I'm glad football is going well for MU cuz if basketball is like last year, I'm going to be a lonely man with you guyz

I am a tar heel. hehe

Henry Michael,

Actually a Saluki. I was just being random.

Rob,




Are you a dukie?

I am not claiming any right to judge the hearts of men. But God has in his word. Therefore I must affirm what God says in his word. He says that man is sinful. I am not basing this just on Jeremiah. Go back and read my posts. I also mention Romans 3 and Romans 5 and Ephesians 2. I also would point you to Genesis 6:5. I am just reading all of the Scriptures and creating my beliefs upon what the whole Bible has said. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament affirm the depravity of man. The Bible is making this claim, I just restate it.




Look with me if you will in Romans 3:10-12,

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.

You'll note that I have italicized three verbs which speak to "understanding," "seeking," and "doing." All three verbs in the Greek are present active verbs. No one is actively understanding GOd; no one is actively seeking God; no one is actively doing good. That is Paul's indictment of mankind. They are also present verbs. That's what they are doing at the present. They are currently not seeking, uderstanding, and doing. No one is what Paul says. I can't make it clearer than what Paul did. Men are not seeking God.





Go read Romans 1:18 through the end of the chapter. God has made himself known since creation. He is coming in and saying I am God but peoploe take that truth and pervert it to false religion. But God has shown himself to them and they are without excuse for their hearts perverting God's truth of his glory. If they would seek God, they would find him (Jeremiah 29:13-14). Acts 17:26 says he is close at hand. Romans 1:19 says God has shown himself. They would find God if they were seeking him. As Paul will demonstrate in Romans 3 (as I have shown in the previous paragraph), people don't seek GOd. They take what truth is evident and pervert it.





Romans 5:6-10 uses these attributes to decribe the people for whom Christ died for: "ungodly," "sinners," and "enemies." If I were to have left off that last description, I would have to concede your point. But we just aren't godly and not righteous. We are enemies of God. You aren't seeking a personal relationship with someone who is your enemy. Go back to v. 1 of Romans 5, we have "peach with God." Not the peace of God but peace with GOd. We were at odds with God and now are at peace with him.





You ask "who are they trying to serve?" Look at Romans 6:15-23. Paul is saying before the Roman Christians were saved by the grace of Christ, they were slaves to sin. They served sin as a slave does his master. They serve sin.

on a lighter note...




In a sense, it really is a chicken and egg question. While the theological particulars are jolly well important, at the end of the day the purpose of the Bible is to lead us to Christ for the glory of the Father.





When you're eating breakfast, it doesn't really matter which came first. When you're praising God and all he is for us in Christ Jesus, how you arrived at your conclusion seems less important than the fact that he is worthy.





I'm glad there won't be an orthodoxy test to gain entrance into the heaven (at least I hope there isn't) because I'm sure I have areas in my own theology that are missing the mark.





I praise him for his goodness and grace. I got nothin' else.

Henry Michael,

My thinking when I wrote was tired thinking and as I look back at my post I would have said the same things, but I would have said them differently. I'm going to try to clarify my position a bit.





I suppose the foundational element or the beginning point is not human responsibility but human ability. Every person has the responsibility to choose (rightly stated turn toward) God. Every person exists for the glory of the Creator, and we most fully glorify him when we are living Godward. We are created in his image, which, I take to mean that we are created to image him forth. To reflect his goodness and grandeur by so depending on him and loving him (at the expense of everything and everyone else including ourselves) that his worth and value are seen as supreme.





Problem is, by our nature we are self-focused and self-absorbed, and we only want a god insofar as it serves us. The concept of eternal life or absorption into the universal good are embraced because we find the alternative distasteful or frightening.





We are created as worshiping beings, and worship we must. I agree with Blaise Pascal who said we all have a "God shaped hole" that we are seeking to fill. We will fill it with something. We will search high and low for the thing that will fill it. It manifests itself in different cultures and sub-cultures. In the Middle East, for instance, we see many embrace Islam (not that it is confined to there, to be sure, but only for example). In the Far East we will find variations of Buddhism, Taoism, and so forth. In America (even though it is not viewed as religion) we find consumerism and humanism and football. Of course we also see Islam and Buddhism and New Age spirituality and a host of other manifestations of religious affectations.





I also think there are many people who name the name of Jesus who are no more true believers than a tree worshiper.





So, what? Man will worship something or someone. The problem comes in when we relate worship to the one true God. Is a Muslim worshiping the God of the Bible? He is self-consciously not. The Buddhist rejects the God of the Bible (even if they say he's a find chap, they reject him as being the God he claims to be...namely, the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe).





