As I move to a different blog website (www.gospelin3d.com) I want to let you know what I have been wrestling with. Here it is in list format.
1. I don’t know if I believe in the sovereign and unconditional election of humans unto an eternity in hell or heaven. I believe the Gospel calling to be a genuine opportunity for mankind to repent and trust Jesus or reject Him and thus reject the God of the universe.
2. I don’t believe God predestines things like the collapse of a bridge as normative. I believe that God knows these things will occur; however, His foreknowledge has nothing to do with the cause/effect.
3. I do believe that God may cause such things to happen, but that is God interrupting history for His plan. Thus God is not limited by creation but allows it to run its course and the trouble and lost and pain we experience today is a result of the fall.
4. I believe in the total free will of humanity other than when that free will would effect the plans of God. For example, Jesus could not die before the cross because the cross was the plan of God for the redemption of humanity and subsequently the world. However, God’s foreknowledge of Judas was due to Judas’ evil heart and God was not the cause/effect of Judas’ betrayal nor His subsequent hanging. In other words when a child is brutally molested, it isn’t because of the “sovereignty” of God but the free will of humanity. God did not cause this; however, God is also not oblivious to it.
5. I believe God’s mind can be changed. Just as in Genesis, Exodus and Numbers when God made a decision based off of human choice. In other words, God’s original plan was not the fall, not the flood and not the death of His Son. They were responses to humanity’s free will. Adam had total free will, God really was going to smash the Israelites but changed His mind due to the plea of Moses, and David was never to have his kingdom destroyed as it was and Israel sent into captivity. David’s sin caused the revolt of his son, Solomon’s pluralism the beginning of the end for the human monarchy and Israel’s disobedience got them sent into captivity. The consequences of their sin was genuine and God’s foreknowledge of such events have no bearing on the decisions and outcome.
6. I believe all the bible to be true and inspired; however, I believe that many of things we take as normative may not be, or things we should take as normative we don’t. I guess that really doesn’t answer anything, but I guess I am saying that there may be more flexibility in what we practice today than we allow.
7. I am struggling with reconciling the salvation of babies and mentally disabled with those who have never heard the Gospel. If I give one a pass I think both deserve a pass for me to be consistent. So I think I am little more open to those who don’t hear thus can’t make a decision (like those who were in modern America when the Gospel went forward). I think there is something to Paul’s statement in Acts 17, but I ain’t sure yet. However, I think my wife may be right on this. The bible never really doesn’t talk about those who have not heard other than Romans 10 but again I think there may be a bit more grace in that area than many Reformers give (Read Hodges Systematic Theology those who have will understand what I mean).
This is a start for me, but as you read the future blog I will wrestle with such topics.
Lionel,
I’m pleased that you are struggling with these issues. That is good, and healthy, as long as you go to the Scriptures for answers, and not a philosophy of your own invention, or that of the “experts”, past or present. I appreciate your honesty.
The great doctrines of grace, recovered during the Reformation, which are anchored in our one Corner Stone, Jesus Christ, who is the only reference point, are the points of the compass.
Be warned that you will be in a box, six feet under, when the struggles stop!
Lionel … once again thankyou for these wonderful thoughts, as one who has come from a strict reformed background to a more moderate position I find this debate healthy.
Hey check this site out – http://www.eni.ch/featured/article.php?id=2425e
this is what the Reformation is about at the moment – laugh or cry, YOUR choice.
Sorry – I meant ..
http://www.eni.ch/featured/article.php?id=2425
Lionel,
I hear you man. I think we Christians forget that God sees all and already knows what will happen. WHich does not automatically mean He causes our choices.
We have to have free will. Could we Love God if we didn’t have a choice? Love is a gift and cannot be under compulsion, otherwise it is not Love.
I have friends who continue to struggle with election. I have questions every now and then, but the I lean away from election and more toward freewill. However I have hold to the position of eternal security.
Don
Lionel may I ask what/who cause you to be standing at the gray line of doubt? I will be following you on your new site just as I have for over a year on this one. You are great at how you break the Word and I really appreciate it. Be bless!
As a Muslim, who believes that all the Prophets and Messengers of God from Adam to Muhammad (peace be upon them all ) all came with the same message to mankind, to worship the one true and Only God – the Creator of All that exist. My question is (keeping your last point in mind), what about the salavation of those before Jesus (peace be upon him)? How were there sins forgiven?
Hey Ann,
The scriptures really. LOL!! I really want to examine what I believe in light of ALL the scriptures. I think many of us believe stuff because we were taught it. I don’t think that is wrong but as we mature and are able to handle the scriptures more faithfully, what we are taught must stand the test of the scriptures.
Theological systems force us to ignore some scriptures in light of the system. So when we come to a text that disagrees with what we believe we ignore those text or we force them to say what they do not. Anyway that is where I am today.
Aussie J,
It will be the scriptures alone. Actually that is what led me here. Let me ask when were the Doctrines of Grace first articulated before the Reformation?
Mark R,
Thanks brother! I appreciate it! Tell me more about your Reformed background and what moved you to moderate?
Donald,
I think eternal security is definitely a good topic for theological discussion. Maybe we can start a discussion about that brother. I believe Security can be a crutch allowing others to induldge in the flesh and it also can be a source of security for us who love to preach the gospel. Anyway you want to start a disucssion on it?
Hello Ummadam,
Welcome to the blog and thanks so much for commenting. I checked out your blog and I haven’t see such clear Islamic Apologetics before. Very interesting.
On to your statement. As Christians we believe a promise was given to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 a technical term is the Proto Evangel. The seed who was to crush the Serpent is Jesus the Messiah. All who trusted in this promise as it unfolds through different dispensations/epochs. We believe that the message gets clearer as biblical/redemptive history unfolds.
We see a promise in Genesis 3, we see a more concertated promise in Genesis 16, We see more with Moses, more with David, more with the minor and major prophets, until God (we believe Jesus to be fully human and God as I am sure you know) interrupts history to become the sin bearer for all who trusts in Him.
