http://www.graceforums.com/ Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:55:08 -0600 MyBB http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3182 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:36:52 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3182
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (KJV)

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (ESV)

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (NASB)

I grew up a KJVOnlyist, and I early on I had this verse memorized. But after I left the cult that is KJVOnlyism, I realized this verse has drastically different implications if in fact the ESV/NASB(etc) are a more accurate rendering of the verse than the KJV.

Young's Literal reads this way:

for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us--those being saved--it is the power of God,

Emphasis mine, of course. What's important here is the phrase "those being saved" and how it differs from the statement "those who are saved"

The modern translations lend support to Reformed thought. The idea that a person finds the cross as power, and not foolishness, because they are being saved is tremendously Calvinistic. In the past, I had always read the verse as saying that a person finds the cross as power and not foolishness because they are already saved. That is, because they already decided to become a believer, the cross is power, not foolishness.

But then you go down to verse 23-24 where Paul explains that only those who are called find the cross power and wisdom, the rest find it foolishness and a stumbling block.

Those who are called = those who are being saved?

If so, the verse is saying the reason a person finds Christ's cross as power, and by implication, believes on it, clings to it, is justified by it, is because they are being saved.

Ok you language/Greek experts. Is the KJV a viable/accurate translation here? Is "are saved" and "being saved" the same thing, the same tense, in the Greek here? I guess the KJV makes me thing "are saved" is the perfect tense, but the other translations make me think "being saved" is a present tense thing.

Is Paul actually saying what I think he's saying here, that people are "being saved" (by God) (present tense) and this is precisely why they find the cross as power, and not foolishness?]]>
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (KJV)

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (ESV)

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (NASB)

I grew up a KJVOnlyist, and I early on I had this verse memorized. But after I left the cult that is KJVOnlyism, I realized this verse has drastically different implications if in fact the ESV/NASB(etc) are a more accurate rendering of the verse than the KJV.

Young's Literal reads this way:

for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us--those being saved--it is the power of God,

Emphasis mine, of course. What's important here is the phrase "those being saved" and how it differs from the statement "those who are saved"

The modern translations lend support to Reformed thought. The idea that a person finds the cross as power, and not foolishness, because they are being saved is tremendously Calvinistic. In the past, I had always read the verse as saying that a person finds the cross as power and not foolishness because they are already saved. That is, because they already decided to become a believer, the cross is power, not foolishness.

But then you go down to verse 23-24 where Paul explains that only those who are called find the cross power and wisdom, the rest find it foolishness and a stumbling block.

Those who are called = those who are being saved?

If so, the verse is saying the reason a person finds Christ's cross as power, and by implication, believes on it, clings to it, is justified by it, is because they are being saved.

Ok you language/Greek experts. Is the KJV a viable/accurate translation here? Is "are saved" and "being saved" the same thing, the same tense, in the Greek here? I guess the KJV makes me thing "are saved" is the perfect tense, but the other translations make me think "being saved" is a present tense thing.

Is Paul actually saying what I think he's saying here, that people are "being saved" (by God) (present tense) and this is precisely why they find the cross as power, and not foolishness?]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3181 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:49:03 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3181
The word "draw" is the Greek word helkuo, which is defined this way in Strong's concordance:


Quote: 1. to draw, drag off
2. metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel


(in English, impel is defined this way:
1.to drive or urge forward; press on; incite or constrain to action.
2.to drive or cause to move onward; propel; impart motion to)

The word helkuo is used in these verses: (ESV)


Quote:Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)



Quote:Joh 21:6 He said to them, "Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some." So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in, because of the quantity of fish.


(KJV renders "haul" as "draw")


Quote:Joh 21:11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, 153 of them. And although there were so many, the net was not torn.



Quote:Act 16:19 But when her owners saw that their hope of gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers.



Quote:Act 21:30 Then all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and at once the gates were shut.



Quote:Jas 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?



Quote:Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.


To me, it seems obvious that in every single one of these verses, the word "draw" means exactly what the definition says it means: to drag, to impel. Strong's points out that the word helkuo is akin to another word, #G138, aihreomai, which is defined this way:


Quote:To take for oneself, to prefer, to choose


So the word draw has some power and strength to it. It doesn't even come close to meaning to woo or persuade. Back to John 12:32, I've heard different arguments for the understandings of this verse.

Argument #1 - some say that this verse is teaching that Jesus is saying that he will persuade or woo all individuals to him with the intention of saving them. I immediately dismiss this argument in light of the overwhelming evidence that "draw" does not even come close to meaning "woo" or "persuade" or "entice". This argument ignores the context (See Argument #3) and also the possibility that since draw doesn't mean persuade/woo, Jesus could be saying that he will draw all people, but with the intentions different for each person (Some in a hardening way, some mercifully - See Argument #2)

Argument #2 - Jesus will in fact draw all individuals to himself, but this doesn't necessarily mean in a positive, saving way.

