A few more things – Piper’s role-play of predestination and prayer no longer sounds all that much like predestination (and more like what I described in a metaphysical sense). In it, he says:

That depends on whether God ordained for it to come to pass in answer to prayer. If God predestined that something happen in answer to prayer, it won’t happen without prayer.

What if I change this around slightly:

That depends on whether God ordained for it to come to pass if I choose to do it. If God predestined that something happen if I choose to do it, it won’t happen without me choosing to do it.

In either case, it doesen’t seem to square with a traditional definition of ‘predestination’ (”established or prearranged unalterably”). So, while the language seems to be stilted, I would agree, though I don’t know that an Arminian would disagree in concept, either.

Another way I consider (metaphysically) how it is that God’s will may work is in contrasting an ocean with a river. If God had no control and everything was left to chance, then the future would be like an ocean that can go in any direction with currents and sub-currents. However, God sets certain events and action as banks along the river, and all actions occur within those bounds. If we get too close to the edge, He may act specifically to prevent that action (like with Baalam and his donkey or Jonah fleeing from his call to Nineveh). But, aside from the edges, He gives us room to choose within those boundaries – His power carries the river inexorably forward and controls its flow and destination. The choices He gives us, though, are only those which keep us within its banks.

Now, if we follow Piper’s wordplay and John’s prayer is answered for his brother, then in either case one might look at is as ‘unequal treatment’ from God. If the mother in Afghanastan dies and is not saved because she has never heard the gospel, it is not because God is capricious and created her predestined for hell, but because we did not fulfil the commission given to us (or in Piper’s terms, because we did not take the action that God required for her predestined hearing of the Word to take place).

As for sheep, one aspect of this parable I have heard from a couple Jewish Christian sources (based on Essene writing from the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran) is that those Jews in the employ of the Roman government (tax collectors, etc.) or who were Herodians were called, as a class, ’sinners’ and ‘the lost sheep of Israel’. As such, I think his audience would have recognized the symbolism to be that (at the least) all of God’s people, or (at the most) all sinners are lost sheep.

Have a great weekend!

Chris

There are most certainly some Calvinists who are jerks, and they are responsible for some of that. But on the flip side of the coin, John’s last comment provides an example of what Calvinists deal with on a regular basis. ie: “repugnant and repulsive”, “Scripture can be thrown overboard”, “if Calvin is right” (hint: Did I bring up Calvin at all?). John may feel free to drop by my blog at OldTruth.com if he wants to talk further, he has said nothing that I can not explain from scripture.

On the other hand, Chris and Zan I do very much appreciate your attitude and openness. It has been a pleasure talking with both of you. You have said some things that will cause me to think; I’d like to look into some of the Hebrew/Roman issues that you brought up, for example. Best wishes to you in this new year.

–Jim

That the world is unequal in opportunity for salvation is not God’s fault, it’s ours. It should be our mission, our passion, our life to make the gospel equal to all. This should be of particular interest to those who believe that the world IS lost and IS dependent on our carrying the gospel. Regrettably this has not proven to be the case. I wish that it were.

On this final note I will leave this argument as I’ve been doing for over 30 years. If Calvin is right and God works by capriciousness I have no desire to serve or worship such a god. BUT, it really doesn’t matter because if I’m one of God’s elect he will save me anyway and if I’m not then it also doesn’t matter because I have no choice than to feel the way I do. Argument is pointless. I have other dogs in other fights that are much more worthy of my mental energies.

On your last two points (I will need to some time to pray, think and study on your first ones):

1) The casting of lots (as with the use of Umim and Thumim) in Hebrew culture was not a game, as we experience dice today. When lots were cast, it was done to aid decision-making or to ensure impartiality, where it was assumed that God controlled the outcome, not man (or chance). When you cast lots, you were saying ‘God, I can’t make this decision impartially, and I have no way in which to apply your guidance (Torah) to choose – YOU make this decision and I will follow it.’ Proverbs 16:33 confirms that it is God who controls this outcome. You do not have to trust me on this, though, as here is a link to the verses where casting of lots is referenced, and it is this impartiality and Godly decision that is sought in all of them.