So all are saved by one means. Jesus Christ, the issue is some have a clearer revelaton than others. I would love to interact with you as you seem to be throughly knowledgeable on Islam!
Lionel,
Keep digging for more of God’s truth!
Love you brother and stay encouraged on this life long journey!
Jon Paden
Lionel, I have no idea what you meant by, “clear Islamic Apologetics “…lol. I’m not familiar with that term.
If you go back at least one page on my blog you will see a week of interesting Muslim-Christian discussions. My friend Holly, a very conservative Christian will host an upcoming discussion on her blog http://www.seekingfaithfulness.com
I would love for you to check out the post we discussed and jump right on in.
Lionel,
The Apostle Paul did a rather fine job of articulating the doctrines of grace, that’s where Luther et al discovered them.
Lionel,
Thank you for being open about your questions. As you work through those questions, please remember that revelation (God’s reason) supercedes our reason, not vice-versa. With that in mind, can I try to answer a few of your questions?
Lionel: 2. I don’t believe God predestines things like the collapse of a bridge as normative. I believe that God knows these things will occur; however, His foreknowledge has nothing to do with the cause/effect.
I’m sure you’ve heard this argument before:
1. Is God omniscient (knowing ALL things)?
2. Does His omniscience include the future?
3. If so, then ALL future things are pre-determined.
Now, the cause and effect is another topic. The Bible tells us that God predestined us and works ALL things according to His will. (Eph. 1:11) On the other hand, it also tells us that we (not God) are the ones responsible for our sins. Does this seem like a paradox? It is no more a paradox than creation ex-nihilo, the Trinity, Christ’s deity-humanity, Christ’s miracles, resurrection from the dead, etc.
7. I am struggling with reconciling the salvation of babies and mentally disabled with those who have never heard the Gospel.
Do you think they deserve an opportunity to hear the gospel? Will you still worship Him whether He sends them to heaven or hell?
The Bible doesn’t explicitly address where infants go after death. But, it does make a few implications…
In the flood, God drowned the infants in judgment. Remember, only 8 people were “saved.” At Sodom and Gomorrah, His wrath consumed the infants. And in Egypt, He killed the firstborn sons. So, the point is that He clearly judges infants in this life.
Two other truths to consider are original sin and different degrees of punishment in hell.
I think the safest position on this questions is the Bible’s position: No position. “The secret things belong to the Lord.” Why do Christians spend so much time debating what the Bible doesn’t say, when we should focus more on what it does say?
Honestly, I don’t know what God’s going to do with infants in eternity. But, whatever He does will be both loving and just.
Lionel: Let me ask when were the Doctrines of Grace first articulated before the Reformation?
Greg: If the 16th century origin of Calvinism as a system is a negative, then so is Arminianism’s 16th century origin as a system.
Many of the apostolic fathers taught 4 of the points of Calvinism as John Gill documented here: http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm (However, Gill mistakes substitutionary atonement for limited atonement, which wasn’t defined until later.)
Then in the 16th century, both Calvinism and Arminianism’s individual points were each combined into systems. (Likewise, many of the fathers taught parts of the Trinity, but they didn’t systematize those parts until later.)
Anyway Lionel, keep wrestling, but don’t be afraid to “tap out” to God.
Lionel,
First, I thought you took a break on blogging???? That was a VERY SHORT BREAK!!
Second,
I do not believe that man has FREE WILL. I believe man has A WILL to act contrary to God but he DOES NOT HAVE a FREE WILL. I believe that man is infected with sin and therefore any decision that he makes will have some sort of sinful influence in it. Either preference, Pride, lust, greed, etc.. So in a sense his will is only free to the point that his lust dictates. Therefore how can a man who is a SLAVE to sin and DEAD IN SIN and as Paul said that the natural man cannot understand or receive the things of God, that an unregenerate man is unable to Choose Christ unless the Holy Spirit FIRST regenerates His Heart.
Now God only does that for the Elect. Those who were predestined. Imagine God saying to Gabriel, hey I don’t remember that guy being on the list? Do you? O well I guess since He believed and excepted we better let him in. God knows those who are His. But does that mean he looks ahead and says I see your going to believe so I will choose you? no that would be POST Destination.
Nobody who was not predestined will be saved. How could they? If it is God’s will for ALL TO BE SAVED, then God is a failure. Because we know ALL are not being saved. Is God’s will always done? Or is God willing and hoping for things and then they don’t happen? He’s like “Man I really wanted that to happen, Shucks I guess I will try again”. Whatever God plans WILL COME TO PASS. So I struggle with fact that God Wills ALL to come to repentance yet few be there that find it.
By the way, Merry CHRISTx and Happy New Year.
(my rendition of xmas) 
Steve,
Did God will the Fall?
Steve,
Let me ask you some more questions.
1. Why do you believe that man’s will is so in bondage to sin that any decision he will make will be influenced by some sin (such as greed, lust….). Where do you get that from?
2. Why do you believe God expects a man to respond to the Gospel. Even command a man to respond to the Gospel, but then have no real desire to have Him repent or receive the Gospel because HE CHOOSES not to regenerate them? So it goes like this “you are to believe the Gospel and repent, but I won’t let you believe in repent because I don’t want you to”?
3. How about this. “Jesus I really wanted to believe but YOU WOULD NOT HAVE IT. I saw the Gospel and even affirmed it but you prevented me from believeing because I wasn’t elect.”
4. Actually on your last paragraph the Calvinistic position is on the opposing side. The bible says “God wants all to come to repentance” also “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked”. “Come to me all who are heavy”. The bible seems to say that God desires all to worship Him. Thus your position says “God doesn’t get what He wants”. To quote Piper “misssions exist because worship doesn’t” If God desires and requires all to worship Him, then it seems that your position says “God can’t get what He wants”.
hey bro,
I was just talking having a conversation about babies and the mentally disabled today. it’s always good to be honest with our questions regarding the truth of God’s Word…the questions you’ve raised are honest ones and i definitely respect them.
