Answering Leighton Flowers on Libertarian Freedom and Compatibilism

In his podcasts, stalwart anti-Calvinist Leighton Flowers is fond of defining "Libertarian Free Will" (LFW) as "the ability to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action."

In at least one of his blog posts, he has defined the term a little further, as follows:

LFW = "The categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action." 

(See here: https://soteriology101.wordpress.com/2017/07/01/sinaholics-a-debate-over-inability/)

First, let's define the added term, "categorical." According to the Oxford Dictionary, this word means "unambiguously explicit and direct." (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/categorical)

So, updating Dr. Flowers' working definition with this meaning, we have:

LFW = "The unambiguously explicit and direct ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action."

No real significance is added with the inclusion of "categorical;" it simply renders the statement slightly more emphatic. As far as the addition of "the will" to this working definition, this also does not seem to add anything of substance. By definition, choosing and deciding are activities in which the will is active. Whether we phrase this as "refrain or not refrain from," or, as I would prefer, "engage or not engage in," a given moral action--this is nothing more than a description of the will's basic function. A person without a will could do nothing of a moral nature.

This definition of LFW summarizes the position Dr. Flowers affirms in opposition to what he thinks Calvinists believe. Nevertheless, I wonder how many well-informed Calvinists would actually dispute the fact that this ability exists?

As a Calvinist and theological compatibilist, I really have no problem accepting Dr. Flowers' definition as a valid description of "will" (or even "free will") and affirming that human beings possess it. Every rational person should find this to be intuitive and self-evident. Of course human beings have this ability. At the same time, my compatibilism affirms that all of the "free choices" of human beings are foreknown and foreordained by a wise and good God. One might ask, "How can this be?" 

From the perspective of compatibilism, we can line up the propositions this way:

P1 Human beings possess the ability to refrain or not refrain from given moral actions.

P2 God has ordained which moral actions each human being will choose to refrain from, and which moral actions each human being will choose not to refrain from.

P3 Human beings exercise their "free will" in choosing to refrain or not refrain from given moral actions.

P4 God exercises His sovereignty in determining how, when, where, and why man's "free will" shall be exercised. 

These are the rudimentary claims of theological compatibilism, which in itself is a very simple concept. From this standpoint, I would affirm Dr. Flowers' definition of LFW within my own understanding of compatibilism, and would find no contradiction. In what it affirms, his claim is true and just needs more added to it. His definition adequately describes man's part; however, God's part is neglected.

Of course, much more rigorous philosophical definitions of LFW have been put forth, and they typically entail a denial of the possibility that specified moral actions are pre-determined in any way. We should oppose that type of LFW as an outright denial of Biblical truth. At least at the level of defining terms, Leighton Flowers does not seem to hold to that type of LFW. And that is commendable, for it leaves the door open to a Biblical compatibilism.

On the other hand, if Dr. Flowers were to put forth a definition like the following, we would have to reject it:

LFW = "the willingness of the will to choose what is good (as God defines it), apart from grace."

What is the difference? If we are only talking about "ability," that is one thing. God gives all of us abilities that we do not exercise. I always have the "ability" to steal food from the grocery store; however, by the grace of God I have so far never had the "will" to do it. I also have the "ability" to purchase and smoke cigarettes. And, fortunately, I have never had the "will" to do that, either. I also have the ability to purchase food and give it to homeless people. By God's grace that has actually happened once or twice. The operative phrase here is "by God's grace."

Sadly, there are also morally reprehensible actions I have had the will to do from time to time, and I did not refrain from doing them. And it is just the same with you, my friend. We are all sinners who have had our wills set in opposition to God and have done a variety of evil things. I thank God that by His mercy I have not done even more evil. If not for His mercy, I surely would have. That I recognize my evils as evil, and that He gives me the willingness to repent and pursue the good, is an incredible mercy. But this is not from any purportedly natural "free will," it is from grace alone!

As a compatibilist, I affirm that my every inclination toward good is graciously given from God. Such willingness would not have sprung up out of my own heart, if grace had not been given to direct me toward the good and the right. If not for grace, I certainly would have refrained from every good act and would have only pursued evil.

As a compatibilist, I affirm that every inclination I have toward evil comes solely from me. I own it and I am fully responsible for it, even if God also foreordained which actions I will choose. His foreordination does not change the fact that it is my own will and I am responsible. I was the one who chose to refrain or not refrain. It wasn't as if I tried to do good and He instead directed me toward evil, saying "I would rather you do this evil thing." And it is not as though He made me do it, in any sense. Foreordination is not that. God forbid that such an unworthy thought should ever be embraced.

Ever since the fall, man's will and very nature have been bent toward evil, and this can only change through God's grace. By nature, apart from grace, fallen man, having the ability to choose between good and evil, will always choose evil. The problem is not rooted in "ability;" it is rooted in "will." Fallen man is "totally unable" to do good only because he is "totally unwilling." Thankfully, common grace results in a measure of good that is accomplished even through the unregenerate. Saving grace results in the introduction of a new, regenerated nature within the believer. A nature that truly longs for what is good. And so, by God's grace, there is much good in the world. We should glorify Him perpetually and magnificently for this!

A Biblical perspective would never credit the choice for good to our own mere ability or willingness (this would be self-deception and vainglory); nor would it ever blame God for our own choices of evil (that would be blasphemous and ignorant).