Why is it that people reject him? If we are to take our cue from the Bible (a question that deserves to be answered in another post, perhaps) we find that man is unable to do so because of the radical corruption that came as a result of the Fall.





When the Calvinist vs. Arminian discussion (debate) gets fired off, the chief obstacle for most (ostensibly) is the "L" or Limited Atonement. In reality, the real obstacle is the "T" or Total Depravity. Our view of the Fall and its consequences determines our view of the other points.





If Jesus was correct in John 6:44 when he said that, "No man can come unto Me unless the Father who sent me draws him," he was indicating that man is incapable of coming to God apart from God doing something first. The word draw (literally "drag") is a verb and the one doing the verbing is God, not man. Man is painted as impotent in this verse. Ephesians 2:1-10 is another powerful text that seems unambiguous in its assessment of our situation before God makes us alive and after.





This does not mean that we have no responsibility before God. We absolutely do. We simply don't have the ability to perform what is required.





If there were requirements that we could fulfill in order to gain acceptance or relationship with God, and if we were to fulfill them, would there not be grounds for boasting? Would we not then be justifying ourselves before God? Is it possible that there be any glory in heaven or anywhere else apart from God?





I've rambled enough. Thanks for considering my thoughts.





Okay...one more thing. My own view of people of other faiths is in the process of undergoing renovation. While I am ashamed to admit this, my view has been a rather hard one. While it is clear that there is no salvation apart from Jesus Christ, it is not my job to decide who is redeemed and who is not. Jesus himself didn't come into the world to condemn the world, but that, through him, the world might be saved. What the Muslim or the Buddhist or the Hindu or the materialist or the rabid football fan needs from me is not my judgment and condemnation, but the testimony that Jesus Christ is supremely valuable and saves all those who come to him, trusting in him rather than in themselves or any other god. (No other gods before me...that is, in my presense)





All that the Father gives Me (drunks, whores, homosexuals, Tar Heel fans, misguided Christians, Muslims, Buddhists) will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

37"Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; 38give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you."

I am not qualified to pronounce judgment on a person's heart. I know from scripture that all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. I cannot say that those in other religions do not want to know God. What do they want Hank? What are they trying to serve? Evil? Simply because Jeremiah lets us know that all humans are flawed does not mean they do not struggle (in vain) to seek God. Why does your reading of scripture preclude the idea of humans trying to seek God even if they do not truly find Him? That is what I cannot understand. It is me trying to be PC. I will say they are wrong and need to turn to Christ. What I cannot say is what their heart truly desires.

I make that judgment based on what God has said in his Word. I am not saying anything that is not true. I am speaking the truth. No its not pretty, no it's not nice. But this is what the Bible says. I have to take God's word over any person's word when in Jeremiah 17:9 says "who can understand [the heart]?" The next verse says that only God searches the heart because it does not deceive him. God knows all men and this is what he has proclaimed about mankind. We are sinful, everyone of us. In Jeremiah 7 even the children are engaged in idolatry. I don't have to know anyone. I just need to know God who does know all men and he has said it in his word.




It is not just one Scripture. There are several texts in Jeremiah alone that speaks to man not seeking God. There are texts in both New and Old Testaments that say man does not seek God. Like I said, Paul says it in Romans 5. Jeremiah says it. God says it in Genesis. Paul says it again in Ephesians 2. Jesus himself said in Matthew 7:17-20,

"So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits."

"You can say they sin and you can say they need God, but you cannot judge their desire for God" is an example of how the church is too politically correct. I don't care if I step on toes. Jesus didn't care. God didn't care. It is my job as both a child of God and as a shepard of God's church to call it like the Bible depicts it. If I don't, I am not preaching the full gospel which is the power of God unto salvation.

I don't think that these people are really seeking God in a loving relationship. They are at enmity with him and are hostile to him.

So let me get this right. If I am not getting you correctly, please let me know. Based off of a scripture that might be a metaphor, you can say that all humans that are not Christians are not earnestly seeking God as best they know?





I don't think you can judge their motives without actually knowing them. I'll take them at their word and not condemn their true intentions of their hearts.





You can say they sin and you can say they need God, but you cannot judge their desire for God.

Don't forget that Jeremiah 17:9 says that the heart is utterly decietful and desparately sick. The very heart you speak of that is searching for God is a deceiving heart. So the knoweledge that God has revealed is taken by that heart that is so sinful that it is as if sin has been engraved upon the heart (Jeremiah 17:1) and perverts it. If the Bible says in Romans 5:6-10 that we are God's enemies, I don't think that these people are really seeking GOd in a loving relationship. They are at emnity with him and are hostile to him. I feel that we tend to give man too much credit when too many times the Bible says that man is utterly sinful. Romans 3 again in 10-18 says that there is no one who does good, righteous, no not one. No one understands. That's why Augustine said "God, command what you will, and grant what you command." We don't will what God wills and so God's sovereign action to defeat our sinfulness must be there or else we will die.