I’ll be praying for your study (2 Tim 2:15) and will be following the new blog.
look forward to future discussion.
Jude 2-3,
Q
Lionel,
I think I’ll jump in with your conversation with Steve…my answers will come in the form of Scripture. In case you may say that these are “proof texts” because, as you said…”we come to a text that disagrees with what we believe we ignore those text or we force them to say what they do not we have to deal with…”
1. Romans 8:6-8
2. & 3. John 6:44, 64-65; Romans 9:13-23, Acts 13:48
4. According to your logic, the opposite can be said of the Arminian position…”God desires all men to be saved, but all do not believe, then God does not get what he wants…”
historic Calvinism has always affirmed the complete sovereignty of God and full responsibility of man…what i’m sure you know as being called “compatibilism”. This also seems to be what the Scriptures confirm. Phil 2:13-14 is an excellent example of this.
John Frame has a wonderful Biblical treatment of this in his work “The Doctrine of God” the chapter is “Human Freedom and Responsibility”
I didn’t quite finish my first statement, what i meant is that these passage can’t be taken as proof texts…in the order of what you said yourself, we need to deal with these texts and not make them say something they are not.
I do believe compatibilism is the answer to what you are looking for, Biblically and philosophically.
but, i will add, that these issues are difficult to wrestle with…and that the Scripture presents us with mystery (I will not use the word paradox) because what God has ordained in the way the world works is beyond our ability to fully understand and grasp. But, it is not beyond our ability to observe, acknowledge, and affirm.
Lionel,
You wrote, “I really want to examine what I believe in light of ALL the scriptures.”
I’m in the same place brother.
Q,
For God to be completely Sovereign as in the only way one can come to faith is that first God must regenerate him by the new birth and God is selective in this process, but in the same breath say “man is responsible” is impossible.
It makes no sense brother. It would be like me punishing my 6 week old for not cleaning up his room brother. There is no way man can be responsible for something he can’t do and then be punished by it and God be considered good.
Next let me ask you. How was it that man was saved under the Old Covenant? Do you believe they were regenerated the same was those under the Church age are regenerated? If not how were they saved?
Lionel, your statement “For God to be completely Sovereign as in the only way one can come to faith is that first God must regenerate him by the new birth and God is selective in this process, but in the same breath say “man is responsible” is impossible.” do you draw that from scripture, or is it a philosophical presupposition?
Brian,
Both. I believe there are scriptures that speak of God desiring and commanding man to repent. Not only that as I read through Acts there seems to be a genuine appeal for man to repent and trust Jesus. I think many of the verses that both sides use are proof texts, so as I do a systematic approach of Gospel presentations I never ever, ever, see those presenting saying “Hey you need to repent and trust Jesus, but unless God has sovereignly chose you in eternity past, you won’t believe, however, just in case you are I appeal to you, be reconciled to God, now are you the elect?”.
So I see scriptures saying both, your theological position will cause you to filter those scriptures that disagree with your position through the scriptures that do. So there seems to be somewhere in between.
So I am leaning towards prevenient grace or some form of it.
Brian,
Can I ask you a few questions?
1. If God is Sovereign over all the choices of man, how can man be responsible? How do you reconcile that scripturally?
2. Did God orchestrate the fall? If not, how did God elect man before the foundations of the world? How was the covenant made if God did not orchestrate the fall. If you believe He did not orchestrate the fall and the election was a result of the fall, then wouldn’t that be based off of the decision of man?
3. How do reconcile God not doing evil nor tempting man with evil in James (unless James got it wrong) with God tempting and orchestrating the fall?
4. Finally do you believe the Gospel to be a genuine appeal if man are unable to obey it apart from unconditional election? Where is human responsibility in total inability?
If I may say, here’s something that I was wondering on what others thought—as I remembering what someone used to say with the concept of “truth in tension” when it comes to predestination and election being flawed, paticularly on the passages of Romans 9 which is the main one referenced among others when dealing with the issue, as many say that others have read more into the context of the passage than necessary===especially with those of a Calvinist Bent.
Being involved with others who’re Messianic Jewish, you’ll find that many within those circles will vehemently disagree with Calvin’s perspective as being the most Biblical since Paul–as a Hebraic Jew–had a completely different perspective when speaking in the original language and context. One must read the entire book to get the context…
As my friend said best:
All of that said, I’m curious as to what others would say of the rest of Romans that often seems to be left alone:
If I may say, here’s something that I was wondering on what others thought—as I remembering what someone used to say with the concept of “truth in tension” when it comes to predestination and election being flawed, paticularly on the passages of Romans 9 which is the main one referenced among others when dealing with the issue, as many say that others have read more into the context of the passage than necessary===especially with those of a Calvinist Bent.
Being involved with others who’re Messianic Jewish, you’ll find that many within those circles will vehemently disagree with Calvin’s perspective as being the most Biblical since Paul–as a Hebraic Jew–had a completely different perspective when speaking in the original language and context. One must read the entire book to get the context…
As my friend said best:
All of that said, I’m curious as to what others would say of the rest of Romans that often seems to be left alone:
Hey Lionel,
You said:
“For God to be completely Sovereign as in the only way one can come to faith is that first God must regenerate him by the new birth and God is selective in this process, but in the same breath say “man is responsible” is impossible.”
1) Nothing is impossible with God – Luke 1:37
2) To ascribe impossibilities to God not based upon His own revelation of Himself is to dimish God as God and to subject God to human evaluation and scrutiny. God has revealed Himself…until you find this impossibility within the plain reading of His own revelation of Himself then you have no place to question Him and have set your thoughts above His.
You said:
“It makes no sense brother. It would be like me punishing my 6 week old for not cleaning up his room brother. There is no way man can be responsible for something he can’t do and then be punished by it and God be considered good.”
1) It makes no sense to YOU. Is there really NO WAY??? Who are we to question the wisdom of God in what He has clearly revealed?
13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—
Explain that one away….
