Happy New Year! How exciting it is to know that we’ve been blessed to experience another year. It is because of God’s gracious mercy that we have another chance to live, breathe, and love. I am truly blessed to be alive!
After finishing up this past Fall semester, I took a vacation home with family for about 10 days to relax, kick back, and catch up on some sleep and family time. How I needed it!! I also got to read William Lane Craig’s “Time and Eternity” as well as Gregory Ganssle’s “God and Time: Four Views.” Both books discussed the philosophy of time and philosophy of language. I was intellectually blessed by Craig’s arguments for a dynamic view of time. In addition, it was good to get some time away from my typical theology reading. I love theology with all my heart---but sometimes, a study or two in philosophy always enhances my understanding of God, His Word, and what His Word has to say to those who believe.
Before I get into my first post of 2010 (how exciting!), I would like to take this time to enlighten the readership about what to expect in 2010. This Spring, I will be taking up a theological project in the study of Molinism, a theological/philosophical system advocated by Luis Molina in the Middle Ages. As I’ve learned by reading, Molina was not the first one to advocate such a view, but was the first to produce a formal layout of the theological view itself. One of the books I will be covering on the subject of Molinism this Spring is titled “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach” by Kenneth Donald Keathley, PhD. Interestingly enough, Dr. Keathley teaches Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. I attend Southeastern Seminary and took Dr. Keathley this past Fall semester for my final theology course in the Master of Divinity degree. Let me just say that I have never met a more humble, gracious, and knowledgeable man than Dr. Keathley...and I count it an honor to have sat under him for an entire semester. I was blessed by every single class lecture I had under him.
I know, I know...you’re thinking that, since Dr. Keathley was my professor, and since I value his work so much, that I must be biased---right? Well, I am a little biased. I suppose that all theologians (including me) should just come out and be honest about our biases. Therefore, I will say it loud and clear--- “I’m biased!”
However, I would like to recommend Dr. Keathley’s book on Molinism to all who are interested in studying more about a view Dr. Keathley so eloquently espouses. I will cover Molinism here or there throughout the Spring semester. I will really dive into it in my posts here this coming summer, when I will have had a chance to also read Molina’s “Concordia, Pt. IV.”
Over Thanksgiving Break, I sat down with Dr. Keathley and inquired about what reading material on Molinism I should acquire. He recommended Luis Molina’s “Concordia, Pt. IV,” “Divine Providence: A Molinist Account” by Thomas Flint, Kirk R. MacGregor’s “A Molinist-Anabaptist Systematic Theology,” and Keathley’s book on “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” I recommend these books to my readership in the hopes that, by the summer, you all may know more than I know (I’m pretty sure of it), and be able to enhance my knowledge as well. My goal is to educate my readers---but I also embrace the possibility that I, too, may be enlightened by the readership.
In today’s post, though, I am gonna deal with Norman Geisler’s discussion of faith and work in his book, “Chosen But Free.” Now, I wanna say that I’ve discussed the idea of faith as a work here at CTS; and I have argued that faith is NOT a work. Whenever the Scripture writers discuss faith and work, they always contrast the two, never equate them. For instance, in Romans 4, Paul shows that Abraham “believed God” (Gen. 15) before he was circumcised; this demonstrates faith (“believing God”) before work (circumcision).
Geisler shows the problem of Calvinists with “faith” and “work”:
“This reasoning, however, involves an equivocation on the word ‘do.’ Faith is something we ‘do’ in the sense that it involves an act of our will prompted by God’s grace. However, faith is not something we ‘do’ in the sense of a meritorious work necessary for God to give us salvation. Rather, it is something we exercise to receive salvation because we could not do anything to obtain salvation” (Norman Geisler, “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election, Second Edition.” Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, 198).
The word “believe” in Scripture is a verb, as the word “repent” is also a verb. And verbs are, by basic definition, “action words.” To repent and believe requires the person to “do” something. However, what is efficacious in the process is Christ’s work, not the faith of the person. Paul writes in Romans 3:26-28 that
“he [Christ] might be JUST AND THE JUSTIFIER of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where is boasting then? IT IS EXCLUDED. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:26-28, NKJV).
While believing is an action, it is not a work of the law. And when Scripture speaks of works, Scripture is referring to the works of the law. By the way, the Mosaic Law was God’s Law given to His people so that they could obey it. However, Paul makes it clear in Romans 3 that no one can keep the entire Law, no matter how hard they try (Rom. 3:23).