This is an intriguing argument to me. Many people are drawn to Christ's cross, but many times they remain hostile towards it. For example, Paul tells us that the message of the cross is foolishness and a stumbling block. Gill says this:


Quote:There were many of the Jews who would not, and did not come to him for life; and who instead of being drawn to him in this sense, when lifted up on the cross, vilified and reproached him


So being drawn to Christ doesn't necessarily mean that Christ is drawing men persuasively with the intention of saving them. Perhaps Christ could draw men with the intentions of hardening them? God could use the cross as an act of justice, or mercy.

This leads to argument #3, which I think is the strongest, and correct interpretation.

Argument #3 - The English translations add the word "people" to the phrase I will draw all people to myself. (notice the italicized "men" in the KJV, signaling an added word) In other words, it literally reads: I will draw all to myself.

I think casual English readers have a tendency to immediately latch onto that phrase "all people" and take it to mean "100% of every individual that ever walked the face of the earth, but again, given that drawn doesn't mean woo or persuade, we are left with either universalism, or the conclusion of Argument #2.

The context suggests that Christ said "all" or "all men" to refer to Jews and Greeks (as opposed to Jews only), because the events immediately preceding v32 were that Greeks had approached Christ.

Joh 12:20-31
(20) Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks.
(21) So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, "Sir, we wish to see Jesus."
(22) Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus.
(23) And Jesus answered them, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.
(24) Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
(25) Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
(26) If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.
(27) "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? But for this purpose I have come to this hour.
(28) Father, glorify your name." Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again."
(29) The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to him."
(30) Jesus answered, "This voice has come for your sake, not mine.
(31) Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.

The bolded area is important. James White says:

Quote:John 12 narrates the final events of Jesus' public ministry. After this particular incident, the Lord will go into a period of private ministry to His disciples right before He goes to the cross. The final words of Jesus' public teachings are prompted by the arrival of Greeks who are seeking Jesus. This important turn of events prompts the teaching that follows. Jesus is now being sought by non-Jews, Gentiles. It is when Jesus is informed of this that He says, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified." This then is the context which leads us to Jesus' words in verse 32



Quote:I believe that in its context the "all men" refers to Jews and Gentiles, not to every individual person on earth. Through His work on the cross, Jesus will draw all kinds of men, all kinds of people to Himself, including those from outside of the covenant community of Israel. We must bear in mind that this would have been an extremely radical thought to the Jews who were hearing Him say these words.


Then White points out what Paul says about Jews and Greeks finding the cross foolishness and a stumbling block, and only those who are called find it wisdom and power. (1 Cor)

Then he says:


Quote:These considerations, along with the immediate context of the Gentiles seeking Christ, make it clear that if He is lifted up in crucifixion, He will draw all men, Jews and Gentiles, to Himself. This is exactly the same as saying that He has sheep not of this fold (John 10:16), the Gentiles, who become one body in Christ (Eph. 2:13-16)


Another thing that amazes me about this passage is not 5 verses later, we are told that God is directly involved in hardening men so that they would not believe, would not turn, and not be healed:


Quote:Joh 12:37-40
(37) Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him,
(38) so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
(39) Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
(40) "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them."


All of that being said, how in the world could a person read John 12:32 any differently than what has been said here? How could it be said that Jesus is saying he is gently and lovingly persuading or wooing all individuals with the intention of saving them, given the facts that 1) "draw" does not mean that, not even close and 2) The very same passage outright says that God hardens and blinds men for the purposes of justice, so that they won't turn and be healed.

:hmm:]]>
The word "draw" is the Greek word helkuo, which is defined this way in Strong's concordance:


Quote: 1. to draw, drag off
2. metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel


(in English, impel is defined this way:
1.to drive or urge forward; press on; incite or constrain to action.
2.to drive or cause to move onward; propel; impart motion to)

The word helkuo is used in these verses: (ESV)


Quote:Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)



Quote:Joh 21:6 He said to them, "Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some." So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in, because of the quantity of fish.


(KJV renders "haul" as "draw")


Quote:Joh 21:11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, 153 of them. And although there were so many, the net was not torn.



Quote:Act 16:19 But when her owners saw that their hope of gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers.



Quote:Act 21:30 Then all the city was stirred up, and the people ran together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and at once the gates were shut.



Quote:Jas 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?



Quote:Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.


To me, it seems obvious that in every single one of these verses, the word "draw" means exactly what the definition says it means: to drag, to impel. Strong's points out that the word helkuo is akin to another word, #G138, aihreomai, which is defined this way:


Quote:To take for oneself, to prefer, to choose


So the word draw has some power and strength to it. It doesn't even come close to meaning to woo or persuade. Back to John 12:32, I've heard different arguments for the understandings of this verse.

Argument #1 - some say that this verse is teaching that Jesus is saying that he will persuade or woo all individuals to him with the intention of saving them. I immediately dismiss this argument in light of the overwhelming evidence that "draw" does not even come close to meaning "woo" or "persuade" or "entice". This argument ignores the context (See Argument #3) and also the possibility that since draw doesn't mean persuade/woo, Jesus could be saying that he will draw all people, but with the intentions different for each person (Some in a hardening way, some mercifully - See Argument #2)

Argument #2 - Jesus will in fact draw all individuals to himself, but this doesn't necessarily mean in a positive, saving way.