You said:
“Next let me ask you. How was it that man was saved under the Old Covenant? Do you believe they were regenerated the same was those under the Church age are regenerated? If not how were they saved?”
1) Their hearts were regenerate the same ways ours are…”by a circumcision made without hands”. A true Jew has always been one circumcised of the heart brother. You are a New Covenant theologian and you do not know this? (Sounds like a question Jesus posed to Nicodemus….John 3:1-10)
The distinction between the Old Covenant ministry of the Spirit is that of indwelling – which is not necessarily tied to regeneration. The presence of the Spirit indwells because the Temple of God is now the people of God. the Spirit did not indwell under the Old Covenant because God’s presence with the people was in the Temple. Again I say…you are a New Covenant Theologian and do not understand these things??
THE MAJOR ISSUE AND QUESTION:
1) I agree that the Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man is a doctrine that lie in tension. But, I believe, as I see God’s revelation of Himself and Who He is that the tension does not lie with Him or His revelation but with us and our unwillingness to yield our mind to the Divine Mind. It is the age old tempting question “Did God really say???” We must not think of ourselves more highly than we out to think. We have certain epistemological limitations that have required us to be informed by Divine revelation.
THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT WE WILL HUMBLE OUR FALLIBLE MINDS UNDER THE INFALLIBLE MIND…this is always the issue with Mankind (Did God really say???)
Regardless of how one seeks to “explain” God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility or to reassign God’s sovereignty to some kind of middle or open knowledge…ALL are still left with this troubling question:
Did God create all things…and were ALL things created BY Him and for Him whether thrones, rulers, etc., etc.?? Do all things exist because of God? Do we live, move and have our being IN HIM?
If so then, at what point is the world and our existence NOT determined? In your questioning, you are asking for a world that is undetermined by God…you are asking for a God who makes the world and leaves it alone as if He was a clock maker and reacts to problems with the clock. But, that is not Christian/Biblical Theism.
HERE IS THE REAL QUESTION:
For what reason did God make the world and give us our existence?? In the end…what will be the ULTIMATE PURPOSE?
The answer to that (which the Bible teaches clearly), and the reason why this must be will help us humble our minds under the Divine Mind.
Love you bro…like I said…these are honest questions which need seeking under the Whole Counsel and letting the Whole Counsel come to bear upon them.
Jude 2-3,
Q
P.S. I’ll be up DFW today…wanna do lunch?
Lionel, there is an interesting section of scripture where Jesus seems to have no problem with both the sovereignty of God in salvation and the responsibility of man existing side by side. Matthew 11: 25-30:
25At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.
26″Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.
27″All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
28″Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.
29″Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.
30″For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”
Could this text and text like these be places in the scripture where the bible does not try to “fix” the problem of sovereignty and human responsibility? Have you considered that the philosophical presupposition that you are assuming might not be assumed by the bible?
Let me add, as I just read your comments to Brian…
You said:
Both. I believe there are scriptures that speak of God desiring and commanding man to repent. Not only that as I read through Acts there seems to be a genuine appeal for man to repent and trust Jesus. I think many of the verses that both sides use are proof texts, so as I do a systematic approach of Gospel presentations I never ever, ever, see those presenting saying “Hey you need to repent and trust Jesus, but unless God has sovereignly chose you in eternity past, you won’t believe, however, just in case you are I appeal to you, be reconciled to God, now are you the elect?”.
1) Clarification – When you started out with “Both” what did you mean? that you draw your conclusions biblically and from philosophical presuppositions?
2) There are many passages that lay man’s responsibility and inability and need for God’s (electing) grace along side each other. These are not read through a theology they are read plainly. Here are a couple of more salient examples from the Words of our Lord:
Matt 19:16-26 – the rich young ruler is commanded to give all away and follow, Jesus says it is easier for the camel to enter the eye of a needle then enter the kingdom, the disciples ask “then who can be saved” – Jesus answers “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible”
John 6:35-44, Jesus declares he is the bread of life, gives the invitation “He who comes to me will never hunger or thirst,” then states, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day”
All who the Father gives him will come…but he also chides them for their unbelief (vs 36)
Later in John 6:60-67 Jesus says,
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
He has chided for unbelief, said that the Spirit gives life and the flesh counts for nothing, and that they can’t come unless God has enable him.
And Acts does present a genuine appeal for man to repent and trust in Jesus but also says that “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 14:38)
These are not not a “theological” readings into the text – God is sovereign over salvation and man is responsible – the Scriptures never present these things in tension.
3) You said:
“So I see scriptures saying both” –
1) clarification again – both what? That God is sovereign in salvation and man is responsible to repent?
4) You said:
“So I am leaning towards prevenient grace or some form of it.”
Your problem is not solved with prevenient grace…because you still will have problems with election biblically…prevenient grace cannot be read into a plain reading of the Scriptures I have presented to you.
Ok, I’m done for the moment… (You can see, i’m done with school for the semester!
sorry to make these long but I think that the questions require careful reading of Scripture…because Scripture does not contradict itself. What it says in one is coherent with the other (not necessarily coherent to all our thinking) or God Himself is not coherent which would be a biblical impossibility. Because we know that God is perfect and His revelation is so as well.
Hi Lionel, just want to remind you that my Christian Blogging Buddy Holly is hosting a Muslim-Christian conversation on her blog. http://seekingfaithfulnessblog.com/?p=814
Q,
You bring up some interesting questions. I can give you about 20 plus verses that will directly contradict many of the scriptures you have proposed. The problem is as I told Brian, what you will do is filter those scriptures through the scriptures you use to uphold Calvinism. So when a verse says “God desires all” you will say “well all doesn’t mean all” or you will make up a theolocigcal category that makes God has two wills (as Piper did). Though you can’t prove that scripturally that is a “philosophical” arguement. Other verses where Christ cries out for His desire to gather Jersualem will be reduced to some arguement that isn’t plain in the scripture.