However, “the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3) is “the righteousness of faith” (Rom. 10:5). And the righteousness of faith has always been the message of the Old Testament. In the same chapter of Romans 10, Paul quotes Isaiah 28:16---“For the Scripture says, ‘Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame” (Rom. 10:11, quoting Isaiah 28:16). In Romans 10:13, Paul quotes Joel 2:32---“Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Even the Old Testament proclaimed that faith was required for salvation!
Salvation, however, is not something we “earn.” Salvation in Scripture is labeled as a “gift” (Rom. 6:23), and the works of human beings, labeled “wages of sin” lead to death.
Paul asks the congregation in Romans 4,
“What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, BUT NOT BEFORE GOD” (Rom. 4:1-2, NKJV).
Abraham cannot be justified by works before God; but, if God justified Abraham by “faith,” and “faith” is a work, then God justified Abraham by works. This contradicts Romans 4:2-3!!
Last but not least, look at Romans 4:5---
“But to HIM WHO DOES NOT WORK BUT BELIEVES ON HIM WHO JUSTIFIES THE UNGODLY, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).
It is faith in the one who “justifies,” who did the work of justification (Christ justified us with His blood), that man can ever be saved. Without Jesus’ work on the cross, we would still be yet in our sins--- no matter how great the faith!
The most comforting part of all of this (to me, at least) is that Geisler quotes a Calvinist who affirms what Geisler (and I) affirm here:
“J. Gresham Machen, himself a strong Calvinist, emphatically denied that faith is a kind of good work: ‘the faith of man, rightly conceived, CAN NEVER STAND IN OPPOSITION to the completeness with which salvation depends upon God: IT CAN NEVER MEAN THAT MAN DOES PART WHILE GOD MERELY DOES THE REST; for the simple reason that faith consists not in doing something but in receiving something’” (Norman Geisler, “Appendix Five: Is Faith A Gift Only To The Elect?” from “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election, Second Edition.” Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, page 198).
According to Machen, “faith consists...in receiving something,” that is, “the gift of God,” which is “eternal life” (Rom. 6:23).
Think about Christmas, the holiday that just passed us. At Christmas, we received gifts from family and friends; but did we “earn” any of those gifts? Did we “deserve” those gifts? Were the gifts we received really “IOUs” in disguise? If they were, then they were wages (what jobs pay for work done). If they were not “IOUs,” then the gifts were not given according to merit. They were not “earned,” but freely given. Therefore, we did nothing to earn those gifts. And when you and I extended our hands to take those gifts we were given, did we do any “work” to receive those gifts? No, we did not! If we “earned” those gifts, then Calvinists should uphold their theology in practice and give their gifts back!!
Everyone knows that no one person “earned” their gifts when they took them from the hands of family and friends this Christmas. And if we didn’t do any “work” to receive gifts, then what would make Calvinists think that professing faith is a work, and that repenting and believing the gospel is a form of “works-righteousness”?
I think it’s a nice touch to have Calvinists like J. Gresham Machen admit that faith is not a work. It just places one more “seal of approval” on Classical Arminian theology...
Showing posts with label Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Thursday, December 24, 2009
On Losing Salvation, Part I: Trashy Theology or Cherished Concept?
I am finished reading Norman Geisler’s work “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election.” After finishing the book, my curiosity drove me to read through some of the appendices. And one of the sections I wanted to read was titled “Appendix Four: Answering Objections to Free Will.” I noticed a statement Calvinists use in their attacks on self-determinism (free will allows man to make his own choices of his own choosing):
“Salvation is not dependent on man but on God, and so it cannot be lost by man. Salvation cannot be gained by man’s will (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16); therefore it cannot be lost by it” (Norman L. Geisler, “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election,” Second Edition. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, page 185).
I think it’s safe to say that most of the evangelical world believes that salvation comes by faith in Christ alone. While God is solely responsible for salvation’s existence, God does not select human beings for faith--- rather, He allows all who desire to be saved to come to Him by faith. Our faith, like Abraham’s, is what God counts as righteousness, not our works (Romans 4).
So “salvation is not dependent on man but God,” if by this statement Calvinists mean that God did the work of salvation. I would disagree with them when they say that God chooses people to be saved and damns others. In the words of Norman Geisler, “There are no conditions for God’s GIVING of salvation; it is wholly of grace. But THERE IS ONE (AND ONLY ONE) CONDITION FOR RECEIVING THIS GIFT---TRUE SAVING FAITH” (Chosen But Free, 185).