And as a side note, in choosing God, all of the terms you listed are wrapped in that choosing. I tend to look at it the way Augustine used the phrase "turn towards God".

because the corrupt wants nothing to do with it.

See, I find that to be completely false. There are billions of people on this planet that desperately yearn to know and love God. What do you say of members of other faiths? How do you explain it? I would maintain that their heart is there, but they are mistaken, gravely mistaken about God, but the yearning and love is there.

While I am a Calvinist (about a 27 pointer at last count) there is clearly the command to choose God in Scripture. As Augustine said (which sort of got this whole thing going in the first place on some level) "God, command what you will, and grant what you command."




We must choose God...but that isn't really the point. The point is that we must also LOVE God and TREASURE God and DELIGHT in God and be SATISFIED in God. Because our wills are clearly naturally set in opposition to God, it is only by his granting what he has commanded that we can do what he has commanded. (John 6:44 seems to clearly point to our inability to come to God).





I don't hate my Arminian friends, because many of them have greater zeal for the glory of God than many of my Calvinist friends, But it does seem that the biblical perspective is one of a sovereign God and a radically corrupt man. If there is to be a reconciliation, it must be wholly initiated and fulfilled by the Sovereign, because the corrupt wants nothing to do with it.

Isn't it funny though?

I am not sure about Rev 22. It talks about letting the one who desires do these things. It sounds very much like the decision is made by the person.




I think that in Acts 13:48 we have another occurance of the idea of causation looked at from the point of hindsight, which is God's view outside of time.





What is funny is how this post was meant to steer us away from the debate onto more fertile and productive waters, instead it launched right back into the debate.

As far as the comments clarified by Bob, yes they do have a humanistic ring to them but they are a far cry from humanism. Many of my profs here at MBTS are not calvinists but they are not humanists by any means of the term.




I'd like to look at some of the verses Henry posted. John 15 does not say how a person remains in Jesus but only if a person doesn't remain, he or she is cast out. In fact look at Philippians 1:6 in which it is said that God is the one who begins and perfects a good work in us. Philippians 2:13 says that God is the one at work in us to both will and work his good pleasure.





Dueteronomy 30 does indeed imply that we have to choice to obey the commands. However, this does not mean that the choice is completely free. Let us not forget that if all men are slaves to sin (John 8:34) then we do not have the completely free choice.





Again in Revelation 22 it is being implied by the reader that their is choice. The text does not say how a person comes but only that if a person comes he or she will drink from the fountain of life.





Luke does argue more in favor for Henry Michael in this text. However, I point Henry Michael to Acts 13:48 where Luke says,

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

While God did place us on this earth to be in relationship to him. We have failed as sinful, fallen creatures. We are where we are to seek him. But Luke also says that only those who are appointed to eternal life are the ones who believe. So while we are all commanded to repent and seek after God, Luke says that only those who are appointed to eternal life are the ones who believe and are thus saved.

And on the "humanistic view of justice" issue, I would agree with God that I have a law written on my heart. This moral idea of justice is God-given. As such, it is not a humanistic one at all.

That was the point of my statement, I really didn't think it would be this big of a deal.

Well, anytime you accuse someone of this:

But there is a clear similarity b/w Arminianism and secular values...hmm

You can expect that those who feel accused will want a more fleshed out explanation.





Here are some free will statements in the Bible:





John 15:6-7

If anyone does not remain in Me, he is thrown aside like a branch and he withers. They gather them, throw them into the fire, and they are burned. If you remain in Me and My words remain in you, ask whatever you want and it will be done for you.











Deuteronomy 30:15-18

"See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess.

Revelation 22:17

The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.

What do we see here? If you do this, then this will happen. It is not if I [God] happen to make you do this, then this will happen. The "you" is the person making the choice here. The onus is on him, not God to make the decision.





Free will is a necessary condition of human experience. In looking back, all actions have a cause. That is where the active God prodding people to make the right choice can be considered to have caused their actions. In the actions where they do not choose to follow God, the cause is not God's prodding. In retrospect, every free action is caused. God's view and hence the Bible's view is from outside of time. It sees the end results and hence the causes.





This is best illustrated by Acts 17:26-27:

And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us...