Biblical thinking can only give God all the glory for all of the good that occurs. And we can only accept full responsibility for our own choices and actions. With this perspective, the believer is driven to keep repenting of his own evil and to continually ask God for more grace so that he can grow and do more good to the glory of God.

As Paul states:

I Cor. 15:10  But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

With Dr. Flowers' perspective, one wonders how the believer may ever know that he is experiencing grace, since it all seems to boil down to the exercise of one's own natural ability to "refrain or not refrain" from this or that moral action. When does a person come face to face with the realities of his own corrupt will, and how sharply that will is bent toward evil? Or with the need for God to rescue us from that will, lest we perish? 

If my salvation or sanctification depended on my own ability and willingness to "refrain" from what is evil and "not refrain" from what is good, I suspect that there would be no hope at all for me. 

Romans 7:24-25a  Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

May those who downplay the need for grace in these matters find themselves desperately longing for the only Redeemer who can rescue us from the results of our own ability and will.

A Response to Leighton Flowers: What is the "Dead" State of Fallen Man?

Perhaps, dear reader, you are aware of the criticisms of Calvinism recently put forth by Leighton Flowers, a Southern Baptist preacher, professor and Youth Evangelism Director for the Texas Baptists. Flowers is a prolific podcaster and blogger who presents a distinctively Baptist approach to non-Calvinism. I have listened to nearly every podcast he has released, and have briefly interacted with him on the "About" page of his blog site, Soteriology101.com. In what would seem to be an amazingly courageous move, Flowers has also debated the formidable High Calvinist heavyweight, James White. Unfortunately, this was an epic exercise in missing the point, and I found both of their debate presentations and post-debate follow up responses equally disappointing.

This photo was Leighton's humorous take on
his recent debate with James WhiteSee the debate here: https://youtu.be/lzoZjSTysIs

A BRIEF CRITIQUE

There are a lot of good things to say about Leighton Flowers, so let's start there:

• He is respectful in his manner of dialogue with opponents
• He conducts himself with humility
• He generally speaks positively of Calvinists and accepts them as brothers
• He articulates a clear theology of salvation from a "traditionalist" (i.e., non-Calvinistic) Baptist perspective
• He serves as a ministry leader, and is not just a "talking head" with opinions
• He has a sense of humor (a characteristic that is woefully lacking in so many Calvinist/Arminian dialogues on the internet)

There are some notes of concern as well, and at least one of them is genuinely alarming:

• He doesn't always have his facts straight (as an example, in one of his podcasts he mentions D.A. Carson as an example of a non-Calvinist scholar - Huh???)
• He frequently overstates the persuading power of his views, which have not actually proven persuasive to thoughtful, Biblically grounded Calvinists
• He often presses illustrations to logical extremes that amount to "straw man" arguments
• He sometimes ignores critical distinctions that are consistently drawn by mainstream Calvinists
• In contradiction to his typically respectful comments about Calvinists, he has actually said more than once that he believes this passage might refer to them:
• And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

We can only assume that Flowers has not thought through the implications of that last point, which are quite inflammatory. Viewed charitably, the statement is a bit out of character, though nonetheless troubling. All in all, Leighton is far friendlier toward Calvinists than many others who engage in this type of debate.

A SIMPLE REFUTATION: IS FALLEN HUMANITY TRULY "DEAD" TOWARD GOD?

Let's take a brief look at an issue Leighton Flowers has often mentioned in his polemic against Calvinism. According to Flowers, Calvinists routinely compare man's "dead" state to that of Lazarus in the tomb, while he prefers to relate it to the state of the prodigal son in Luke 15. The prodigal son was only figuratively dead, right? He still had the natural ability to return to his father, right? So, perhaps fallen man is just "mostly dead":



Leighton's view ignores both the context and the content of Ephesians 2:1-3, which states:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Agreeing with Leighton, the clear implication of this text is not that fallen man is incapable of doing anything. However, it is actually much worse than that. According to this text, fallen man is incapable of doing anything that is not sinful. Humanity's "dead" acts are trespasses against God's law and are worldly, demonic, disobedient, fleshly and lust-driven. Believing in Christ for salvation does not seem to fit with this set of "dead" capabilities that remain in fallen human beings.

Much more telling, and far more detrimental to Leighton's position, is the obvious context of Ephesians 2. See Ephesians 1:19-20, which comes just a few verses prior:

... and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places ...

Without question, the flow of the text shows us that Paul is linking the believers' dead state prior to salvation with Jesus' dead state prior to his resurrection. Was Jesus "mostly dead" in the tomb, or was He "all the way dead"? Does Jesus' death and burial more closely resemble that of Lazarus, or that of the prodigal son?

This context-based exegesis stands like a sumo wrestler in opposition to a weak speculation that draws all of its force from the misapplication of an unrelated passage.

Reminding us of the three most important rules for proper Biblical interpretation: context, context, and context.

The whole Bible, taken in context, will always lead us inexorably to something along the lines of Calvinism. An army of critics will never change this, though they may push back with all their might.

Is Grace Resistible? Sure it is!

The following quotation was found in a recent post on a popular Arminian blog. It is by James Arminius, the founder of Arminianism, and purports to put the whole controversy between Calvinists and Arminians into perspective by getting down to the root issue:

The representations of grace that the scriptures contain, are such as describe it capable of “being resisted,” (Acts 7:51) and “received in vain” (2 Cor 6:1), and that it is possible for man to avoid yielding his assent to it and refuse all cooperation with it (Heb 12:15, Matt 23:37, Luke 7:30).  While, on the contrary, this [Calvinist] Predestination affirms that grace is a certain irresistible force and operation.