This is an intriguing argument to me. Many people are drawn to Christ's cross, but many times they remain hostile towards it. For example, Paul tells us that the message of the cross is foolishness and a stumbling block. Gill says this:


Quote:There were many of the Jews who would not, and did not come to him for life; and who instead of being drawn to him in this sense, when lifted up on the cross, vilified and reproached him


So being drawn to Christ doesn't necessarily mean that Christ is drawing men persuasively with the intention of saving them. Perhaps Christ could draw men with the intentions of hardening them? God could use the cross as an act of justice, or mercy.

This leads to argument #3, which I think is the strongest, and correct interpretation.

Argument #3 - The English translations add the word "people" to the phrase I will draw all people to myself. (notice the italicized "men" in the KJV, signaling an added word) In other words, it literally reads: I will draw all to myself.

I think casual English readers have a tendency to immediately latch onto that phrase "all people" and take it to mean "100% of every individual that ever walked the face of the earth, but again, given that drawn doesn't mean woo or persuade, we are left with either universalism, or the conclusion of Argument #2.

The context suggests that Christ said "all" or "all men" to refer to Jews and Greeks (as opposed to Jews only), because the events immediately preceding v32 were that Greeks had approached Christ.

Joh 12:20-31
(20) Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks.
(21) So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, "Sir, we wish to see Jesus."
(22) Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus.
(23) And Jesus answered them, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.
(24) Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
(25) Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
(26) If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.
(27) "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? But for this purpose I have come to this hour.
(28) Father, glorify your name." Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again."
(29) The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to him."
(30) Jesus answered, "This voice has come for your sake, not mine.
(31) Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.

The bolded area is important. James White says:

Quote:John 12 narrates the final events of Jesus' public ministry. After this particular incident, the Lord will go into a period of private ministry to His disciples right before He goes to the cross. The final words of Jesus' public teachings are prompted by the arrival of Greeks who are seeking Jesus. This important turn of events prompts the teaching that follows. Jesus is now being sought by non-Jews, Gentiles. It is when Jesus is informed of this that He says, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified." This then is the context which leads us to Jesus' words in verse 32



Quote:I believe that in its context the "all men" refers to Jews and Gentiles, not to every individual person on earth. Through His work on the cross, Jesus will draw all kinds of men, all kinds of people to Himself, including those from outside of the covenant community of Israel. We must bear in mind that this would have been an extremely radical thought to the Jews who were hearing Him say these words.


Then White points out what Paul says about Jews and Greeks finding the cross foolishness and a stumbling block, and only those who are called find it wisdom and power. (1 Cor)

Then he says:


Quote:These considerations, along with the immediate context of the Gentiles seeking Christ, make it clear that if He is lifted up in crucifixion, He will draw all men, Jews and Gentiles, to Himself. This is exactly the same as saying that He has sheep not of this fold (John 10:16), the Gentiles, who become one body in Christ (Eph. 2:13-16)


Another thing that amazes me about this passage is not 5 verses later, we are told that God is directly involved in hardening men so that they would not believe, would not turn, and not be healed:


Quote:Joh 12:37-40
(37) Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him,
(38) so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
(39) Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
(40) "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them."


All of that being said, how in the world could a person read John 12:32 any differently than what has been said here? How could it be said that Jesus is saying he is gently and lovingly persuading or wooing all individuals with the intention of saving them, given the facts that 1) "draw" does not mean that, not even close and 2) The very same passage outright says that God hardens and blinds men for the purposes of justice, so that they won't turn and be healed.

:hmm:]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3180 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:21:09 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3180
Premise 1: God is sovereign. He can do anything He decides/wills/pleases/desires to do in keeping with His nature. (Cannot lie, does not change, etc.)

Premise 2: Outside influences do not affect God's will. He does not change.

Premise 3: God has created everything.

Premise 4: God is free to do as He desires and is not constrained by His creations.

Premise 5: God is free to set any conditions He desires for anything. (human cells need oxygen, photosynthesis requires light, etc.)

Question: Can God set a condition on who is of the elect and who is not?]]>
Premise 1: God is sovereign. He can do anything He decides/wills/pleases/desires to do in keeping with His nature. (Cannot lie, does not change, etc.)

Premise 2: Outside influences do not affect God's will. He does not change.

Premise 3: God has created everything.

Premise 4: God is free to do as He desires and is not constrained by His creations.

Premise 5: God is free to set any conditions He desires for anything. (human cells need oxygen, photosynthesis requires light, etc.)

Question: Can God set a condition on who is of the elect and who is not?]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3179 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:08:37 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3179
http://www.coffeewithcalvin.com/

It's observations on daily readings through Calvin's Institutes by a Reformed Theological Seminary student.

Actually found the Facebook page for it first, then found the website itself.]]>
http://www.coffeewithcalvin.com/

It's observations on daily readings through Calvin's Institutes by a Reformed Theological Seminary student.

Actually found the Facebook page for it first, then found the website itself.]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3178 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:13:49 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3178
For those who adopted a reformed theology after becoming a Christian, was it in an Arminian church or a Reformed Church that you heard the Gospel and/or was it a reformed beleiver or an arminian believer who shared it with you?