While God gives salvation of His own desire to do so, He bestows it upon those who come to Him by faith in Christ. The Lord gives salvation of Himself, and we receive salvation by faith in Him. There is nothing contradictory about the “give-and-take” relationship regarding salvation between God and man.
However, Calvinists do not stop there in their assessment of salvation. They go further:
“Salvation is not dependent on man but on God, and so it cannot be lost by man. Salvation cannot be gained by man’s will (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16); therefore it cannot be lost by it” (185).
Since salvation is dependent on God (who gives it), it cannot be lost by man (who receives it). There is a problem here, though, regarding giving and receiving the gift of salvation. If a person gives a gift and I receive it, once I receive the gift, it is MY responsibility to guard the gift. The giver of the gift no longer has the right to “guard” the gift for me. The giver no longer has responsibility for the gift. No matter what happens to the gift, I am now responsible for it (since the gift is now in my possession). The giver of the gift cannot give me the gift and keep the gift at the same time, guard the gift for me, etc. Once the gift has been given to me, I am to keep the gift and put it to good use.
This is no different with salvation and the Christian life. Peter tells us that we are “stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Peter 4:10)and that we are to work out our own salvation (Philippians 2:12). If this is true, then we are supposed to guard the grace that we have been given, whether it be spiritual gifts or the gift of salvation. God is not responsible for guarding that gift for us. We are responsible to Him and accountable in the end for what we have done with what God has given us.
Matthew 25 is probably the most outstanding chapter in all of Scripture that addresses this truth. Starting in verse 14, Jesus tells the parable of a man who goes into a country far away, and leaves his money in the hands of his servants. He gives to one five talents, to another two talents, and to another one talent. After a time, the master returns and calls each of the servants to come report on what they’ve done with the money. The first one gives a good report---he takes his five talents and makes five more. The second one also does well---he takes his two talents and makes two more. Both of these servants receive a “well done” (vv.21, 23).
What about the third servant? Well, he hid his master’s money in the ground. When he came before the master, he had an excuse:
“Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours” (vv.24, 25; NKJV).
The master was so outraged with the servant that he not only took the talent the servant had (v.28), but he also cast the lazy servant into “outer darkness” (v.30).
The parable itself is about the Lord, who is our Master. We are His servants, and the money represents the “talents” and abilities He has given us. For those of us who use our talents, we will be rewarded; but for those who abuse our talents and throw them away, we will suffer eternal punishment (v. 46).
Someone may very well say, “That’s all fine and good...but how does the parable of the talents connect with salvation?” Salvation itself is also a gift (Rom. 6:23), and we are charged not to neglect it (Hebrews 2:1-4). If we do, we will have to answer to God for how we wasted His grace. This is why the writer of Hebrews wrote,
“Therefore DO NOT CAST AWAY YOUR CONFIDENCE, which has great reward. For YOU HAVE NEED OF ENDURANCE, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise” (Heb. 10:35-36, NKJV).
The word for “cast away” (NKJV translation) in the Greek is “apoballo,” which means “to throw away, to take off, to lose.” The writer is saying that we should not throw away our assurance. And how can we do that? By not enduring: “for you HAVE NEED OF ENDURANCE.” Our assurance comes with our endurance. Without endurance, we have no assurance of our faith in the end.
Losing salvation is viewed by many to be the most ridiculous teaching ever passed on in the church. However, I think there is more biblical evidence for it than has been previously believed. The early church fathers certainly believed that one could only have PRESENT assurance of salvation (not final or future) and Calvin himself argued that God does not always bestow grace forever upon a person: “Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure forever” (Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 11). In addition, he believed that God only gives “present mercy” to some (Book 3, Chap. 2, par. 11).
I will cover more on “losing salvation” in my next post.
“Salvation is not dependent on man but on God, and so it cannot be lost by man. Salvation cannot be gained by man’s will (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16); therefore it cannot be lost by it” (Norman L. Geisler, “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election,” Second Edition. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, page 185).
I think it’s safe to say that most of the evangelical world believes that salvation comes by faith in Christ alone. While God is solely responsible for salvation’s existence, God does not select human beings for faith--- rather, He allows all who desire to be saved to come to Him by faith. Our faith, like Abraham’s, is what God counts as righteousness, not our works (Romans 4).
