitate that it's impossible to "choose" to believe something on the "front end" of something. I agree, once you hold a belief, it seems extremely difficult - potentially even impossible - to simply cease believing it. But at the outset, however, when evidence is still being considered & isn't necessarily conclusive one way or the other, sometimes you simply HAVE to choose to believe one thing or another, because the lack of conclusive evidence leaves you with no other option.

All that being said, I believe there are examples of people who have believed in God but, after experiencing something tragic, traumatic, etc. have chosen to reverse their view because they're so disillusioned by what they've gone through. But here, yet again, we start potentially getting away from "logic" & drifting into the realm of theological & philosophical views re: whether those people "really" believed in God in the first place, etc.

Clearly, we're not going to agree here, & that's okay. And these statements aren't designed to try to "convince" you of the "rightness" of my perspectives; they're just an attempt to express where I'm coming from...

#16 || 09·08·14··17:03 || David

OK, I’m going to leave the predestination question at that. Predestination is “to actively predetermine something to come to pass.”

On choosing to believe, I think you’re confusing behaving as if one believes with actually believing. You wrote,

when evidence is still being considered & isn't necessarily conclusive one way or the other, sometimes you simply HAVE to choose to believe one thing or another, because the lack of conclusive evidence leaves you with no other option.

We often choose to act upon an assumption of truth without being sure of that truth. People often say, “I choose to believe _____.” What they mean is that they think it is probably true, or they hope it is true, and they are going to proceed on the assumption that it is, hoping for the best.
   For example, suppose one of my children has repeatedly committed an offense. As a result, my trust has been damaged, and his freedom limited. Then he is repentant and promises not to do it again. Do I believe him? I don’t know. But I give him the benefit of the doubt — you might say, “I choose to believe” him — and give him a chance to earn my trust again. Time will tell, but until then, I’m going to act like he’s telling the truth.
   Also, people often deny what they know or suspect to be true in order to avoid the responsibility that knowledge would require, or act as though something false is true in order to free themselves to do what they want to do. Given enough time of denying the truth, they may actually come to sincerely believe the lie; but they have not “chosen to believe,” they have become self-deceived.

When I say “I believe,” I mean “I trust without reservation that this is true.” It means “I know.” For example, the wall behind my desk which I’m facing right now is white. I haven’t chosen to believe that. I can see that it’s white, and it would be impossible for me to believe anything else. It would require new evidence, such as the discovery of some defect in my eyesight, or of unnatural light conditions altering the appearance of the paint, to change my mind. But then, again, my mind would be changed involuntarily.
   In our context, believing means that “I know whom I have believed . . .” I’m not just taking a gamble on the best evidence available; I’m not just hoping it is true; I am convinced.

#17 || 09·08·22··00:02 || George

Illustrations may be helpful: Cows are not free to wander outside of the fences that restrain them. But fences are not erected in the air above the cows to restrain them. Therefore, the cows are totally free to fly away. But they cannot, because it is completely beyond their power and contrary to their nature to fly. Much in the same way, we as fallen man are free to believe in Christ, but we cannot, because it's completely beyond our power and contrary to our nature. Hope this is helpful!

#18 || 09·09·19··11:46 || Tim

David:

Great post. Thanks! It wasn't long ago that I made a similar journey to the Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism) although not quite by the same route.

But I too came reluctantly, I think because of my resistance to let go of the usual preconception of the the meaning of "world" and "all", etc.

Again, thanks!