(please please please do not nit pick the word selection here. It is Christ that saves, not a person or church. I'm simply talking of the location, not the method.)

:)]]>
For those who adopted a reformed theology after becoming a Christian, was it in an Arminian church or a Reformed Church that you heard the Gospel and/or was it a reformed beleiver or an arminian believer who shared it with you?

(please please please do not nit pick the word selection here. It is Christ that saves, not a person or church. I'm simply talking of the location, not the method.)

:)]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3177 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:28:11 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3177
But I'm wondering if it would be more appropriate to model a modern church after 1 Corinthians. Not the church at Corinth as portrayed in Paul's letters :winkwink:, but rather based upon the instruction Paul gave to the Corinthian church.

Would there be a difference between an 'Acts church' and a 'Corinthians church'?

IMHO, where the Acts model frequently goes wrong when applied to today's church is in the seeking after signs and wonders.]]>
But I'm wondering if it would be more appropriate to model a modern church after 1 Corinthians. Not the church at Corinth as portrayed in Paul's letters :winkwink:, but rather based upon the instruction Paul gave to the Corinthian church.

Would there be a difference between an 'Acts church' and a 'Corinthians church'?

IMHO, where the Acts model frequently goes wrong when applied to today's church is in the seeking after signs and wonders.]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3176 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:36:36 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3176
Kinda scary, like persecution!]]>
Kinda scary, like persecution!]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3175 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:21:47 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3175

Quote:So when does debating theology become wrong or sinful?

1) When I lose my zeal for Jesus and become zealous for my theological positions.

2) When I forsake evangelism for debating other believers.

3) When I isolate myself from all others because I think I'm right and everyone else is wrong (Proverbs 18:1 NKJV).

4) When I begin to view the Bible as a textbook to be studied instead of God's inspired Word meant to transform me into His image (Romans 12:1-2).

5) When I fail to be a 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 disciple especially toward those of the household of faith.

6) When I would rather read a theologian above praying and seeking God's face.

7) When the Gospel becomes synonymous with my theological positions or with my favorite Bible teacher.

8) When I begin to filtrate what I see or read by the words of a preacher or Bible teacher instead of with Scripture itself.

9) When I know more quotes by a theologian or by a book I've read than from the Bible itself.

10) When 150,000 people die each day and that doesn't break my heart because I am too busy studying my theological positions.

11) When I treat people in the world with more respect than with my own fellow disciples even with whom I disagree.


http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/

Not implying anything or directing this towards anyone. Just something to ponder.]]>

Quote:So when does debating theology become wrong or sinful?

1) When I lose my zeal for Jesus and become zealous for my theological positions.

2) When I forsake evangelism for debating other believers.

3) When I isolate myself from all others because I think I'm right and everyone else is wrong (Proverbs 18:1 NKJV).

4) When I begin to view the Bible as a textbook to be studied instead of God's inspired Word meant to transform me into His image (Romans 12:1-2).

5) When I fail to be a 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 disciple especially toward those of the household of faith.

6) When I would rather read a theologian above praying and seeking God's face.

7) When the Gospel becomes synonymous with my theological positions or with my favorite Bible teacher.

8) When I begin to filtrate what I see or read by the words of a preacher or Bible teacher instead of with Scripture itself.

9) When I know more quotes by a theologian or by a book I've read than from the Bible itself.

10) When 150,000 people die each day and that doesn't break my heart because I am too busy studying my theological positions.

11) When I treat people in the world with more respect than with my own fellow disciples even with whom I disagree.


http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/

Not implying anything or directing this towards anyone. Just something to ponder.]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3174 Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:08:03 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3174

Quote:Historically, new movements like Pentecostalism emerge as a cultural shift in order to remedy the deficiencies of past movements. Whatever may be said of Pentecostalism, there can be no doubt that any one of its positive characteristics should provide a challenge to many a section or another of the wider church; together they provide a monumental reminder of how far we all have go to live up to all that God would have his Church to be.

Paker, J. I. Keep in Step with the Spirit. IVP, 1984, p. 197.

]]>

Quote:Historically, new movements like Pentecostalism emerge as a cultural shift in order to remedy the deficiencies of past movements. Whatever may be said of Pentecostalism, there can be no doubt that any one of its positive characteristics should provide a challenge to many a section or another of the wider church; together they provide a monumental reminder of how far we all have go to live up to all that God would have his Church to be.

Paker, J. I. Keep in Step with the Spirit. IVP, 1984, p. 197.

]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3173 Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:47:00 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3173
]]>
]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3172 Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:38:00 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3172
]]>
]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3170 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:39:11 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3170
]]>
]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3168 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:16:39 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3168
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/20...free-will/

C Michael Patton

Found it to be a good read. Thoughts, comments?

------------
There are many words and concepts in theology that suffer from misunderstanding, mis-characterization, and misinformation. “Predestination,” “Calvinism,” “Total Depravity,” “Inerrancy,” and “Complementarianism”, just to name a few that I personally have to deal with. Proponents are more often than not on the defensive, having to explain again and again why it is they don’t mean what people think they mean.