So “salvation is not dependent on man but God,” if by this statement Calvinists mean that God did the work of salvation. I would disagree with them when they say that God chooses people to be saved and damns others. In the words of Norman Geisler, “There are no conditions for God’s GIVING of salvation; it is wholly of grace. But THERE IS ONE (AND ONLY ONE) CONDITION FOR RECEIVING THIS GIFT---TRUE SAVING FAITH” (Chosen But Free, 185).
While God gives salvation of His own desire to do so, He bestows it upon those who come to Him by faith in Christ. The Lord gives salvation of Himself, and we receive salvation by faith in Him. There is nothing contradictory about the “give-and-take” relationship regarding salvation between God and man.
However, Calvinists do not stop there in their assessment of salvation. They go further:
“Salvation is not dependent on man but on God, and so it cannot be lost by man. Salvation cannot be gained by man’s will (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16); therefore it cannot be lost by it” (185).
Since salvation is dependent on God (who gives it), it cannot be lost by man (who receives it). There is a problem here, though, regarding giving and receiving the gift of salvation. If a person gives a gift and I receive it, once I receive the gift, it is MY responsibility to guard the gift. The giver of the gift no longer has the right to “guard” the gift for me. The giver no longer has responsibility for the gift. No matter what happens to the gift, I am now responsible for it (since the gift is now in my possession). The giver of the gift cannot give me the gift and keep the gift at the same time, guard the gift for me, etc. Once the gift has been given to me, I am to keep the gift and put it to good use.
This is no different with salvation and the Christian life. Peter tells us that we are “stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Peter 4:10)and that we are to work out our own salvation (Philippians 2:12). If this is true, then we are supposed to guard the grace that we have been given, whether it be spiritual gifts or the gift of salvation. God is not responsible for guarding that gift for us. We are responsible to Him and accountable in the end for what we have done with what God has given us.
Matthew 25 is probably the most outstanding chapter in all of Scripture that addresses this truth. Starting in verse 14, Jesus tells the parable of a man who goes into a country far away, and leaves his money in the hands of his servants. He gives to one five talents, to another two talents, and to another one talent. After a time, the master returns and calls each of the servants to come report on what they’ve done with the money. The first one gives a good report---he takes his five talents and makes five more. The second one also does well---he takes his two talents and makes two more. Both of these servants receive a “well done” (vv.21, 23).
What about the third servant? Well, he hid his master’s money in the ground. When he came before the master, he had an excuse:
“Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours” (vv.24, 25; NKJV).
The master was so outraged with the servant that he not only took the talent the servant had (v.28), but he also cast the lazy servant into “outer darkness” (v.30).
The parable itself is about the Lord, who is our Master. We are His servants, and the money represents the “talents” and abilities He has given us. For those of us who use our talents, we will be rewarded; but for those who abuse our talents and throw them away, we will suffer eternal punishment (v. 46).
Someone may very well say, “That’s all fine and good...but how does the parable of the talents connect with salvation?” Salvation itself is also a gift (Rom. 6:23), and we are charged not to neglect it (Hebrews 2:1-4). If we do, we will have to answer to God for how we wasted His grace. This is why the writer of Hebrews wrote,
“Therefore DO NOT CAST AWAY YOUR CONFIDENCE, which has great reward. For YOU HAVE NEED OF ENDURANCE, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise” (Heb. 10:35-36, NKJV).
The word for “cast away” (NKJV translation) in the Greek is “apoballo,” which means “to throw away, to take off, to lose.” The writer is saying that we should not throw away our assurance. And how can we do that? By not enduring: “for you HAVE NEED OF ENDURANCE.” Our assurance comes with our endurance. Without endurance, we have no assurance of our faith in the end.
Losing salvation is viewed by many to be the most ridiculous teaching ever passed on in the church. However, I think there is more biblical evidence for it than has been previously believed. The early church fathers certainly believed that one could only have PRESENT assurance of salvation (not final or future) and Calvin himself argued that God does not always bestow grace forever upon a person: “Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure forever” (Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 11). In addition, he believed that God only gives “present mercy” to some (Book 3, Chap. 2, par. 11).