2) For the Western/Roman issue, one scholar I would point to who uses first century sources (Scripture, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus and contemporary writers, rabbinic sources from this era – even though the Jerusalem and Babylonian talmud were not written down until 300 and 500, respectively, they contain observations and teachings from Hillel, Shammai, Gamaliel and other first century rabbis) is Brad H. Young of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research. In “Paul the Jewish Theologian”, he writes:

In Paul’s day, the essence of Jewish faith had little to do with an earn-your-salvation religious system. Jewish faith begins with the nature of God. He is one. He is compassionate and full of grace. In Exod 34:6, this high, lofty Hebrew idea of God is expressed: “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth.”

The Hebrew mind viewed God quite differently from the systematic theological thinking of the West, which defines God and his work with creation in a linear manner. The Western-style treatment of the divine character attempts to explain inconsistencies and harmonize contradictions systematically. The Hebrew mind was filled with wonder at the mystery of God. The vastness of God and his inscrutable ways left them awestruck. Inconsistencies and contradictions are intimately related to human, finite understandings of the infinite God. He is beyond human comprehension. First-century Jews approached God through an interactive associative mentality. The fact that God is incomprehensible is very much part of the Jewish thought process. The Western mind, however, explains everything but understands so little of the divine nature. The Hebrew mind, on the other hand, is overpowered by a sense of wonder and amazement. It thrives on the inconsistencies and contradictions of the one awe-inspiring God.

As for the key issues of the day, during Jesus’ teaching, we can identify outside of the Bible eight key debates going on at this time. When we look in the Bible, we find that Jesus is either asked about, or gives specific answer to, each of these debates. I can’t find my list of all eight, but some of these were: What is the most important commandment? Who is my neighbor? When is divorce permitted? If I marry and am widowed and marry again, to whom will I be married in the next life? Is there a resurrection of the body? All of the debates were ones of practical application to the individual.

Thank you again for your willingness to discuss these things, as I’ve seen far too many of these types of discussion degenrate into who is the biggest apostate, which is utterly unhelpful. I will continue to wrestle with your other ideas and questions…

Grace and peace,

Chris

God typically works through “means” (like evangelism and prayer) to save people. An example of God working through means (albeit in a non-salvific way) is found in Acts 27 when Paul was told by an Angel that everyone on the shipwreck “would be saved”, but “Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved”. So the ship, in that case, was the means by which God chose to save these men. Could God have snapped his fingers and plopped them all out on dry ground? Yes. But for reasons unknown to us, God normally chooses not to work that way. So when God uses our prayer towards saving someone, it is His plan to cause us to pray, and He uses that as part of the means to their salvation. So, yes I most certainly do believe in intercessory prayer and petition. John Piper has a “role play” story that illustrates how prayer and predestination fit together. Here it is:
http://tinyurl.com/yhu4kc

Also John, if God answers your prayer for your brother and “brings people into his life” etc. Then he has done something for your brother that he did not do for someone else. Do you see how that is unequal treatment of humans, giving one a better salvation opportunity than another? Chris (in his last comment) puts the blame on man for not praying for the person who didn’t get a salvation advantage that came through prayer, but that begs the same/similar question to what I asked Zan, which is “why did God create an earth where not everyone would have their salvation prayed for equally?”.

Chris I’ll have to disagree with you on the Romans 3 passage, but I’ll extend this related invite to you. Here’s a short 15 minute audio clip containing “man on the street” interviews at the Christian Booksellers Convention (ie: a pretty random and diverse group of believers). The one question asked to everyone is: “What do you do with Paul when he says in Romans 3 that no-one does good, no not even one, noone seeks after God?”. Some pretty interesting answers were given.
http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.252

The key to the Matthew 18 passage (now that I’ve had a chance to let it soak in) is who are the sheep? What does the bible mean when it calls someone a “sheep”. Related question: Was Judas ever a sheep? You are right though, this particular parable is not about jews vs gentiles.

On the “metaphysical question of what control actually means”, what types of control could explain the passage that implies that God controls every shake of the dice? That seems very direct and specific.