The concept of “free will” suffers no less with regard to this misunderstanding. Does a person have free will? Well, what do you mean by “free will”? This must always be asked.

Do you mean:

1. That a person is not forced from the outside to make a choice?
2. That a person is responsible for his or her choices?
3. That a person is the active agent in a choice made?
4. That a person is free to do whatever they desire?
5. That a person has the ability to choose contrary to their nature (who they are)?

Calvinists, such as myself, do believe in free will and we don’t believe in free will. It just depends on what you mean.

When it comes to the first three options, most Calvinist would agree that a person is not forced to make a choice, is responsible for their choices, and is the active agent behind those choices. They would reject the forth believing that a person is not free to do whatever they desire (for example, no matter how much one desires, he or she cannot read the thoughts of another person, fly without wings, or transport from one location to another just by thinking about the desired location).

It is important to note at this point, there is no conflict. No matter what theological persuasion you adhere to, most of historic Christianity has agreed that the first three are true, while the fourth is false.

It is with the fifth option there is disagreement.

Does a person have the ability to choose against their nature?

This question gets to the heart of the issue. Here we introduce a new and more defined term (hang with me here): “Libertarian Free-will” or “Libertarian Freedom.” Libertarian freedom can be defined briefly thus:

Libertarian Freedom: “The power of contrary choice.”

If you ask whether a person can choose against their nature (i.e. libertarian freedom) the answer, I believe, must be “no.” A person’s nature makes up who they are. Who they are determines their choice. If there choice is determined, then the freedom is self-limited. Therefore, there is no “power” of contrary choice for we cannot identify what or who this “power” might be. I know, I know . . . slow down. Let me explain.

First, it is important to get this out of the way. To associate this denial of libertarian freedom exclusively with Calvinism would be misleading. St. Augustine was the first to deal with this issue in a comprehensive manner. Until the forth century, it was simply assumed that people were free and responsible, but they had yet to flesh out what this meant. Augustine further elaborated on the Christian understanding of freedom. He argued that people choose according to who they are. If they are good, they make good choices. If they are bad, they make bad choices. These choices are free, they just lack liberty. In other words, a person does not become a sinner because they sin, they sin because they are a sinner. It is an issue of nature first. If people are identified with the fallen nature of Adam, then they will make choices similar to that of Adam because it is who they are. Yes, they are making a free choice, but this choice does not include the liberty or freedom of contrary choice.

What you have to ask is this: If “free will” means that we can choose against our nature (i.e. the power of contrary choice), if “free will” means that we can choose against who we are, what does this mean? What does this look like? How does a free person make a choice that is contrary to who they are? Who is actually making the choice? What is “free will” in this paradigm?

If one can choose according to who they are not, then they are not making the choice and this is not really freedom at all, no? Therefore, there is, at the very least, a self-determinism at work here. This is a limit on free will and, therefore, a necessary denial of true libertarian freedom.

Think about all that goes into making “who you are.” We are born in the fallen line of Adam. Spiritually speaking we have an inbred inclination toward sin. All of our being is infected with sin. This is called “total depravity.” Every aspect of our being is infected with sin, even if we don’t act it out to a maximal degree.

But even if this were not the case,—even if total depravity were a false doctrine—libertarian freedom would still be untenable. Not only are you who you are because of your identification with a fallen human race, but notice all these factors that you did not choose that go into the set up for any given “free will” decision made:

* You did not choose when you were to be born.
* You did not choose where you were to be born.
* You did not choose your parents.
* You did not choose your influences early in your life.
* You did not choose whether you were to be male or female.
* You did not choose your genetics.
* You did not choose your temperament.
* You did not choose your looks.
* You did not choose your body type.
* You did not choose your physical abilities.

All of these factors play an influencing role in who you are at the time of any given decision. Yes, your choice is free, but it has you behind them. Therefore, you are free to choose according to you from whom you are not able to free yourself!

Now, I must reveal something here once again that might surprise many of you. This view is held by both Calvinists and Arminians alike. Neither position believes that a person can choose against their nature. Arminians, however, differ from Calvinists in that they believe in the doctrine of prevenient grace, which essentially neutralizes the will so that the inclination toward sin—the antagonism toward Gog—is relieved so that the person can make a true “free will” decision.

However, we still have some massive difficulties. Here are a couple:

A neutralized will amounts to your absence from the choice itself.

Changing the nature of a person so that their predispositions are neutral does not really help. We are back to the question What does a neutralized will look like? Does it erase all of the you behind the choice? If you are neutralized and liberated from you, then who is making the choice? How can you be held responsible for a choice that you did not really make, whether good or bad?

A neutralized will amounts to perpetual indecision. Think about this, if a person had true libertarian freedom, where there were no coercive forces, personal or divine, that influenced the decision, would a choice ever be made? If you have no reason to choose A or B, then neither would ever be chosen. Ronald Nash illustrates this by presenting a dog who has true libertarian freedom trying to decide between two bowls of dog food. He says that the dog would end up dying of starvation. Why? Because he would never have any reason to choose one over the other. It is like a balanced scale, it will never tilt to the right or the left unless the weights (influence) on one side is greater than the other. Then, no matter how little weight (influence) is added to a balanced scale, it will always choose accordingly.