Brian,
Could that revealing the Father have a condition called FAITH? So you come to this verse and say “well this revealing is connected with election”. I will say “this revealing is predicated on faith”. The Son will not reveal the Father unless the Gospel is trusted. Isn’t that why Jesus calls the Religious Leaders “children of the Devil”. He tells them they don’t know the Father, not because of election, but because they have not trusted the Son.
Q and Brian,
I don’t think any of you answered the question I posed which is:
Back in eternity did God orchestrate the Fall, was the Fall something God already planned back in eternity?
If so is not God the author of sin?
If not how is He innoncent, if the Fall is something that was in His will. So He created Adam and Eve for the very purpose of falling so He could send the Son to redeem us so that He could be glorified? Can you explain that to me?
Not to mention James says “God does not tempt man with evil”. If that is the case how do you reconcile that?
Finally if God did not orchestrate the Fall that means that man had free will and God was not sovereing over the fall but how was election in eternity? Can you show me this biblically?
Lionel,
1) I think you are really oversimplifying the issues of free will and Sovereignty and the issue of the existence of sin. (I think you have oversimplified the Calvinist position as well. But, that’s for another post.)
2) I have posed questions that I hope you will answer
3) Re your question – I answered it by telling you the problem of saying the God created all things and that how do you get around a world that is not in some way “determined” by God – which includes sin.
I will restate it – I think no matter with what doctrine of God’s knowledge you cut it – there is no way of getting around God in some way and sense (beyond our understanding to comprehend) that God ordained sin.
Whether you say he created free will and ALLOWED it through the entrace of free will choice or we say He ordained this plan. God created a world – which he was in full control of its creation – where evil and sin exist. If God is not omnipotent or omniscient and did not anticipate sin or had to react to it because he didn’t know it was going to happen then we don’t have the God of the Bible (cf. Col 1:16, Romans 11:36).
Even if God knew sin was going to take place – HE HAD TO THINK OF IT FIRST BEFORE IT EXISTED IN ORDER TO KNOW ABOUT IT AND ALLOW IT.
That is not a statement attributing sin to God because God has not attributed sin to Himself. But I am saying that you can’t get around the problem of evil brother by just saying “free will, free will” – you still have the problem NO MATTER WHAT.
Did God create Satan? Did God allow Him to sin? Did God not know he would sin and rebel? Did Satan catch Him “unawares”??
What do you say to Col 1:16, Rom 11:36. These are not proof texts nor human presuppositions. It is the presupposition of all of Scripture – “In the beginning God…”
You said:
“Not to mention James says “God does not tempt man with evil”. If that is the case how do you reconcile that?
We don’t reconcile it because Scripture doesn’t – we live with the tension because Scripture does. And I would say that you can’t reconcile it either. No matter how hard you try. The astute atheist will blow you out of the water and deconstruct your whole Biblical notion of a loving and omnipotent God if the only answer you have is “free will.” They will say “then why did (does) God allow (horrendous) evil IF he is loving and omnipotent – does He not care about His creation, is He not poweful enough? What do you say to that?? “Free will?” What kind of answer is that to reconcile the purposes of God?
At some point, you will have to say – we do not have the epistemic capability to judge all that God does and allows but we KNOW WHO GOD IS… and “HIS WORK IS PERFECT, FOR ALL HIS WAYS ARE JUST” – we know this because God has revealed Himself and because our knowledge is limited then then we must submit ourselves a greater knowledge that goes beyond our limits to fully comprehend (but not beyond our our limits to acknowledge and affirm).
Whether God “allows” or “ordains” sin/evil still exist because in some way (we are not fully capable of explaining) it was His purpose – we just can’t get around it.
We must affirm what what know about God in all His attributes from His revelation and live with the tension that Scripture never seeks to explain to us.
In the end it is divine mystery that will be revealed when we see Him.
let me also clarify something I said about answering the problem of evil with “free will” – I do believe that human choice and culpability is a part of the answer to the problem of the existence of sin/evil in humanity – but it not THE (full) answer. It is part of the fuller explanation – which in short is: the glory of God in all His manifold attributes. Then God ordains means (primary and secondary causes within human existence) to which this end will be accomplished. But, God Himself is the Uncaused cause of all things…in any Christian system of theology faithful to Scripture this must be the case.
Q,
Rewrite the questions for me so I can follow. I think they got lost in the shuffle. But on to your statments.
1. I don’t believe God “ordained” sin. As I stated. God’s foreknowledge of something (because He stands outside of time and space) has nothing to do with God ordaining it. I think this is a philosophical debate, because you have NO verses saying God ordained evil; however, your theology of God’s sovereignty forces you to do that. I am saying God is completely sovereign in the fact nothing can tie the hands of God but that also God allows human free will in that Sovereignty and responds accordingly.
2. So you believe God fully expected Adam to fall so that God could allow a world that is full of evil and destruction so that He could get some type of glory? Q! That makes no sense. Given the fact that the Reformed mantra is “God never needed to create a world to prove His Glory. God was completely sufficient without a world, angels, or anything else, God was complety perfect and had complete glory in the Trinity”. So the next time a 5 year old is molested and burned alive, you will say “To God be the Glory”?
3. If God ordained Sin then God is responsible for Sin. To continue to hide behind “tension” doesn’t seem logical to me. But maybe I am being to logical.
4. Yes God created an Angel with complete free will who upon His rebellion became an adversary to God, if He did not commit the rebellion we would not have this problem. If Adam would have not eaten He would have subdued the world as commanded and the Fall would not be a discussion. This doesn’t rob God of any of His attributes. Because God is still Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Immutable. I say in that, God allows the free moral decisions of humans to bring certain consequences and He respods accordinly.
5. Let me ask you something. When you pray does God move on behalf of your prayer or some sovereign plan that was already determined? If so why do you pray? The bible never tells us to pray because it changes our mind about God (that is a philosophical arguement with no biblical support). The bible says God moves predicated on our faith through prayer correct?
6. When someone gets divorced, murdered, rapes or whatever, is your answer to that problem God’s sovereignty? Or the free moral choices of humans (again that do not interfere with God’s plan)?