I will cover more on “losing salvation” in my next post.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility in the Death of Christ
“Sometimes the twin truths of divine sovereignty and human responsibility are expressed in the same passage. In one of the texts just mentioned [Acts 2:23], both God’s predetermination and man’s wicked free choice are present: ‘This man [Jesus] was handed over to you by God’s SET PURPOSE AND FOREKNOWLEDGE, and YOU...PUT HIM TO DEATH by nailing him to the cross’ (Acts 2:23). As before, while GOD DETERMINED THEIR ACTIONS FROM ALL ETERNITY, nevertheless, those who carried out the crucifying of Jesus were free to perform these actions---and were morally responsible for them. Here again, it is not either sovereignty or free choice; it is both sovereignty and free choice” (Dr. Norman L. Geisler, “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election,” Second Edition. Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, page 39).
I’ve started a bit of new reading regarding divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Let’s just say that, every now and then, it’s good to have some material that helps you review the things you’ve studied. I’ve been blessed this year (2009) to study the issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in massive detail. After over 40 books on the subject, let me admit with humility that there’s still so much I don’t know! What I have learned, however, I share with God’s people. And it is with this attitude that I approach Geisler’s book.
The above quoted Bible verse, Acts 2:23, is used in discussions of sovereignty and responsibility all the time! Notice that Geisler believes that “God determined their [the men] actions from all eternity.” First, though, I want to say that this contradicts what Geisler wrote several pages earlier in his work:
“God is morally accountable for giving the good thing called free will, but HE IS NOT MORALLY RESPONSIBLE for all the evil we do with our freedom. Solomon said it well: ‘This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes’ (Eccl. 7:29). In brief, God made the FACT of freedom; we are responsible for the ACTS of freedom. The fact of freedom is good, even though some acts of freedom are evil. God is the cause of the former, and we are the cause of the latter” (Geisler, “Chosen But Free,” page 23).
If men are the cause of their own evil actions, then what makes Geisler believe that the actions of the men in Jesus’ Crucifixion were PREDETERMINED BEFORE TIME with God? Which is it? Either the acts are determined or they are not.
Next, there is the philosophical error with Geisler’s claim. A choice can be “limited,” but not “determined.” There is no such thing as a “determined choice” in reality. The phrase “determined choice” is a logical impossibility, and the Lord Himself is able to do anything EXCEPT logical impossibilities (such as a square circle and round square, etc.). A determined choice is no choice at all!
Then, look at the text itself: Jesus was crucified “by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God...” (Acts 2:23, NKJV) When we look at the verse, we see God’s plan and God’s foreknowledge mentioned.
I have a question: why did Jesus die on the cross? Did He die because the Father felt like sending Him? Did He die because the Father got bored in heaven and needed a little excitement? No---He died because of the FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE SINS OF MANKIND! Jesus died because of the foreknowledge of sin in the Garden of Eden as well as all the sins that would follow. Hebrews records the following:
“...but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Hebrews 9:26b, NKJV).
Jesus gave Himself for the sins of man. It was the foreknowledge of man’s sin that put Jesus on the cross (not just the Father’s spontaneous declaration of Jesus’ Crucifixion).
The question now becomes, “well, if Jesus died for the sins of the world, then why did man sin?” How was man allowed to sin? Man was allowed to sin because God gave man a free will by which man was to make true, genuine choices. I ask Calvinists here: if man does not have a free will and can make choices, then how do we explain man’s sin producing such an effect that Jesus had to be offered up for it? Man’s sin is of such spiritual significance that even Christ, God’s ONLY Son, must pay the price for it! Man’s choice, although wrong, was pretty powerful. Why then, do Calvinists seek to weaken man’s choice today? It still remains potent---even if all we have a tendency to do with our freedom is sin.
Because God allows man to make decisions (like Adam naming the animals in the Garden, for example), God PREDETERMINED man’s ability to make choices. He PREDETERMINED MAN’S FREE WILL! However, I agree with Geisler here in that, while man has been predetermined to make choices (and given the power to do so), God is not responsible for what man does with his free will. Only man is responsible for that.
If we can see why Jesus was sent to the cross in the first place, it would help us understand the actions of the men involved in Jesus’ trial and crucifixion. In God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, He knew that the men involved would do what they did. God allowed these things to happen in that, while He predetermined their ability to do what they did, He did not CAUSE them to do what they did (Pilate, for instance, did not have to hand over Jesus; after all, he did believe that Jesus was an innocent man). Rather, God incorporated the evil actions of these men into His Sovereign Plan to redeem the world through His Son.