************

In this manner, I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance and the consummation of all good.  To such an extent do I carry its influence that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will, or do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation , without this preventing [i.e. preceding] and exciting, this following and co-operating grace.

From this statement it will clearly appear, that I by no means do injustice to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man’s free will.  For the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution of this question, “Is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?’  That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations which may be ascribed to grace (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man ever did), but it relates solely to the mode of operation, whether it be irresistible or not.  With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered. (From Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will and the Nature of God, ed. John Wagner, pp. 45, 69)

Resistance is Futile.

If I was an Arminian I would avoid presenting this quotation, for it only proves that Arminius did not understand the teachings of Calvinism on this subject. We do not teach, "Grace is Irresistible," and just leave the statement there as if it was an absolute fact in all cases. On the contrary, we teach that "Grace is Irresistible when it Works to Effect the Salvation of the Elect." We name this working of grace the Effectual Call because it consists in both the outward and inward call of the Gospel, which, working in combination, bring us out of our blind rebellion and into genuine faith. We call it "saving grace" simply because its effect is to save. Grace is extended and offered to the non-elect as well, but it does not result in salvation. Thus it is not called "saving grace" and it is not irresistible. The person effectively (and voluntarily) resists this grace that could have saved him, had he not resisted. Arminius thoroughly misreads the Calvinist's view.

Scripture is clear regarding the fact that grace is resisted by unbelievers:

Jonah 2:8 Those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their hope of steadfast love.
Isaiah 26:10 If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals corruptly and does not see the majesty of the LORD.

Calvinists actually affirm, with these and other statements of Scripture, that grace is resisted continually by the non-elect--and by the elect themselves prior to their conversion. This is mankind's default mode under Adam. The obvious question is: what could ever be so powerful as to turn a person from this self-destructive course? Well . . . nothing but the irresistible saving grace of a Sovereign God!

It has been said that the real divide between Calvinists and Arminians lies in this question: Whose will is ultimately decisive in salvation: my will, or God's? Both wills are clearly involved; but which one is ultimately decisive? Those who say "God's will" are monergists of one sort or another; those Christians who say "my will" are synergists of some kind (and badly mistaken, I might add). Calvinists are among those who joyously declare, "God's will was ultimately decisive! He chose to save me when, otherwise, I would only have resisted Him forever." And they thank Him for turning their stubborn hearts, granting repentance, bestowing faith in Christ, and bringing them from death to life.

They know it was not their will, but His mercy, that accomplished their salvation. They know because they remember how utterly lost they were when they themselves resisted that mercy.

Here is a song by Sovereign Grace Music that sums it all up very well:



10/13/13 Addendum 
An Arminian commenter has insisted that Arminius actually did understand the Calvinistic teaching on Irresistible Grace, and has asked that I amend my post to reflect this. So noted. I may have misread Arminius (which seems easy to do, since his writings are not as clear as, say, Calvin's, or even Wesley's). In any case, I believe Arminius is now in heaven with the Lord, so he certainly understands the whole truth today, including Irresistible Grace, and likely thanks God for it on a regular basis. Perhaps he is even singing the song in the video above right at this moment!

St. Bernard (of Clairvaux) Bites the Fins Off of Free Willy

I've been on vacation this week and have finally had time to continue reading through Calvin's Institutes. The section on Total Depravity and the bondage of the will is spectacular. Calvin seems to revel in paradoxes in the Second Book, Chapter Two, Part 5, where he approvingly quotes a passage from St. Bernard of Clairvaux:

Bernard, assenting to Augustine, thus writes: "Among animals, man alone is free, and yet sin intervening, he suffers a kind of violence, but a violence proceeding from his will, not from nature, so that it does not even deprive him of innate liberty," (Bernard, Sermo. super Cantica, 81.) For that which is voluntary is also free. A little after he adds, "Thus, by some means strange and wicked, the will itself, being deteriorated by sin, makes a necessity; but so that the necessity, in as much as it is voluntary, cannot excuse the will, and the will, in as much as it is enticed, cannot exclude the necessity." For this necessity is in a manner voluntary. He afterwards says that "we are under a yoke, but no other yoke than that of voluntary servitude; therefore, in respect of servitude, we are miserable, and in respect of will, inexcusable; because the will, when it was free, made itself the slave of sin." At length he concludes, "Thus the soul, in some strange and evil way, is held under this kind of voluntary, yet sadly free necessity, both bond and free; bond in respect of necessity, free in respect of will: and what is still more strange, and still more miserable, it is guilty because free, and enslaved because guilty, and therefore enslaved because free." My readers hence perceive that the doctrine which I deliver is not new, but the doctrine which of old Augustine delivered with the consent of all the godly, and which was afterwards shut up in the cloisters of monks for almost a thousand years. (bolding and underlining added)

There you have it, folks. Calvin (not to mention Bernard and Augustine) is clearly a friend of the paradoxical, and plainly agrees that the will is both "free" and "bound"--though certainly in different senses. That's THEOparadox approved.

Calvin emphasizes two key distinctions:
1. The will of fallen man is bound by sin, but not in such a way that he acts involuntarily. Though he does not have "free will," he is free enough to act voluntarily.
2. Fallen man sins of necessity (he cannot keep himself from sinning), but he does not sin by compulsion (i.e., nothing outside of himself "forces" him to sin). His motivation for sinning lies within himself, thus he is fully responsible.