7. Q, God has revealed, and it seems to me that the flood was not God’s plan but a response to human evil. The fall wasn’t God’s plan but a response to human sin……….. That is revelation in scripture, not to mention there quite a few times where God is going to do one thing, but decides to do another. The destruction of Israel and Moses interceding is one, and the destruction of Ninevah seems to be another (unless they repent).
8. Finally the answer is quite simple to Athiest, and by no means will they “eat me up” LOL!! God is God and allows human evil and responds accordingly. That is what seems to be revealed in scripture to me, or how do you handle number 7?
God’s ultimate purpose through Christ for His fallen creation (scripture seems to speak plainly to this):
Eph 1:9-10
having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both[a] which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.
Colossians 1:20
and by Him to reconcile ALL things to Himself, by Him, WHETHER THINGS ON EARTH OR THINGS IN HEAVEN, HAVING MADE PEACE THROUGH THE BLOOD OF HIS CROSS
1 Cor 15:24-28
Then comes the end, when he [Jesus] delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all His enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For `God has put all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says `all things are put in subjection,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
Q,
I want to comment on Rom 9:22-23 that you cited to Lionel in one of your previous post. First off, I think it would be fitting to cut and paste a previous comment I made in regards to the “apparent tension” between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will.
I previously stated:
“I do not believe in God having two OPPOSING wills. I think that it is a matter of what He allows/permits with our free wills in order to accomplish His plan of restoration of all of creation through Christ. God foreknows everything and in His infinite wisdom, power, and mercy He has designed His creation to accomplish His plan (desire/will/pleasures) in conjunction with the element of free will in His creations. Therefore, He will harden (allow man to continue in sin to a certain capacity) or restrict mans will to sin (in a certain capacity) in order to fulfill His plan. God has called/chosen/elected some in this present age for certain purposes and has allowed and is allowing some to continue in sin (to a certain degree) for His purposes. Again, part of His will/purpose is to reconcile/restore all of creation in the fulness of time (consumation of the ages).
All that God has done through the ages and will yet accomplish in the ages to come, all will have demostrated creations inability to live outside of Him and God’s everlasting love and mercy and ultimate restored unity with His fallen creation. Therefore, true life and love can only come through complete subjection to God.
The scriptures that seem to speak of two opposing wills I believe are just misunderstood. To me they seem to convey the truth of God’s soverignty to allow man to stay stuck in his ways or to restrict man from his ways. For all have freely decided to sin and therefore are lost or stuck in sin without any chance of being restored (found) outside of the mercy of God.”
Now Q You stated:
“22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—
Explain that one away….”
I’m curious as to whether Paul was stating that this is indeed what God has done or if this is just a hypothetical situation since God obviously has the power to do what He pleases.
Notice the use of “What if” in the beginning of these two verses of scripture.
Any thoughts on this?
Lionel,
Ok, this doesn’t answer all your questions but it will deal with “evil” and God’s sovereignty
You are missing my point and attributing your assumptions regarding Calvinistic theology to my statements.
I am merely saying that evil falls within the purposes of God…would you say something different? God then uses secondary causes to meet out His purposes.
my point/question simply – which you have not answered – is that in a doctrine of foreknowledge how is evil still not within God’s purposes? Or, how then does evil exist in a doctrine of foreknowledge and or middle knowledge apart from God’s purpose and intention? To say that God has foreknowledge without any divine intention goes against divine knowledge. does God think of something that exists by some other means but him?
The word “ordained” is a full word. At some point it looses meaning on us because we can’t fully grasp all that goes into the Sovereign ordination of things. It’s the question to Job – “were you there when….??
Nobody is saying that evil is good – or that God gets pleasure from the evil itself – I never said that nor do I think the Bible says that. But, it does say that all things are for Him. We would not know good, grace, or justice without sin/evil. God does not delight in the death of the wicked…
And, the Bible DOES say that God creates calamity (Isaiah 45:6-7, read it in context from verse 1 the calamity is for the good of Israel, and look up the word calamity – you may want to trace it through the OT; see also Is 32:1, 47:11; Amos 3:6). God’s ordination of evil is not a “implication” of Calvinistic doctrine of Sovereignty…I am not saying God is evil…but it does not exist apart from Him. There is no way of getting around that.
But, God is perfect and just…and evil becomes his instrument for judgment…and He receives glory. Did God not raise Pharoah, Does God not raise Kings and Kingdoms? And then does God say these are for His glory?
Will God not get glory for the judgment of evil? Will he not get glory in the bringing forth the justice of the wicked? Will he not receive glory for showing mercy to those who deserve none? Then in this case evil is used in the purposes of God. Man is fully culpable for his sin and sin/evil enter the world the rebellious choices of God’s creatures and yet God sovereignly purposes it – how I do not know. At some point, this becomes mystery.
If God’s glory is not the end of all things – what is the purpose friend?
God must be glorified because of who He is and He has chosen to create the world in the way that He has in order to receive glory and that we as human beings my find the fullness of joy and blessing in the glory – if we believe.
All I am saying brother is that even in a “softer” terminology “allow” God intends for His purposes. If not, then you are skating on open theism – that God does not know the future nor has control over it.
this is good discussion…I have to dip for a little bit but will be back later to finish.
jude 2 to all,
Q
Joe,
`God has put all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says `all things are put in subjection,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, THAT GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL.
The reconciliation of all things is “to the praise of the glory of His grace”
Every tongue will confess Jesus is Lord TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER
The glory of God is the end of all things – simply put. There is much more to that doctrine that needs to be explained but that is the end of all things in a nut shell.
This is Bible – not Calvinism per se.
Jon,
sorry to call you Joe – I’m typing really fast!! But, there is a hypothetical question but it not posed as hypothetical because he already said “does the maker have a right to make the clay as he chooses” Prov 16:4 speaks of this.
We also know that those receive mercy are to the praise of His glory (Eph 1), so what Paul is saying is not a hypothetical “if” – but more of a rhetorical “if”
But, this is a difficult doctrine to accept and wrestle with and in may aspects I am still wrestling with it.