A neutralized will amounts to arbitrary decisions, which one cannot be held responsible for.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that libertarian choice could be made. Let’s say that the dog did choose one food bowl over the other. In a truly libertarian sense, this decision cannot have influences of any kind. Any decision without influences is arbitrary. It would be like flipping a coin. I chose A rather than B, not because of who I am, but for no reason at all. It just turned out that way. But this option is clearly outside a biblical worldview of responsibility and judgment. Therefore, in my opinion, the outcome for the fight for true libertarian free-will comes at the expense of true responsibility!

In conclusion: while I believe in free will, I don’t believe in libertarian free will. We make the choices we make because of who we are. We are responsible for these choices. God will judge each person accordingly with a righteous judgment.

Is there tension? Absolutely. We hold in tension our belief in God’s sovereignty, determining who we are, when we live, where we will live, who our parents will be, our DNA, etc. and human responsibility. While this might seem uncomfortable, I believe that it is not only the best biblical option, but the only philosophical option outside outside of fatalism, and we don’t want to go there.

Acts 17:26-28
“From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’”

Thoughts? Do you believe in free will?]]>
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/20...free-will/

C Michael Patton

Found it to be a good read. Thoughts, comments?

------------
There are many words and concepts in theology that suffer from misunderstanding, mis-characterization, and misinformation. “Predestination,” “Calvinism,” “Total Depravity,” “Inerrancy,” and “Complementarianism”, just to name a few that I personally have to deal with. Proponents are more often than not on the defensive, having to explain again and again why it is they don’t mean what people think they mean.

The concept of “free will” suffers no less with regard to this misunderstanding. Does a person have free will? Well, what do you mean by “free will”? This must always be asked.

Do you mean:

1. That a person is not forced from the outside to make a choice?
2. That a person is responsible for his or her choices?
3. That a person is the active agent in a choice made?
4. That a person is free to do whatever they desire?
5. That a person has the ability to choose contrary to their nature (who they are)?

Calvinists, such as myself, do believe in free will and we don’t believe in free will. It just depends on what you mean.

When it comes to the first three options, most Calvinist would agree that a person is not forced to make a choice, is responsible for their choices, and is the active agent behind those choices. They would reject the forth believing that a person is not free to do whatever they desire (for example, no matter how much one desires, he or she cannot read the thoughts of another person, fly without wings, or transport from one location to another just by thinking about the desired location).

It is important to note at this point, there is no conflict. No matter what theological persuasion you adhere to, most of historic Christianity has agreed that the first three are true, while the fourth is false.

It is with the fifth option there is disagreement.

Does a person have the ability to choose against their nature?

This question gets to the heart of the issue. Here we introduce a new and more defined term (hang with me here): “Libertarian Free-will” or “Libertarian Freedom.” Libertarian freedom can be defined briefly thus:

Libertarian Freedom: “The power of contrary choice.”

If you ask whether a person can choose against their nature (i.e. libertarian freedom) the answer, I believe, must be “no.” A person’s nature makes up who they are. Who they are determines their choice. If there choice is determined, then the freedom is self-limited. Therefore, there is no “power” of contrary choice for we cannot identify what or who this “power” might be. I know, I know . . . slow down. Let me explain.

First, it is important to get this out of the way. To associate this denial of libertarian freedom exclusively with Calvinism would be misleading. St. Augustine was the first to deal with this issue in a comprehensive manner. Until the forth century, it was simply assumed that people were free and responsible, but they had yet to flesh out what this meant. Augustine further elaborated on the Christian understanding of freedom. He argued that people choose according to who they are. If they are good, they make good choices. If they are bad, they make bad choices. These choices are free, they just lack liberty. In other words, a person does not become a sinner because they sin, they sin because they are a sinner. It is an issue of nature first. If people are identified with the fallen nature of Adam, then they will make choices similar to that of Adam because it is who they are. Yes, they are making a free choice, but this choice does not include the liberty or freedom of contrary choice.

What you have to ask is this: If “free will” means that we can choose against our nature (i.e. the power of contrary choice), if “free will” means that we can choose against who we are, what does this mean? What does this look like? How does a free person make a choice that is contrary to who they are? Who is actually making the choice? What is “free will” in this paradigm?

If one can choose according to who they are not, then they are not making the choice and this is not really freedom at all, no? Therefore, there is, at the very least, a self-determinism at work here. This is a limit on free will and, therefore, a necessary denial of true libertarian freedom.

Think about all that goes into making “who you are.” We are born in the fallen line of Adam. Spiritually speaking we have an inbred inclination toward sin. All of our being is infected with sin. This is called “total depravity.” Every aspect of our being is infected with sin, even if we don’t act it out to a maximal degree.

But even if this were not the case,—even if total depravity were a false doctrine—libertarian freedom would still be untenable. Not only are you who you are because of your identification with a fallen human race, but notice all these factors that you did not choose that go into the set up for any given “free will” decision made:

* You did not choose when you were to be born.
* You did not choose where you were to be born.
* You did not choose your parents.
* You did not choose your influences early in your life.
* You did not choose whether you were to be male or female.
* You did not choose your genetics.
* You did not choose your temperament.
* You did not choose your looks.
* You did not choose your body type.
* You did not choose your physical abilities.