This section of the Institutes is, of course, merely a subpoint and summary of the larger argument, and is designed to show that Calvin's position has firm historical precedent. Reading through Calvin's thoughts on the subject of human freedom, it is clear that his primary and overarching concern is exactly that of Augustine: to affirm absolutely and unequivocally that every good thing is from God alone, and all evil is only from the creature. It is this driving axiom that leads both to conclude that man cannot of his own "free will" choose what is pleasing to God, and that he cannot even of his own "free will" think right thoughts about the subject. The basic principle, that all good is from God alone, seems to me to be so obvious and foundational in Christian theology that one wonders how any believer can think of challenging it. What value can there possibly be in saying that the good choice of embracing the Gospel somehow originates within the sinner himself? As the saying goes, "you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip."

Surely man's rejection of the Gospel comes from himself. But let all the glory for everything good remain with the only One who is worthy of it.

Pharaoh and Conviction of Sin

Exodus 10:16-17 Then Pharaoh hurriedly called for Moses and Aaron, and he said, "I have sinned against the LORD your God and against you. Now therefore, forgive my sin, please, only this once, and plead with the LORD your God only to remove this death from me."

This was Pharaoh's response to the plague of locusts that had eaten up all of the greenery in the land. It was the 8th plague, yet Pharaoh casually discounted his track record of inconstancy and stubbornness by saying he needed to be forgiven "just this once." He asked for the external plague to be removed, but desired no inner transformation. Although he appeared to humble himself, he clearly didn't see himself as a sinner in need of continual forgiveness, or a man of deeply flawed character who had offended the One holy God by his thoughts, words and deeds. He supposed there could be a quick fix for his "little" problem. He viewed the death of the vegetation in his land - the outward issue - as a huge matter, but he saw his own sin - the heart issue - as a small one. 

The true conversion of lost sinners, and any genuine repentance in saved ones, is characterized by a deep awareness of personal sinfulness - of having offended God and become worthy of His just displeasure, judgment and wrath. It is more than a consciousness of having sinned. More than an acknowledgement of mistakes. More than just admitting to a bad habit. Accepting full responsibility for and ownership of one's SIN, as an ingrained character trait and a chosen lifestyle, is essential. We must acknowledge our SIN, as a poison that courses through the whole system of our soul. We must confess our SIN, as a terrifying slavery of the mind and conscience that cannot be escaped in any natural way. We must recognize our SIN, as that which requires a supernatural intervention - an intervention without which our sin would most assuredly lead to a destruction worse than physical death.

Before grace can do its miraculous and restoring work, the ground must be prepared by conviction. The fallow ground that has not been broken by a firm knowledge of personal total depravity will not grow the seeds of grace that are sown in it. Pharaoh had little room for grace because he had very little conviction of sin.

The person who knows he is a sinner can be blessed with forgiveness and sanctification in Christ. But the person who doesn't know he is a sinner has no "need" for the work of Christ. Therefore, struggling saint, let your neediness confirm your assurance!

For more, see my series on the Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart.

Anselm on Man's Inexcusable Inability

Anselm (1033-1109) has been dubbed "the second Augustine." The excerpt below is from his famous work, Cur Deus Homo (Latin for Why the God-Man?), which discusses the incarnation and atonement of Christ. You may read the entire work here. Throughout the book, Anselm converses with "Boso." I am not sure if "Boso" was a real person or just a literary device intended to give the book a more conversational tone.

CHAPTER XXIV.How, as long as man does not restore what he owes God, he cannot be happy, nor is he excused by want of power.
Anselm.. If a man is called unjust who does not pay his fellow-man a debt, much more is he unjust who does not restore what he owes God.
Boso. If he can pay and yet does not, he is certainly unjust. But if he be not able, wherein is he unjust?
Anselm.. Indeed, if the origin of his inability were not in himself, there might be some excuse for him. But if in this very impotence lies the fault, as it does not lessen the sin, neither does it excuse him from paying what is due. Suppose one should assign his slave a certain piece of work, and should command him not to throw himself into a ditch, which he points out to him and from which he could not extricate himself; and suppose that the slave, despising his master's command and warning, throws himself into the ditch before pointed out, so as to be utterly unable to accomplish the work assigned; think you that his inability will at all excuse him for not doing his appointed work?
Boso. By no means, but will rather increase his crime, since he brought his inability upon himself. For doubly has he sinned, in not doing what he was commanded to do and in doing what he was forewarned not to do.
Anselm.. Just so inexcusable is man, who has voluntarily brought upon himself a debt which he cannot pay, and by his own fault disabled himself, so that he can neither escape his previous obligation not to sin, nor pay the debt which be has incurred by sin. For his very inability is guilt, because he ought not to have it; nay, he ought to be free from it; for as it is a crime not to have what he ought, it is also a crime to have what he ought not. Therefore, as it is a crime in man not to have that power which he received to avoid sin, it is also a crime to have that inability by which he can neither do right and avoid sin, nor restore the debt which he owes on account of his sin. For it is by his own free action that he loses that power, and falls into this inability. For not to have the power which one ought to have, is the same thing as to have the inability which one ought not to have. Therefore man's inability to restore what he owes to God, an inability brought upon himself for that very purpose, does not excuse man from paying; for the result of sin cannot excuse the sin itself.