On the Western/Roman issue this is really tough for both sides to argue. You would have to find evidence saying that the 1st century Christians for sure did not believe in unconditional election, and I would have to find the opposite evidence. Arguing from the position of a “lack of evidence” (for example – me saying “well nobody in that time ever said they DIDNT believe it) would really not prove anything. The truth is, the sovereignty debate is sketchy in church history prior to 200 AD. You could say that proves people didn’t care about this debate then, or, I could say that proves they were believing my way and simply took it for granted and never thought to write a lot about it. It’s a tough case for both of us. John Gill has a book called “The Cause of God and Truth” in which he proves that the early church fathers did believe in unconditional election. But to be honest, I’ve seen Arminian scholars produce evidence from that era for their side too. So from what I’ve seen, it’s very tough for either side to make a 1st century extra-biblical argument.

“When you pray for an unsaved family member, what are you asking God to do for them, if in fact – He can’t/won’t violate their free will? When I pray for my family, I pray “God please save them”. Do you pray the same? If so, how does that fit with your idea of free will?”

I actually have a relative, my brother, in the condition of having fallen away (or was he never really a member of the elect to start with?” I do not ask God to interfere with his freewill. I ask God to bring people into his life, or events into his life that will turn his life to things reflective.

If I were a Calvinist it strikes me as wasting my time to pray to God in regards to salvation. It’s done or it isn’t. My beseeching God to save one of those who is not a member of the elect is the height of hubris,thinking God will move someone from the unelected to the elected at my behest. And further, if God does save my brother because of my prayer it is because God knew I would pray. But I had no choice but to pray for my brother because God knew I would. And so it goes in this downward spiral. This is not Christianity but Greek fatalism which is where Augustine got his concept-not from the Scriptures.

Sorry I’ve taken a bit to get back to you. I’ve wanted to consider all your questions adequately before answering, as you raise some interesting ones. Also, I think I’m going to have to answer in chunks, as my weekend availability for any long sittings is fairly nil.

You asked:

You are loosing me on the “this was not a subject of debate until we Westerners/Gentiles took over the church” idea; I don’t know what you mean.

(For an idea what I mean by “Eastern thought” and “Western thought”, Ray Vanderlaan has a nice primer, and I’ve written an article which contrasts this with postmodern thought.)
Until the fall of Jerusalem, the Christian church was still primarily a Jewish (not Gentile) one. Theologically, it was closely related to Pharisee theology, but in terms of practice, it diverged from most Pharisee schools, with the exception of the school of Hillel. As such, most of the questions wrestled with during the period from 100 BC – 70 AD were Eastern ones – concrete and experiental. As the church transitioned from the hands of Jesus’ disciples and Paul (who were all Jews, with an Eastern mindset) to their disciples (who were more Gentile and ‘Western’), the questions started to shift to ones that were abstract and conceptual. As Paul notes in Roman 11, we Gentile Christians are an in-grafted branch in the olive tree, whose roots are the patriarchs of Genesis, whose shoot is the Messiah from the stump of Jesse. We are not the tree.

(On a trip to Israel & Turkey last year, which centered on the life and context of Jesus and his disciples, particularly John, I asked the professor from Western Theological Seminary about the current and ongoing debate on Calvinism & Arminianism (WTS is Reformed), and his comment was that it really came about after the first generation of the church, which was primarily Jewish, had died out – taking a similar tack as VanderLaan, Brad Young, David Flusser and other Christian scholars who specialize in the first century.)

The closest debate to this, which also still goes on today, is the one of which is most important – thinking right or living right (agreeing that both are important)? Jesus’ consistent answer, as reflected in many of his parables and teaching, including John 4:34-38 is orthopraxy.

Another reason this question was not an issue (beyond Eastern vs. Western thought) and then became one is in the subtle shift of meaning for ‘eternal life’ and the ‘Kingdom of God/Heaven’. When Jesus is asked ‘what must I do to gain eternal life?’, we tend to read this as a question of destination. In Jesus’ culture, this question was one both journey and destination. ‘Eternal life’ begins when someone takes on the walk with God. Jesus doesn’t say (as we might answer today) “You cannot do anything to gain eternal life” (centering our answer on grace and its necessity for the final destination) – he gives the shema and loving ones neighbor as the way to be in the kingdom. This is not a works-based answer, but one that considers first the journey and then the destination.

I would agree that the OT teaches that God is in control of all, but it does (as you note) come back to the metaphysical question of what control actually means. Is it a limited, set future, or is its a limited set of futures?