I think foreknowledge is listed in Peter’s sermon to offset God being identified with evil. While God actively decreed the death of His Son (because of His righteous judgment), He did not decree the individual actions of the sinful men involved (He only decreed their POTENTIAL or ABILITY to perform such evil deeds). Rather, the deeds of the wicked men involved were deeds of their own choosing.
I’ve started a bit of new reading regarding divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Let’s just say that, every now and then, it’s good to have some material that helps you review the things you’ve studied. I’ve been blessed this year (2009) to study the issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in massive detail. After over 40 books on the subject, let me admit with humility that there’s still so much I don’t know! What I have learned, however, I share with God’s people. And it is with this attitude that I approach Geisler’s book.
The above quoted Bible verse, Acts 2:23, is used in discussions of sovereignty and responsibility all the time! Notice that Geisler believes that “God determined their [the men] actions from all eternity.” First, though, I want to say that this contradicts what Geisler wrote several pages earlier in his work:
“God is morally accountable for giving the good thing called free will, but HE IS NOT MORALLY RESPONSIBLE for all the evil we do with our freedom. Solomon said it well: ‘This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes’ (Eccl. 7:29). In brief, God made the FACT of freedom; we are responsible for the ACTS of freedom. The fact of freedom is good, even though some acts of freedom are evil. God is the cause of the former, and we are the cause of the latter” (Geisler, “Chosen But Free,” page 23).
If men are the cause of their own evil actions, then what makes Geisler believe that the actions of the men in Jesus’ Crucifixion were PREDETERMINED BEFORE TIME with God? Which is it? Either the acts are determined or they are not.
Next, there is the philosophical error with Geisler’s claim. A choice can be “limited,” but not “determined.” There is no such thing as a “determined choice” in reality. The phrase “determined choice” is a logical impossibility, and the Lord Himself is able to do anything EXCEPT logical impossibilities (such as a square circle and round square, etc.). A determined choice is no choice at all!
Then, look at the text itself: Jesus was crucified “by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God...” (Acts 2:23, NKJV) When we look at the verse, we see God’s plan and God’s foreknowledge mentioned.
I have a question: why did Jesus die on the cross? Did He die because the Father felt like sending Him? Did He die because the Father got bored in heaven and needed a little excitement? No---He died because of the FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE SINS OF MANKIND! Jesus died because of the foreknowledge of sin in the Garden of Eden as well as all the sins that would follow. Hebrews records the following:
“...but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Hebrews 9:26b, NKJV).
Jesus gave Himself for the sins of man. It was the foreknowledge of man’s sin that put Jesus on the cross (not just the Father’s spontaneous declaration of Jesus’ Crucifixion).
The question now becomes, “well, if Jesus died for the sins of the world, then why did man sin?” How was man allowed to sin? Man was allowed to sin because God gave man a free will by which man was to make true, genuine choices. I ask Calvinists here: if man does not have a free will and can make choices, then how do we explain man’s sin producing such an effect that Jesus had to be offered up for it? Man’s sin is of such spiritual significance that even Christ, God’s ONLY Son, must pay the price for it! Man’s choice, although wrong, was pretty powerful. Why then, do Calvinists seek to weaken man’s choice today? It still remains potent---even if all we have a tendency to do with our freedom is sin.
Because God allows man to make decisions (like Adam naming the animals in the Garden, for example), God PREDETERMINED man’s ability to make choices. He PREDETERMINED MAN’S FREE WILL! However, I agree with Geisler here in that, while man has been predetermined to make choices (and given the power to do so), God is not responsible for what man does with his free will. Only man is responsible for that.
If we can see why Jesus was sent to the cross in the first place, it would help us understand the actions of the men involved in Jesus’ trial and crucifixion. In God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, He knew that the men involved would do what they did. God allowed these things to happen in that, while He predetermined their ability to do what they did, He did not CAUSE them to do what they did (Pilate, for instance, did not have to hand over Jesus; after all, he did believe that Jesus was an innocent man). Rather, God incorporated the evil actions of these men into His Sovereign Plan to redeem the world through His Son.
I think foreknowledge is listed in Peter’s sermon to offset God being identified with evil. While God actively decreed the death of His Son (because of His righteous judgment), He did not decree the individual actions of the sinful men involved (He only decreed their POTENTIAL or ABILITY to perform such evil deeds). Rather, the deeds of the wicked men involved were deeds of their own choosing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)