(Underlining has been added for emphasis) 

Our Skewed Moral Self-Perception

We tend to minimize the significance of our evil deeds, as if they are somehow unreflective of our true character; and at the same time we maximize the significance of our slightest good intention, as if it was sufficient by itself to validate our character as genuinely virtuous.

In reality our hearts are corrupt. This corruption displays itself in our darkest intentions even as it taints our most virtuous deeds. So the real situation is exactly opposite to our perception if we are operating under the default assumption of our own basic goodness.

Christ remedies this situation by showing us an accurate picture of our evil character, leading us to repentance, filling us with His own goodness and displaying His great virtue through corrupted vessels like us.

Therefore let us give Him every ounce of glory rather than trying to take credit for the miracle of our sanctification.

Is this my living room . . . or is it M.C. Escher's?

A Vintage Defense of THEOparadox

I recently re-read some comments on an old thread from another blog where my belief about Biblical paradox was directly (and somewhat harshly) challenged (and I was "named"). I had responded with a brief defense of my convictions. It's been a few years now, and re-reading my response to the criticism encouraged me. I hope it encourages you, too. Here it is:

I am a simple, Calvinistic Christian with a relentless commitment to the absolute authority, complete inerrancy and full sufficiency of the Bible. Coupled with this (and flowing from it), I affirm the total, pervasive depravity of fallen human beings – including some significant intellectual limitations. Biblically, I find no evidence to suggest that man’s mental faculties are on a par with God’s. Logically, pervasive depravity would imply that our mental faculties are seriously messed up.

That’s pretty much it. I do not love paradoxes, though I do appreciate what we can learn by studying them. And it’s not a worship of paradox that drives me. It’s a tremendous awe of the glorious wonders of the God Who saves sinners. That, to me, is a supreme paradox. I can explain it with words, but I still don’t understand it (in other words, deeply, at the heart level, I’m still saying “God, WHY? WHY would you choose me?).

I embrace paradoxes in order to solve them, if possible. When they can’t be solved without breaking Scripture, I leave them unsolved and confess the weakness of all human thought. I affirm the existence of Biblical paradoxes in a spirit of intellectual honesty – because any thinking Christian will encounter, and have to work through, apparent contradictions in the Scriptures. On philosophical matters, where there is no revelation from God, I choose to leave all arguments at the level of theory, and refuse to go beyond what is written, and I stake my soul on the Word of God alone. Wherever there are unknowns, there can be the appearance of contradiction without the reality of contradiction. That much should be logically obvious, without need of defense. So, unless we think God has exhaustively revealed Himself, apparent (not real) contradiction is a possibility that should be considered. One ought to say “I don’t know” more often than one does – especially if one maintains Scripture is the most reliable epistemic source in the universe. So I will not acceept any person’s explanation-of-Scripture as being of equal weight with Scripture. Rather, I assign varying degrees of Scriptural warrant to any explanation offered. The more Scripturally grounded an explanation is, the more likely it is true. But I will not make man’s thoughts equivalent to God’s Word. I also refuse to take anything away from the Word of God. There are plenty of ways to twist Scripture in order to create an apparent coherence that will suit man’s mind, but I reject all degradations of God’s Word. Man is deceived and stupid – and even Christians are coming out of the fog created by their sin – so it’s ludicrous to say that we can reconcile everything in our tiny, cluttered brains. Man’s mind trying to grapple with God’s thoughts is like a guy on a child’s tricycle competing at the Daytona Speedway. He’s there, and he’s participating, but he’s missing a few gears. He can take a try at the high sides, but he’s liable to tip.

So, what’s left? Only this: a tireless effort to rationally explain the coherence of Scripture, but NEVER at the expense of Scripture. I believe and trust the whole Bible, but I distrust man’s mind. I trust in Christ, not my understanding of Christ. I cling to the Word, not my theological system. I make my boast in the cross, not man’s ability to make sense of the cross. God’s Word is true, all men are liars. Period.

Is There a Viable Non-Calvinist Interpretation for this?

Try as I might, I can't see any way to explain the following passage apart from Unconditional Election and the Effectual Call. No Arminian or Open Theist interpretation seems possible, let alone plausible. Maybe I've just been a Calvinist for too long, and have forgotten how to think the other way.

I Corinthians 1:26-31 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

What does Paul mean by "calling", if not the divinely orchestrated Effectual Call? How does one explain, "God chose A [to have a particular effect upon] B", apart from Unconditional Election? What does Paul mean by, "because of Him you are in Christ Jesus", if not the monergistic action of God in saving His elect? And what prevents me from boasting, if salvation ultimately depends more on my own "free choice" than on God's?

John Wesley himself seems to have temporarily become a Calvinist in his notes on the passage:

I Cor. 1:26 Behold your calling - What manner of men they are whom God calls. That not many wise men after the flesh - In the account of the world. Not many mighty - Men of power and authority.

Wesley can't possibly mean the general call of the Gospel is kept from those who are wise and mighty after the flesh, can he? Does he believe in a special call? Based on these notes, he seems to.

I Cor. 1:27 [No entry exists in John Wesley's Notes for this verse]

Shocking!

I Cor. 1:28 Things that are not - The Jews frequently called the gentiles, "Them that are not," 2 Esdras vi. 56, 57. In so supreme contempt did they hold them. The things that are - In high esteem.

That's an interesting detail. Wesley is worth reading.