You asked

So if God answers your prayer, do you see that he’d be giving more grace to one person than another? For example, let’s say God does what you are asking, but nobody prayed such a prayer for a grandmother over in Afghanastan, then we have to conclude that somebody on earth got a better chance at being saved than somebody else. Is that kind of unequal treatment by God – of one human over another human ok with your system of belief?

If there is unequal treatment here, it seems that it would be from us – not considering the grandmother in Afghanastan in our prayers or our actions – than from God. His grace is infinite. It is we who have fallen down on the job as laborors in the fields, in executing the Great Commission. It also comes back to metaphysics – metaphysically, in such a prayer for my loved one, I am asking God to bring about one of the sets of futures which would most effectively speak to them in bringing about true repentence.

At the root of your question, I wonder – do you believe in intercessory prayer and petition? Throughout the history of God’s people, it seems like this does matter. David’s behavior between his conviction by Nathan’s parable indicates that he, the writer of a large number of the Psalms and a man after God’s heart, believed that prayer and petition could work. Jesus’ prayer in the garden seems to indicate this, as well. If a single future is “set”, what is the need for prayer?

I would agree with you that the Power Team concept, as you’ve described it, is ludicrous. I would start with the example of Moses striking the rock and taking credit for what was God’s. With Warren and Hybels – beyond the quotes you’ve chosen, I don’t see the same ‘root’. Counting ’souls saved’ is not something we can do – it is not only a conscious decision of the head, it is one of the heart that is then demonstrated in ones’ walk (i.e. loving the Lord with your heart, soul, mind and strength). It is what distinguished Cain from Abel. It is also a focus on the destination to the exclusion of the journey.

To use a secular example, I am considered to be a subject matter ‘expert’ (a loaded term, I tell you) on the subject of Knowledge Management – which is heavily reliant on human-human interaction. One of the integral parts of KM are ‘communities of practice’ – bringing people with common interests together, which increases the likelyhood of better ideas and in changing behavior (which can be good or bad, I wholly admit). Think of iron sharpening iron.

At Willow Creek and Saddleback, I see something similar – communities which give more opportunities for God to work on the hearts of men through His people. If Warren or Hybels or anyone thinks, though, that they are accomplishing this work (as implied by the Power Team, or a church camp that plays ‘Kum Bah Yah’ until 30 kids have heeded the altar call), or that it is a single conscious moment of the mind (”pray this prayer…”), I believe they are mistaken. I also think that they miss the point of journey and destination.

I need to get ready for church here, but just a couple thoughts on your response to Suzanne: I don’t fully agree with your analogy on ‘we can’t seek God’ – the Romans passage is a restatement of a phrase in Psalm 14. However, David also tells Solomon: “And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the Lord searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever.“, and he writes in Psalm 9 “Those who know your name will trust in you, for you, Lord, have never forsaken those who seek you.”. John at Verum Serum has written a good set of articles on this subject.

Also, I think Matthew 18 does apply. I’m not sure where parables describe Jews and Gentiles. Chrystotom and some other church fathers made such applications in an anti-semetic manner, but I just finished Brad Young’s “Parables”, and I don’t recall any that would have been understood in their original context this way.

Have a blessed Lord’s day,

Chris

I too appreciate your attitude and openness to talk as well; same goes for Chris. I’m not interested in “converting” anyone as much as I am excited to talk about (what I believe is) the truth of God. And none of this is to say that my exact beliefs are needed for salvation; in fact I have more saved friends who are Arminians than I have Calvinist friends I think. They are all wonderful brothers and sisters in Christ.

Ok, on the colored shirt analogy. It’s interesting to consider what our choices will be in Heaven. We will not be able to sin there. So does that mean we will have less choices and freedom than we have now? Same with God. He can’t sin (He is bound by His nature not to) therefore does He not have as much freedom and choices as we do, since we are free to do all sorts of evils?

We have to consider what impulses make us choice things as well. I had to have a root canal recently; who would ever want a root canal? But it hurt so much that I WANTED the root canal with everything in me! Some un-ordinary impluse (pain in this case) steered my will, into wanting the root canal. Many people don’t want to get up on Monday mornings and go work for somebody else. Why do they do it? Because the paycheck motivates their will.