All of these factors play an influencing role in who you are at the time of any given decision. Yes, your choice is free, but it has you behind them. Therefore, you are free to choose according to you from whom you are not able to free yourself!

Now, I must reveal something here once again that might surprise many of you. This view is held by both Calvinists and Arminians alike. Neither position believes that a person can choose against their nature. Arminians, however, differ from Calvinists in that they believe in the doctrine of prevenient grace, which essentially neutralizes the will so that the inclination toward sin—the antagonism toward Gog—is relieved so that the person can make a true “free will” decision.

However, we still have some massive difficulties. Here are a couple:

A neutralized will amounts to your absence from the choice itself.

Changing the nature of a person so that their predispositions are neutral does not really help. We are back to the question What does a neutralized will look like? Does it erase all of the you behind the choice? If you are neutralized and liberated from you, then who is making the choice? How can you be held responsible for a choice that you did not really make, whether good or bad?

A neutralized will amounts to perpetual indecision. Think about this, if a person had true libertarian freedom, where there were no coercive forces, personal or divine, that influenced the decision, would a choice ever be made? If you have no reason to choose A or B, then neither would ever be chosen. Ronald Nash illustrates this by presenting a dog who has true libertarian freedom trying to decide between two bowls of dog food. He says that the dog would end up dying of starvation. Why? Because he would never have any reason to choose one over the other. It is like a balanced scale, it will never tilt to the right or the left unless the weights (influence) on one side is greater than the other. Then, no matter how little weight (influence) is added to a balanced scale, it will always choose accordingly.

A neutralized will amounts to arbitrary decisions, which one cannot be held responsible for.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that libertarian choice could be made. Let’s say that the dog did choose one food bowl over the other. In a truly libertarian sense, this decision cannot have influences of any kind. Any decision without influences is arbitrary. It would be like flipping a coin. I chose A rather than B, not because of who I am, but for no reason at all. It just turned out that way. But this option is clearly outside a biblical worldview of responsibility and judgment. Therefore, in my opinion, the outcome for the fight for true libertarian free-will comes at the expense of true responsibility!

In conclusion: while I believe in free will, I don’t believe in libertarian free will. We make the choices we make because of who we are. We are responsible for these choices. God will judge each person accordingly with a righteous judgment.

Is there tension? Absolutely. We hold in tension our belief in God’s sovereignty, determining who we are, when we live, where we will live, who our parents will be, our DNA, etc. and human responsibility. While this might seem uncomfortable, I believe that it is not only the best biblical option, but the only philosophical option outside outside of fatalism, and we don’t want to go there.

Acts 17:26-28
“From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’”

Thoughts? Do you believe in free will?]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3166 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:50:05 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3166
*****

The doctrine of particular redemption is worth talking about because it gets to the heart of the gospel. Should we say “Christ died so that sinners might come to him”? Or, “Christ died for sinners”? There’s a big difference. Did Christ’s work on the cross make it possible for sinners to come to God? Or did Christ’s work on the cross actually reconcile sinners to God? In other words, does the death of Jesus Christ make us save-able or does it make us saved? If the atonement is not particularly and only for the sheep, then either we have universalism–Christ died in everyone’s place and therefore everyone is saved–or we have something less than full substitution. If Jesus died for every person on the planet then we no longer mean that he died in place of sinners, taking upon himself our shame, our sins, and our rebellion so that we have the death of death in the death of Christ. Rather, we mean that when Jesus died he made it possible to come to him if we will do our part and come to him. But this is only half a gospel. Certainly, we need to come to Christ in faith. But faith is not the last work that finally makes us saved. Faith is trusting that Jesus has in fact died in our place and bore the curse for us—effectually, particularly, and perfectly.

Reformed people talk of “limited” atonement not because they have an interest in limiting power of the cross, but in order to safeguard the central affirmation of the gospel that Christ is a Redeemer who really redeems. “We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ,” Spurgeon observed, “because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved.” But, Spurgeon argues, it is the view of the atonement which says no one in particular was saved at the cross that actually limits Christ’s death. “We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved.”

I belabor this point not to belittle Arminian brothers and sisters, but to give Jesus Christ his full glory. Christ does not come to us merely saying, “I’ve done my part. I laid down my life for everyone because I have saving love for everyone in the whole world. Now, if you would only believe and come to me I can save you.” Instead he says to us, “I was pierced for your transgressions. I was crushed for your iniquities (Isa. 53:5). I have purchased with my blood men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation (Rev. 5:9). I myself bore your sins in my body on the tree, so that you might infallibly die to sins and assuredly live for righteousness. For my wounds did not merely make healing available. They healed you (1 Peter 2:24).”