I Cor. 1:29 That no flesh - A fit appellation. Flesh is fair, but withering as grass. May glory before God - In God we ought to glory. 

Another good thought. I have nothing against Wesley, just his errors.

I Cor. 1:30 Of him - Out of his free grace and mercy. Are ye Engrafted into Christ Jesus, who is made unto us that believe wisdom, who were before utterly foolish and ignorant. Righteousness - The sole ground of our justification, who were before under the wrath and curse of God. Sanctification - A principle of universal holiness, whereas before we were altogether dead in sin. And redemption - That is, complete deliverance from all evil, and eternal bliss both of soul and body. 

Is God "free" to bestow His grace and engraft us into Christ when, where, and how He Himself wills? Does Wesley affirm man's total moral inability when he says we were "altogether dead in sin"?

I Cor. 1:31 Let him glory in the Lord - Not in himself, not in the flesh, not in the world. Jeremiah 9:23-24

Is there an Arminian, Open Theist, or other advocate of "free will" out there who can provide a more satisfying explanation for his passage? One that is faithful to Sola Scripture and the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy?

Business Theory or Theology?

I've been studying about Project Management applications in business and found an uncanny parallel between the traditional five steps in the life cycle of a project and the 5 points of Calvinism.


Project Management Steps:

1.  Initiate
2.  Plan
3. Execute
4. Control
5. Closure

The "5 Points" as God's "Project":

1. God initiates everything (including salvation, because we are totally depraved sinners)
2. Unconditional Election is God's plan to save
3. Particular Redemption is the execution of the plan
4. In the Effectual Call, He guides the outcome of the plan
5. The saints Persevere because God Preserves them, bringing the plan to perfect completion

See the parallels? God IS the greatest of all Project Managers.

Ephesians 1:11-12 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Romans 8:28-30 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

UPDATE: Ralph Petersen's insightful comments on this post can be read HERE. 

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 9

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan has graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. To understand these thoughts in context, please begin with part 1.

4) Free will doctrine misses the full depth of evil28

 Do we overstate when we say that fallen sinners do nothing good whatever? No, because though people may do some “good” outwardly, the natural man fails to meet three conditions of a good act: the right standard (according to God’s law), the right motive (arising from love for God), and the right goal (aiming at the glory of God).29

 Hence, Jeremiah argues that fallen man can do something good if the Ethiopian can change his skin or the leopard his spots, but both are impossible, so he is not able to do anything good: Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil (Jer.13:23; cf. Gen. 6.5, wickedness of… his heart was only evil continually).30

 This is paradoxical: he has full responsibility and complete moral inability.  

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes 

28 Free will doctrine yields a definition of sin by which fallen man is able to do some good but it is difficult to accept the idea that this good is acceptable in the eyes of God though it may be such in the eyes of man. Both good and evil actions of fallen man are (re)-defined in human terms before human eyes.  

29 Van Til finds the solution to the good act by asking and answering three questions: “(a) What is the motive of human action? (b) What is the standard of human action? (c) What is the end or purpose of human action? Christian Theistic Ethics (Philadelphia: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1971), 3.  

30 We might say that a serial killer “loves” his mother, but even that love does not meet the three conditions of a good act, so it is not good in the eyes of God.  


PART 10 - Click Here

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 7

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan has graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. To understand these thoughts in context, please begin with part 1.

2) Free will doctrine misrepresents human nature 

 Fallen man does not have free will because he cannot decide, choose, or act outside of his evil nature. Like a diseased tree, he cannot bear good fruit16 (Mat. 7.18) and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil (Mat. 12.35). Free will doctrine teaches that the evil person out of his evil heart brings forth some good (at least when he chooses to submit to God in faith), but this idea misrepresents the teaching of Jesus that character determines conduct. To make the point by inversion, consider that fact that a loving mother cannot intentionally harm her child; she cannot act outside of her character as a loving mother. Nor can unloving evil people bear good fruit.17 Also, note both strands of this paradox: 

a) moral inability is here: the evil heart cannot bear good fruit (Mat. 7.18) and the evil person (Mat. 12.34, you are evil) cannot speak good things (12.34, You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil?). 

b) Full responsibility is here: on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak (Mat. 12.36).18

 Therefore, free will teaching misrepresents human nature by affirming that fallen man can act contrary to his evil nature. 

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes 

16 The Christian is a good tree and his inability to bring forth bad fruit is eschatological. For the non-Christian, the inability to do anything good is part and parcel of the present evil age.  

17 However, if character determines conduct, what then do we say about character determining choices such as the choice to study the Scriptures regularly to be shaped by them in submission to Christ for the glory of God? That character determining choice arises from Christian character already, from the renewal of the heart by the Holy Spirit that gives “newness of life” (Rom. 6.4). Otherwise, the natural man cannot submit to the law of God (Rom. 8.7). He must be set free from his slavery in order to be free for righteousness (Rom. 6.18).  

18 Jesus teaches that there is moral inability (because you are evil, you cannot speak good words) and the fact of full responsibility (you will give account for every careless word, which is a fortiori for absolutely every word). Before the Genesis flood, every inclination of man’s heart was only evil continually, Gen. 6.5. Being so gripped by their rebellion and sinfulness, they could not do anything good, but they were fully accountable as the judgment of the flood showed. That judgment is an anticipation of the final judgment. As an accountable and inexcusable lawbreaker (Rom. 1-3), the natural man cannot submit to God or His law (Rom. 8.7, For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot). Noting that submission to God is a quality of faith’s submissive obedience, it is clear that the natural man cannot come to Christ in faith and coming to Christ is surely something good.  