So on this whole subject of free will, we have to consider that man is fallen because of Adam, and because of that our will is in bondage to sin. Man has a moral inability to seek God (romans 3, 1 cor 2:14). We have the freedom to follow God, but we use that freedom to always say “no” to Him. It would be like putting a knife in a mother’s hand and telling her to stab her infant. She would say “I can not do it!”, and she’s right – she can’t. But it’s not because she physically can’t thrust the knife into the child, it’s a moral inability instead of a physical inability. And so it is with man. When God makes us born again, then we finally begin to choose him, repent, and accept his gift. Once we do that, then God says we are justified before Him (Romans 10:10). So in a nutshell, our belief/faith/repentance is the *fruit* of being born again, rather than the thing that triggers our being born again.

The reason I brought up the unfairness thing, is because many people who don’t believe the way I believe, think that God is obligated to give everyone an equal chance at salvation. So if we pray and God answers by giving somebody a “spiritual boost” that helps them to get saved, then we are accepting that God gives some people advantages. Usually it’s that type of unequal advantage that people protest, when considering God’s electing grace to one person but not another.

Zan said: “What is fair about a God that would create a human only to say to that created being, “You don’t have the choice to follow me, know me, love me, or live forever with me.” Would God really say that to someone?”

Though I admit that this theological problem is more pronounced in my worldview, the same flavor of thing exists for your way of thinking as well. I brought up before about the question of “why would God create an earth where he knew some people would end up in hell?”. You might be thinking that, the thing that makes it fair is that man has a choice. But think about what kind of choice that would be. Some little old lady is brought up in Saudi Arabia to hate (a false caricature of) Christianity. Everybody around her is telling her that Alah is the true God. We know that from 2 Cor 4:4 that there is a devil that is blinding her. And yet, she’s supposed to see through all of that and decide to follow Christ, in a land where the bible is banned? You can see why someone might still say that all of that is also unfair. So we have to let the bible define for us what really is fair. The reality is that God has condemned the whole human race through Adam (Rom 5:12,18), and from that lost humanity God elects to save some. He has judged the whole human race based on what Adam did. If you want, we can talk about how that’s fair. It’s hard for us to grasp, but it is fair; God says so.

Zan asked: “Do you believe that anyone who has been “elected” ever dies before they follow Christ?” No, I would think that to be impossible. Same with apostacy of true believers. Nobody who God elects will turn away from the faith and reject God for the rest of their life on earth. They will persevere in the faith until the end.

I’ll have to study Matthew 18 again, I’m not sure I can answer that one right now. It is a parable though, so we have to be careful not to always take parables as exactly literal, since many times they are describing Jews and Gentiles, etc. Maybe Frank (Centuri0n) could answer that one, if he’s still around.

If I, as a parent, say to my child, “You can wear the blue, the red, or the white shirt. Which do you choose?” then does my child truly have a choice? Even if there was also a pink, purple, and green shirt as well in the closet? I said from the beginning that
God gives us the freedom, eluding to the belief that He can also limit or take away our freedom, as well. Also, life is already filled with “unfairness” or unequal grace. Consider that I was born into a Christian, middle-class, American family, and “Jane” was born in the war-torn parts of South Africa. What is truly fair about that? But I see that “unfairness” being less about God’s uneven showing of grace and more about the effects of sin in the world. I cannot even begin to describe or comprehend all the ways that God may or may not manipulate our circumstances/choices/events in our lives. It really isn’t up to us to say “He definitely will” or “He definitely won’t”. What is fair about a God that would create a human only to say to that created being, “You don’t have the choice to follow me, know me, love me, or live forever with me.” Would God really say that to someone? Do you believe that anyone who has been “elected” ever dies before they follow Christ? Or do you believe that everyone who has ever died as an unbeliever just wasn’t chosen by God to belong to Him?

BTW, I actually wasn’t referring to 2 Peter 3:9. I was referring to Matthew 18, in the parable about the lost sheep. God would leave the 99 safe/saved ones to go after the one that was lost. He doesn’t want any of his sheep (non-Christians as well as Christians) to be lost. The imagery is one of a shepherd and his sheep as well as a father and his small children. God is both to us. And as a Father, He would never tell one of his children that he had no choice but to live life without God.

Also, I appreciate your gentleness in this conversation!

Zan