“Amazing love!” a great Arminian once wrote. “How can it be that you, my Lord, should die for me?!” Praise be to our Good Shepherd who didn’t just make our salvation possible, but sustained the anger of God in body and soul, shouldered the curse, and laid down his life for the sheep.]]>
*****

The doctrine of particular redemption is worth talking about because it gets to the heart of the gospel. Should we say “Christ died so that sinners might come to him”? Or, “Christ died for sinners”? There’s a big difference. Did Christ’s work on the cross make it possible for sinners to come to God? Or did Christ’s work on the cross actually reconcile sinners to God? In other words, does the death of Jesus Christ make us save-able or does it make us saved? If the atonement is not particularly and only for the sheep, then either we have universalism–Christ died in everyone’s place and therefore everyone is saved–or we have something less than full substitution. If Jesus died for every person on the planet then we no longer mean that he died in place of sinners, taking upon himself our shame, our sins, and our rebellion so that we have the death of death in the death of Christ. Rather, we mean that when Jesus died he made it possible to come to him if we will do our part and come to him. But this is only half a gospel. Certainly, we need to come to Christ in faith. But faith is not the last work that finally makes us saved. Faith is trusting that Jesus has in fact died in our place and bore the curse for us—effectually, particularly, and perfectly.

Reformed people talk of “limited” atonement not because they have an interest in limiting power of the cross, but in order to safeguard the central affirmation of the gospel that Christ is a Redeemer who really redeems. “We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ,” Spurgeon observed, “because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved.” But, Spurgeon argues, it is the view of the atonement which says no one in particular was saved at the cross that actually limits Christ’s death. “We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved.”

I belabor this point not to belittle Arminian brothers and sisters, but to give Jesus Christ his full glory. Christ does not come to us merely saying, “I’ve done my part. I laid down my life for everyone because I have saving love for everyone in the whole world. Now, if you would only believe and come to me I can save you.” Instead he says to us, “I was pierced for your transgressions. I was crushed for your iniquities (Isa. 53:5). I have purchased with my blood men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation (Rev. 5:9). I myself bore your sins in my body on the tree, so that you might infallibly die to sins and assuredly live for righteousness. For my wounds did not merely make healing available. They healed you (1 Peter 2:24).”

“Amazing love!” a great Arminian once wrote. “How can it be that you, my Lord, should die for me?!” Praise be to our Good Shepherd who didn’t just make our salvation possible, but sustained the anger of God in body and soul, shouldered the curse, and laid down his life for the sheep.]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3165 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:47:04 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3165
I thought a little poll might be interesting to see what people think. If you have time also please explain your answers.]]>
I thought a little poll might be interesting to see what people think. If you have time also please explain your answers.]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3162 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:04:17 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3162

I referred to something my church was working on in this thread:

http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3157

And this morning there was a link to the article in my email! I had forgotten that the local paper was doing a story since I have been home recovering from surgery the past couple of weeks.]]>

I referred to something my church was working on in this thread:

http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3157

And this morning there was a link to the article in my email! I had forgotten that the local paper was doing a story since I have been home recovering from surgery the past couple of weeks.]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3161 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:15:23 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3161
So, the problem of finding a church home again. I began visiting churches. I went back to my mega church for awhile, but knew that wasn't really going to work for me. I prayed about it and I started searching the internet for potential church homes. I visited Calvary Chapel, a Baptist Church (I was raised in a First Baptist Church) and then finally...a Christian Reformed Church. I loved this church almost the moment I walked in. It's small (150 people), young minister (this is his first church and he is very motivated...really nice man) AND it's Reformed. Perfect. (I think)

So, I took the Inquirer's class and I was asked if I would like to join this church. I told the Pastor I would like to think about it and pray about it for awhile. I've been going there for six months and I really do think it is home.

I have had some questions, though, which is why I started this thread.

Are there any here who belong to Christian Reformed? This particular Christian Reformed Church was originally Dutch Reformed. They have been around since the Reformation. I like the "oldness" of it...the beautiful traditions that they have...it's a very nice blend of traditional and contempory worship. Very beautiful.

So, I am thinking and praying about this decision and would appreciate your comments.]]>
So, the problem of finding a church home again. I began visiting churches. I went back to my mega church for awhile, but knew that wasn't really going to work for me. I prayed about it and I started searching the internet for potential church homes. I visited Calvary Chapel, a Baptist Church (I was raised in a First Baptist Church) and then finally...a Christian Reformed Church. I loved this church almost the moment I walked in. It's small (150 people), young minister (this is his first church and he is very motivated...really nice man) AND it's Reformed. Perfect. (I think)

So, I took the Inquirer's class and I was asked if I would like to join this church. I told the Pastor I would like to think about it and pray about it for awhile. I've been going there for six months and I really do think it is home.

I have had some questions, though, which is why I started this thread.

Are there any here who belong to Christian Reformed? This particular Christian Reformed Church was originally Dutch Reformed. They have been around since the Reformation. I like the "oldness" of it...the beautiful traditions that they have...it's a very nice blend of traditional and contempory worship. Very beautiful.

So, I am thinking and praying about this decision and would appreciate your comments.]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3159 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:40:06 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3159
http://tinyurl.com/yfpnnfn]]>
http://tinyurl.com/yfpnnfn]]> http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3158 Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:32:08 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3158 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3157 Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:31:05 -0600 http://www.graceforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3157