More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
December 24 - December 26, 2018
I now believe the Scriptures reveal a Potter who manifests His glory by sacrificing Himself for the undeserving vessels, not by making vessels undeserving from birth so as to condemn them to display His glory. I came to realize that God is most glorified not at the expense of His creation, but at the expense of Himself for the sake of His creation.
Calvinists believe God’s glory is best displayed through the attribute of control (typically referred to as “sovereignty”), whereas Traditionalists are convinced, by Christ’s revelation, that God’s glory is best displayed through the attribute of mercy motivated by His genuine self-sacrificial love for all.
Instead of asking, as John Piper does, “How does a sovereign God express His love?”[22] We should be asking, “How does a loving God express His sovereignty?”
A Potter less than sovereign could not craft a morally free vessel to bare His image. He would be afraid to do so.[27]
this view, while attempting to defend those very attributes of God, seem to actually undermine them. Suppose you went for a walk in your local park and happened upon an elderly man playing a game of chess all by himself. You stop and ask him why he is playing both sides of the chess board, and he says, “It's the only way I know to guarantee my victory.” You continue on your way to find another elderly man playing chess with an actual opponent followed by a line of challengers as far as the eye can see. One by one they are defeated soundly without much effort due to the wisdom and abilities of
...more
Put differently, God is as controlling as He chooses to be over His creation.
It is the Calvinist who denies the eternal attribute of omnipotence, by presuming the all-powerful One has no alternative to meticulous deterministic rule over His creation. In short, the Calvinist denies God's eternal attribute (omnipotence) in his effort to protect the temporal one (sovereignty).
Passages throughout the bible teach that there are “authorities” and “powers” which are yet to be destroyed, but have been given limited control.
The argument imposes a linear way of thinking, and a cause/effect construct upon an infinite Being, who is not bound by time, space, cause and effects.
It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them…
which suggests that His knowledge is less like our set knowledge of past events (or future ones if we had a crystal ball) and more like our knowledge of present reality.
No man will stand before the Father and be able to give the excuse, “I was born unloved by my Creator (Jn. 3:16). I was born un-chosen and without the hope of salvation (Titus 2:11). I was born unable to see, hear or understand God’s revelation of Himself (Acts 28:27-28).” No! They will stand wholly and completely “without excuse” (Rm. 1:20),
And as C.S. Lewis states, “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”
Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism.
How can God meticulously and purposefully bring about child molestation for His glory while avoiding culpability? No consistent Calvinist has ever provided an answer to this question. In fact, John Calvin, honestly admits the difficulty of this dilemma:
God is not merely determining to clean up His other determinations. He is cleaning up mankind’s libertarianly free choices and actions.
“Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what He has knowingly and willingly decreed” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3).
His argument goes something like this: If God determined the worse evil of all time without blame then we should be able to accept that God can determine all evil events without blame.
Are we to believe God determined to redeem His very own determinations, or are we to believe the Potter sinlessly used a libertarianly sinful will to accomplish His redemptive promise?
In short, I believe God knows the choices of His creatures because He is omniscient, not because He is “omni-deterministic.”[49]
My research coming out of Calvinism brought three Bible passages into sharp focus: John 6, Ephesians 1 and Romans 8-9. These passages are the most referenced proof texts in support of TULIP doctrine.[50]
Jesus does not attempt to persuade this group to stay and support His teaching. Rather, He provokes them purposefully.[56]
This was not their condition from birth due to Adam’s sin, but a condition resulting from their own libertarianly free choices.
While on earth, God sent Christ to accomplish a specific part of His redemptive will. That will was not to be a great evangelist and win thousands to faith, like Peter at Pentecost. Rather, God’s will was for Jesus to come “down from heaven” and train a preselected group of Israelites (those given to Him to be apostles) to carry the gospel to the world and establish His church after He is raised from the dead (John 12:32;
Paul teaches that those “in Him” have been predestined to become “holy and blameless” and “to be adopted as sons,” but he never says that certain individuals were predestined to believe in Christ. Paul speaks of what “the faithful in Christ” (vs. 1) have been predestined to become, not about God preselecting certain individuals before the foundation of the world to be irresistibly transformed into believers. Whosoever believes in Him is predestined to become “holy and blameless in His sight,” (vs. 4) which parallels Paul’s teaching in Rom. 8:29, which says, “he also predestined (those who love
...more
All who come will be trained (sanctified, conformed to His image, Rom. 8:29) and guaranteed a place (adopted, glorified, Rom. 8:23), because that is what God has predetermined for all who are in Him.