The above seems like a mix of determinism and free will, does it not? I want to take a quick look at several phrases in the two above verses and see which side of the fence that they fall on.

having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place

Here Luke makes no bones about God placement of humans on the earth. He planned for me to be born in Missouri in the early 1980's. This seems to line up very well with the Deterministic philosophy found in Calvinism (and most of Christian Theology for that matter). The catch here is the next phrase:

that they should seek God

Luke lets us humans in on a divine motive: God puts us in our locations and times so that we may seek God. This is the real hard part for any Calvinist to swallow in light of the maintaining of the five points of Calvinism.





Calvinism says that humans are so corrupted by original sin, that they cannot even begin to seek God. While I would agree that Man cannot reach God by his efforts alone, I have a hard time that none seek Him without his election, with all the religions we have had running around throughout the years.





Does God elect all of the saved independent of consent from the saved; or do the people that are saved choose to join in with the universal offering of salvation provided for by God? The next phrase seems to clue us in on what the answer might be:

in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him.

This too seems to indicate that God places each person in their own little nick on history's totem pole in the hope that the causes and conditions might be just right that the person would choose to look for and find God. The last phrase re-enforces this idea :

Yet he is actually not far from each one of us

It is very difficult to substitute "each one of us" with "people who God chooses anyway to find Him" as one must if one takes a Calvinist approach. It would seem that God has made Himself available to all and hopes that we choose to look for Him.





With this said, what are we left with in these two verses? My interpretation is that God is involved with mankind and influences their lives in order to point us in the general direction, yet respects our autonomy and choice so much that he remains hidden and hopes that we choose to look for God.

Well my point is...HM where does the bible speak of "God's gift of choice to man"? That's my point, I think Arminians have a view of free-will that simply is not biblical and is more a reflection of our cultural views of freedom and autonomy than it is bible centered. You have these presuppostions about free will that simply can't be supported biblically, which coincidentally most secular humanists also share.




Now as for my egalitarian comment all that I meant was that in our democratic mindset we really think naturally that we have a say in who will rule over us. This applied to theology is a kind of everybody has to make a choice stuff that is so popular in evangelicalism. And the choice is completely on man's shoulders whether or not he will be predestined/elected, it's up to us to cast our vote. We all have our "chance" to make the choice, and this is justice in the eyes of many, a God who sovereignly chooses who will be in His bride in monstrous it just isn't fair...because it's not egalitarian to choose some and pass over others. My point was that again these sort of views aren't supported by scripture, people can whine about how election is "unfair" based upon a supposed "understanding" of the character of "god" but these cavils are not scriptural in nature, but it is my assertion they are based upon humanistic ideas of justice imposed upon God. That was the point of my statement, I really didn't think it would be this big of a deal.





So while yes we are all one in Christ (and I embrace this sort of egalitarianism) however, not all have equal access to the gospel either through lack of proclamation, or through the bestowing of special grace upon them. Both of these are governed by God. So what I was trying to say with my egalitarian comment was that the salvation of sinners is not something every person has equal access to and is faced with moments of "choice" where they can give Christ the up or down, rather I take the application out of man's hands and put it into the Hands of the Trinity as scripture does.





"All that the Father gives Me will come to me." (John 6)


"All who are of God hear God's words therefore you do not hear because you are not of God" John 8

Bob,




So, because Armenians value God's gift of choice to humans, and the pro-choice group twists this, somehow Armenians are guilty of having secular (i.e. ungodly) views?





Could you please elaborate more? I just don't follow you on this. Are you saying we should not be egalitarian? Even when God is no respecter of persons^[1], and "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for [we] are all one in Christ Jesus?^[2]"





I seriously might have mis-read you or something.

by=my

Sorry about the vagueness, by point was that what Casey said really echoes the pro-choice arguments, its OUR right to choose kinda stuff. I am not saying morally Arminians are more secular, but philosophically in their presuppositions on autonomy. That's all I meant. I think Arminianism is the natural thinking for fallen autonomous man thus I think their is a clear parallel particularly in our egalitarian democratic west with our values of autonomy, right to choose our leaders, rights in general, with our philosophical presuppositions.

Bob,

Could you elaborate on your comment for this posting? I'm very confused and many of my closest friends who are arminists would not have secular values in any way shape or form. That is if I am reading you right. If I am not thinking on the same lines as you then let me know.

But there is a clear similarity b/w Arminianism and secular values...hmm

What?

But Casey, if there wasn't any eggs, where did the chicken and the rooster come from. Henry is pretty much right on in his analysis of the debate. Much of the time I prefer to not debate this topic because it only leads to a break in fellowship and does not forward the spread of the gospel of the glory of God in Christ Jesus.

So your pro-choice?! j/k (But there is a clear similarity b/w Arminianism and secular values...hmm)

Yes, and I would say that the Chicken and the rooster had the choice to lay the egg!!!