Lionel,
A.T. from Memphis here I care for you but I do have some concerns that have to do with your view of God and man. Rather than nit pick I went general on my response.
Sounds like you are wrestling with the love of God and the love of man and making those equally coexist. Man and God will never be equal. Be careful not to move toward a deistic approach to your Christianity. Slightly Blending the two without trying to compromise Jesus and elevating shades of humanism as well. Read this link coupled with a lot of what you said on this recent blog post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism.
You don’t have to be reformed to love Jesus, i could care less about titles but don’t reduce God and elevate man in trying to figure out the truth though. Or reduce God and make man his equal in some areas, man is never equal to God in any area and you know this but this is the heart of what is being communicated when i read this blog. Remember “I don’t know” is better than deconstructing or shall i say reducing God, in order to have answers.
Man has a free will to choose death only because In Adam all die you know that (Romans 5:12-) and that’s not systematic, its scripture. Man can only choose death because that’s scripture and Adam screwed that up being our representative I get that from Romans 1:28-25 and the previous scrip in ch 5 and don’t make the mistake of thinking moral decisions are the only way one is capable of suppressing the truth for a lie. Even if someone is morally sound and denies Christ he is suppressing the truth for a lie.
By the way you never responded to Greg Gibson he had some great points that i wanted to see you answer.
Adam was a sharp dude God told him “clearly” not to do one thing and he got it, understood it and clearly “suppressed” the truth for a lie to live out what he saw as truth and that my friend is the nature of man. So that’s why man can only choose death morally or live a life that suppresses the truth recognizes Jesus as Lord or both because Adam’s sin set it up that way according to scrip not systematic theology, that’s what many beef about when i share the gospel with them. Why am I confined because of one dude? Because scrips say so and God authored scrips and he says so.
Anyway those are some of my thoughts and I love you bro and desire for you to see Jesus and be free in him Galatians 5:1. I feel you have a heart for Christ and man but I don’t want you to fall into the lull that the way God does things have to make sense on this side of heaven in our limited minds, in order to fully care for man and worship him. I love that you are getting a new blog name anyway hahaha you should never pigeon hole yourself to a label “black and reformed” you are chosen, royal and excellent 1peter 2:9-10 that’s the title God gives which supersedes any earthly title or race.
One
Hey AT,
What questions did I miss from Greg? Can you point them out to me please?
On to your responses.
1. I don’t have a tension between man and God. I believe God to contain all of the attributes that makes Him God while man is finite and fallen.
2. I definitely am not moving towards deism. That would be for me to say “God created the world, set it in motion and then left it to its on devices”! I don’t believe that at all. I believe that God has and will continue to interrupt history to bring forth His plan and that God’s hands are not tied by human decisions. The greatest picture of that being Jesus and the cross. However, I do believe that God responds to human action and that these plans are not fully decreed before eternity. Again God knowing what He will do, does not mean that God so caused/decreed it. For example I don’t believe God decreed, the Fall, the Flood, Israel’s rebellion, rape murder, drug trafficking…. Though God may fully know my decision doesn’t mean He decreed it. Just because He allows doesn’t mean it was in His “eternal plan”. If so God doesn’t move on our prayers, or our actions, all of this was already set in place and that seems to be a diestic God who creates a world and a script then leaves it to follow the script.
3. Again I never have believe God and man were equals. God is eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable (in His divine nature, not His plans) while man if finite.
4. I don’t believe that man is so depraved that He will chose death only, especially after the cross. As Paul is writing the first three chapters of Romans it is pre-cross, not post-cross. I believe in the Cross of Christ man was freed to choose death or life (the Gospel). I don’t believe that a man must first be fully regenerate (saved) to make a decision for Christ. Nor do I believe man’s decision is selfish and sinful apart from being regnerated. I think that is a proof text used from Romans 3.
5. I also believe that in Adam all are shut up under sin, death and condemnation. While all are set free who trust in the second Adam. That is the Gospel.
6. Thanks for the kind words brother. Congrats on the new baby also! Will you come down for the New Year? God bless and keep it moving with the Red Revolution.
Lionel,
Brother thanks for the response. I think this is a convo to be had over the phone or in person. I will be in town soon actually if you want to get up. Jan 9th and the weekend for a wedding and the week of the 19th of January to get up with the Village. The deism comment was chosen carefully and that’s why i said shades, elements. When you say God can interrupt something yet allow it to go it’s “course” that is a deistic statement/mindset even if you don’t hold to the whole doctrine, that’s why i purposely said shades of deism. Think about it, I create it, it got jacked up, “so i let it run its course (deism), then when i “need” to interrupt it i can that’s theism, that’s why i put blurring the lines. Call me today if you have time (940-367-2933) would love to catch up and dialogue about this, hahaha i’m not famous so it matters none that i put my cell on the web no one is dieing to get it. Love you bro
Hi Lionel, I have been following your blog for several months (or more) but have never commented before. Here are a couple of thoughts
You say “I am struggling with reconciling the salvation of babies and mentally disabled with those who have never heard the Gospel.” Sure, this is a tough one. It just doesn’t seem fair that one who has not heard the Gospel would be condemned to hell. However, remember, God does not send anyone to hell for rejecting the Gospel. He sends them to hell for their sins. If they are not sinners, and never hear the Gospel they have nothing to worry about. Of course “all have sinned”….
As for there being some additional grace for those who have never heard the Gospel, well, if so then there would have to be another way of reconciliation than Christ’s payment on the cross. I think the Bible makes it pretty clear that there is no other way.
I trust the Lord will lead you in settling these things in your mind.
To Q,
God’s foreknowledge is not subject to divine [pre-] ordination of future events. In other words, evil (or the predestination of it) is not based on God’s advanced awareness of future acts committed by volitional beings. If by “foreknowledge” we ascribe to God the foresight of all things in the “potential” future, then, the choices made by created beings in the time to come can’t be depended upon such divine ability. In other words, if God [fore] knows all possible things in the prospect future, and indeed knows their outcome perfectly, moreover, it’s not totally clear in Scripture that God’s foresight necessitates whatever human beings will do. Scriptures is ambiguous about whether all events in human history have a predestined character. If one assumes evil acts somewhat include in God’s predestination, then, at some point, the Great Wise God, must [have been involved] be involved in evildoing. May it never be!!!