PART 8 - Click Here

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 1

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan has graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. It is the best concise treatment of the subject I have found. As an example, Pastor Ostella examines the paradox of human responsibility paired with mankind's moral inability. Prepare to be blessed by this excellent study, which will be presented in a series of short segments. New posts in the series will appear at one or two day intervals over the next two to three weeks. Below are the title and introduction.

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model: 

Case in Point, Fallen Man does not have Free Will but He has Full Responsibility 

ETS, Midwest, Ashland, Ohio, March 20, 2009 

Richard A. Ostella

Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind
(1 Pet. 3.8)

Introduction

This theme is difficult because it has an unmasking quality. The rub: it is personally crushing to face the facts about ourselves as fallen sinners. Recounting his conversion, Augustine says:

Thou, O Lord…didst turn me round towards myself, taking me from behind my back where I had placed me, unwilling to observe myself; and setting me before my face, that I might see how foul I was, how crooked and defiled, bespotted and ulcerous (Conf. Bk. VIII, par.16). 

Just to question “free will” challenges our self-understanding and raises an instinctive resistance. 

Therefore, to properly engage a study like this of the self, of my self, we need open-minded 

humility. Here, Peter’s call to a humble mind (1 Pet. 3.8) applies to the three things we are about to cover: theological paradox, a case in point, and implications.


PART 2 - Click Here

Herman Bavinck on Common Grace in Humanity

But of even greater significance is it that with Calvin reprobation does not mean the withholding of all grace. Although man through sin has been rendered blind to all the spiritual realities of the kingdom of God, so that a special revelation of God's fatherly love in Christ and a specialis illuminato (special illumination) by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the sinners become necessary, nevertheless there exists alongside of these a generalis gratia (general grace) which dispenses to all men various gifts. If God had not spared man, his fall would have involved the whole of nature in ruin. As it was, God immediately after the Fall interposed, in order by His common grace to curb sin and to uphold in being the universitas rerum (the universality of things). For after all sin is rather an adventitia qualitas (foreign quality) than a substanialis proprietas (substantial property), and for this reason God is operis sui corruptioni magis infensus quam operi suo (greatly offended by the corruption of His work?). Although for man's sake the whole of nature is subject to vanity, nevertheless nature is upheld by the hope which God implanted in its heart. There is no part of the world in which some spark of the divine glory does not glimmer. Though it be a metaphorical mode of expression, since God should not be confounded with nature, it may be affirmed in a truly religious sense that nature is God. Heaven and earth with their innumerable wonders are a magnificent display of the divine wisdom.

Especially the human race is still a clear mirror of the operation of God, an exhibition of His manifold gifts. In every man there is still a seed of religion, a consciousness of God, wholly ineradicable, convincing all of the heavenly grace on which their life depends, and leading even the heathen to name God the Father of  mankind. The supernatural gifts have been lost, and the natural gifts have become corrupted, so that man by nature no longer knows who and what God seeks to be to him. Still these latter gifts have not been withdrawn entirely from man. Reason and judgment and will, however corrupt, yet, in so far as they belong to man's nature, have not been wholly lost. The fact that men are found either wholly or in part deprived of reason proves that the title to these gifts is not self-evident and that they are not distributed to men on the basis of merit. None the less, the grace of God imparts them to us.

... It is true the Holy Spirit as a spirit of sanctification dwells in believers only, but as a spirit of life, of wisdom and of power He works also in those who do not believe.

Excerpted from Herman Bavinck's article, "Calvin and Common Grace"

Source: The Princeton Theological Review, Vol. 7, No. 3 (1909), pp. 453-455, the parenthetical translations of Latin terms and bold emphasis are mine.

___________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: I make no claim to a great understanding of Latin. If a reader can confirm or improve my translation of the phrase, operis sui corruptioni magis infensus quam operi suo, please feel free to share your insights.

Modernism, Postmodernism, and a Biblical Worldview

Note: I haven't posted in a while, I guess I needed a blogging break and took one without even trying to. I've been working and re-working a post called, "Your Doctrine of the Atonement is Too Small - Part 2", and just about baffled myself beyond any recovery with that topic! But that post should be up before long. In the meantime, there's this . . .

Some in the Christian community today are overtly embracing "postmodernism." That term is a bit difficult to define, and it apparently means different things to different people (which is almost in itself a definition of the word, ironically. How do you define the idea that there is no such thing as a meaningful definition? If the idea is valid, there may be no point in defining it). Rather than attacking postmodernism itself, I would like to point out an erroneous assumption which leads some Christians to embrace it. 


Many who embrace and defend postmodernism point a condemning finger toward those who criticize it, accusing them of being stuck in the old paradigm of "modernism" and a "foundationalist" worldview. It's as if those are the only choices available. In this way, some postmodernists prove they are just as prone to thinking in terms of a false dichotomy as the next philosopher is. They seem to think it is impossible to have an objective, Biblical worldview that is free (or at least in the process of being freed) from the inescapable errors which arise from contextualization within a social movement. The whole idea presupposes that God is incapable of communicating objective Truth to us, separating our thinking from cultural trappings, and enabling us to see and know an exclusive, unquestionable reality.