Since Christ is the elect One, “those who hear the gospel and respond to it in faith are then declared to be [God's] people, His elect.”[72]
The point is not that God causes everything for a good purpose, but that God redeems occurrences of evil for a good purpose in the lives of those who love Him.
Literally, we could render Rom. 8:29 as follows: ‘For those God formerly knew intimately, He previously determined them to be conformed to the image of His Son.’
To foreknow refers to God’s intimate relationship with people who loved Him in the past
The fact that the “Calvinistic” interpretations of Paul’s writings do not appear until the fifth century with Augustine should be of considerable concern, especially given that Augustine did not speak Greek and was known to be former Manichean Gnostic,[98] a group that promoted deterministic philosophy and was notorious for its fights with the early church fathers.
We must understand that this gracious Potter most often chooses spoiled clay to fulfill His promises.
Paul’s quote from Malachi of God’s hatred for the Edomites, which are referred to by their patriarchal head as “Esau” (a common practice in that culture, Gen. 36:43),
In Exodus 20, God instructs Israel to respect the Edomite boundaries because they are relatives and have been given their land as a divine blessing. It is only after the Edomites attack Israel that God curses them, as was conditionally promised in God’s first encounter with Abraham, “I will curse those who curse you” (Gen. 12:3).
this passage should be understood to mean that individuals must choose to follow God’s will over the will of even the most beloved in one’s life.
Notice the stated purpose in raising Pharaoh up (and later Israel) is not for condemnation, but in order to fulfill the word of God (vs. 6). This is not about the salvation or reprobation of Pharaoh (or Israel); it is about the Potter’s promise being fulfilled and His Word being made known to the whole earth even through unfaithful vessels.
Those judicially hardened and cut off are not born in this condition.[123] Rather, they are hardened after years of rebellion (Acts 28:27) and are cut off for their unbelief (Rom. 11:20).
He used external, persuasive means such as a big fish and a blinding light to accomplish this redemptive purpose, not inward, irresistible means.
It should be remembered that God never judicially hardens anyone who has not already grown hardened by his or her own free choice.
On the one hand, Calvinists will often reference this passage in order to argue that mankind has as much control over how he believes and behaves as a piece of clay has over its own shape, while on the other hand vehemently objecting to their opponent’s accusations of making men into mere puppets.
Calvin himself even refers to these teachings as a “dreadful decree.”[139]
I counseled with a middle-aged couple that had a rebellious twenty-year-old son still living at home. He would stay out all hours, come home drunk or high, and wreak havoc in their family. The poor couple was a wreck and seeking godly counsel. We talked for a while about the root of the issue, but I finally ended up directing them to Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians chapter 5 where the church had to deal with a brother living in perpetual rebellion. Paul advised the church to cast the brother out “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (vs. 5). I carefully explained to
...more
In His divine wisdom, He knows that is best accomplished through cutting them off rather than enabling them in their rebellion.
God has cut us all off in our sin by giving us the inherence to squander as prodigals and a forbidden fruit from which to take our own rebellious bite. He has allowed us all to go our own way.
The question presumes determinism is true and that libertarian free will is not possible.
In reality, however, by not accepting the mystery of man’s free will, the Calvinist has created a new mystery that is simply not afforded by the text of Scripture.
Most Calvinists do not want to admit that the reprobate of their system ultimately hates and rejects God because God first hated and rejected them.
Which mystery is more difficult to swallow? One that seemingly suggests mankind might have some part to play in reconciliation (the bringing together of two parties) or the one that suggests God is the author of evil (that which divided to two parties to begin with)?[148] More importantly, which of these mysteries does the Bible actually afford?
Calvinists often conflate man’s choice to confess with God’s choice to forgive while labeling it all “salvation.” They go on to convincingly argue that God is “sovereign over salvation,” which to a Calvinist actually means, God is as much in control over man’s choice to repent in faith as He is over His own choice to forgive the repentant. It would be tantamount to the father being just as in control over his son’s return home as he was over his gracious choice to receive him back when he got there. This is simply never established biblically.
“whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.” In other words, you must humble yourself or God will do it for you in judgment.