Or moreover, if the all Wise God partakes in the outcome of evil deeds, then logically it follows that what is morally wrong is inclusive in [the] divine decree. If one presupposes that God ordains “the means” that brings forth the existence of evil but excludes from it, (and he is not its “utlimate” cause), then by consequence God is probably culpable of arranging and orchestrating evil activities including [human] sin.
Another way to express this notion, is that when you set the “ medium or means” for something to occur, it presupposes that you have some sense of what it might be, could be, and will be. But we know that God’s knowledge is perfect, and if God indeed provides the “means” for evil and human sin, it necessitates that God must have known and consequently also decreed the rape of one’s daughter, the holocaust, slavery, human suffering, pain, and so forth.
Further, if God faciliates the “way” by which evil comes to be, we must somewhat question God’s wisdom. As a facilitator, God foreknows what and who will be subject to whatever “condition” he [fore] plans. It cannot be simply stated that God is “only” orders the circumstance (s) by which evil and sin exist in the world, if God’s knowledge is to be defined in perfective terms. God must have controlled or controls the elements of [evil] … and ultimately achieves successfully its outlook.
Just some thoughts. I hope I did not misread you.
Blessings,
Lou
St. Lee,
If these children are born into sin then how are they saved if they have not placed saving faith in Christ?
Hey Bro-
Just caught an internet connection in a remote area of northern Sweden-so I had to pop in and visit.
Greetings from Sweden, I hope you and yours had a blessed Christmas celebration.
CJ,
I think that is what I am trying to convey. I got into a real good discussion with AT last night (using google chat, with camera and voice). I think you coveyed what I have been trying to convey acurately and beautifully.
Hutch,
Whats good brother? You eat any “swedish meatballs”?
Lionel,
My comment was directed towards those who have lived in parts of the world where they have never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel. The whole issue of infants is one I don’t feel qualified to address. Maybe I misunderstood your comment. I thought that you were hinting that there may be a way for adults (for example)who have never heard the Gospel to avoid hell, or are in some way deserving of better.
That is exactly what I am saying. What do you say. So you are right they are sinners. But never having an opportunity in any way to respond to the Gospel. You believe their fate is different than a child. David says “I was shaped in iniquity”. From birth we realize that we fall under Adam’s condemnation, that goes for the handicap the infant and the person who hears and rejects and who neither hears nor rejects.
How is the person who never hears so has no inclination to respond different from my 3 year old who sins but can not yet understand the Good News of the Redeeming Savior?
Hey Lou,
Thanks for the detailed response. First, I think we all will agree that the matter of divine sovereignty and human freedom is a subject that is very complex and, of course, has been hotly debated over the centuries. So, in that I will say again, that these are difficult issues and I don’t seek to oversimplify them or brush of the concerns/questions posed by Lionel, yourself, or others.
What I am personally saying is that, even in your explanation of foreknowledge – which seeks to remove divine intention from God’s future knowledge of events – does not remove the problem of the existence of evil. For you have not put forth a positive assertion of how evil has entered the world in relation to God’s sovereignty and the Scriptures saying that all things exist by Him and for Him.
I understand the difficult of my own assertion (though it was not fully developed since I posed it by way of question)…I am only arguing that the libertarian or advocate of middle knowledge does not have an adequate proposal for the existence of evil apart from diminishing the complete sovereignty of Almighty God (or excusing God’s complete determination of all things). For to say that something has occured within God’s sovereign purposes in which God has no intention (i.e., of good or bad) for those events is to say that there is some event in which God has no hand, thus diminishing his sovereignty over evil itself.
But the Scripture say that “Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.” Not only that, the whole question in Luke 13 regarding the tower that fell was predicated upon them believing it was God that was behind it in judgment (and Jesus did not deny this). There are many more examples of God’s ordination of every affair of human life (e.g., Ps 139:16). So the Bible is far from ambiguous on this subject.
So, while the libertarian/middle knowledge advocate diminishes the sovereignty of God over evil, the determinist or hard/soft compatibilist (which I am a soft compatibilist) also have the difficulty of explaining evils’ existence without somehow seeming to assign evil to God.
So, in essence what I am saying is that we don’t have the epistemic properties to judge (or logically deduce) God’s wisdom or morality in the existence of evil (whether we use the terminology of “allow” or “ordain). The existence of evil is within the good and wise purposes of God because He has declared Himself to be Good and Wise and through those purpose we know the wonderful joys of the love and mercy of God. Thus evils existence in the Sovereignty of God must be understood as mystery…we must also affirm as well as that it exists by God’s purpose and intention – yet God is not the author of evil. For if Satan and evil are not His servants then God is not God and the lives of Joseph and Job (and all who have endured and do endure attrocities) make no sense.
This is good and sharpening discussion. I will try to take time to give you a more detailed assessment of your thoughts later – today’s my 13th anniversary!
Jude 2,
Q
P.S. We should get together sometime at SWBTS.
Q,
Congrats on your anniversary.
Happy anniversary brother! May the Lord continue blessing your family.
Lionel,
I wrestled with similar questions as well. I found the book ‘Grace, Faith and Free Will’ by Robert Picirilli to be helpful.
I also tried to summarize where the thinking of each side breaks down on some key issues that kind of helped me. You may or may not find it useful but it’s here if you’re interested:
http://morostheos.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/calvinism-and-arminianism-contrasted/
As you said, both sides of the argument have scriptural support and reasonable explanations to account for apparently contradicting scripture so as someone else above said, we won’t know who’s right until we see Christ (and may it be soon!)
God Bless,
Mark
Lionel-
Yes indeed Swedish meatballs made from moose meat! Very tasty!
Happy New Year my friend.