The Apostle Paul warned the Colossians to beware man-made philosophy, and embrace God's Truth instead. Let the philosophers fight over abstractions and absurdities. Biblical Christians will hold to THE WORD OF GOD, which points us to the WORD MADE FLESH. Bible believers aren't into modernism, and we certainly aren't into postmodernism, any more than we are into Post-enlightenment Rationalism or Renaissance Idealism, or Neo-Platonism, or Aristotelianism, or any other "-ism" that describes a temporary period of humanity's ongoing descent into the mind-darkening depths of sin. We believe what the Bible says: that man is totally, pervasively depraved, and so his only hope lies in the reliable light of an objective, clear, life-giving revelation from God.


Jesus Christ repeatedly declared, "I tell you the truth," and then He said to His disciples, "You shall KNOW THE TRUTH, and then He said, "I AM the Truth." The underlying assumption of postmodernism is at least as old as Pilate, who looked at the Truth and asked Him, "What is Truth?" He left the decision in the hands of others, washing his own hands in pretended innocence - but he had stared Truth in the face - rejected Truth - and will not escape responsibility for that. Though fallen man suppresses the Truth in unrighteousness, he is without excuse.


Jesus Christ transcends culture. He transcends philosophy. He transcends humanity. But He does not transcend Truth. He IS Truth. Nay, much more, He is THE Truth. "The" is a crucial article of grammar which overthrows any possibility of Christian postmodernism and establishes  the basis for an objectively knowable, definable Biblical worldview. Modernism is not more Biblically accurate than postmodernism. Both fall short of the glory of God. Both represent a departure from divine revelation, though perhaps postmodernism is a step further. It is sad to see fellow believers dredging the deep muck of misguided human speculations when the Word of God rises before us, full of grace and Truth.  Hopefully they will be like Peter, who momentarily denied the Truth but repented quickly. Hopefully they are not like Judas, who wore the name of Christ but sold Truth for something more appealing.

Proverbs 23:23 Buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding.

Response to Roger Olson: A More Biblical Analogy

Roger Olson has offered a challenge to Calvinists in this post: A Good Analagy to the ULI of TULIP.
.
In answer to his question: "Which scenario better fits the biblical data, our understanding of God’s character, and our sense of justice?" . . . I'd have to say, "Neither." 
.
The distorted Calvinistic scenario Olson borrows from William Klein reinforces my suspicion that even the most irenic Arminians really don't "get" Calvinism. Which reinforces my suspicion that real, Biblical Calvinism can only be grasped by revelation, not mere human reasoning. Fundamental to Olson's misconception is the fact that mankind did not merely put himself in a position to become spiritually dead through the fall - no, man killed himself through his transgression. Spiritual death is not something that is going to happen to sinful man; it is something that already has happened to Him. "For on the day you eat of it, you shall surely die."
.
Here is an alternative scenario with a more accurate Calvinism, complete with the "reversified" names:
.
1. The people now known as Srennis were once infinitely blessed by their Lord and Maker, Rotaerc, and enjoyed splendid fellowship with Him. For reasons no one can fathom, they decided to rebel against Him. As a result, they went insane and committed suicide, one and all alike.

2. Rotaerc loves the Srennis greatly, but He respects their freely made choice to kill themselves out of their sheer irrational hatred for Him.

3. Rotaerc sends a miracle-working Hero named Susej to the Srennis. The Hero raises 40% of them from the dead. As they awaken, they are at first deeply ashamed of their inexcusible rebellion and wish only to die again. But the Hero's assistant, Tirips, assures every one of them individually that Susej has paid an immeasurable price for their transgression, and they are fully forgiven. Then, as Tirips whispers reassuringly to them, they raise their heads with delight to look upon the Hero's luminous countenance and find rest for their hearts in His grace-filled eyes. They are so grateful and captivated that they never take their eyes off of the Hero again.

4. In their peripheral vision, the Srennis can still see the carnage around them, and each one realizes he could have been - and by any just measure should have been - left dead like the others. The Hero looks upon the Srennis with deep compassion and tells them not to fear, for they are His chosen and His beloved. Each one marvels that the Hero has chosen to bring him to life, and is mystified as to why he would be the undeserving recipient of such amazing kindness. And the Hero gives the Srennis a new name: Srennis-Devas!

5.  Through His assistant, Tirips, the Hero reveals the wonders of Rotaerc's undying love, and promises to lead the Srennis-Devas back to Him.  They follow the Hero onto a huge, brightly gleaming boat made of pure polished diamonds, provided by Rotaerc Himself. Susej takes them away to a new land where there is no possibility of rebellion or the horrible results it brings. As they travel, the Srennis-Devas remember how Susej looked with pity even on the dead, and how Tirips whispered to all of the dead and offered them water, even though they remained stone cold and unresponsive. Only 40% of the boat's capacity is filled, and some say they can hear the unmistakable sound of weeping from within the Captain's quarters.

6. The Srennis-Devas arrive safely in Rotaerc's land and rejoice with Him forever, basking in the glorious glow of their beloved Hero and Lord - His Son Susej - and enjoying blessed fellowship with Tirips the Holy. Although they do not know why Susej left many of their brothers dead, the Srennis-Devas do not accuse Him of injustice. Rather, they fall down breathless before His goodness and enduringly trust in His pure justice and mercy.

As is the case with all analogies, this one is not perfectly accurate and has limits. However, it's a sight better, more Biblical, more fitting to the concept of justice, and more like the character of God than the ones offered in Dr. Olson's blog post. Wouldn't you say so?