A Debate Over Free-Will, Part 1

I'm involved in an interesting debate over "free-will" with a guy on an online doctrinal forum. (This is the same guy I made reference to here). I asked him to give his rationale for why he believes that free-will is the best way of understanding the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Responding to him has become a lengthier project than I first thought, but it has been interesting. Let me share his argument here, and I'll post my responses to it later:

Ok, let me start by God's grace like this;

We cannot understand when, where and why the first sin was commited but logically it had to be because of a certain kind of freedom in the will of the bieng that comitted it or else you will have to be like the gnostics that believed that God was both good and evil and you will also have to blot out many scriptures that say that God tempts noone and that God is light and in him there is no darkness.

It may be that God gave these angelic biengs from the beginning a knowledge of good and evil without having to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil like adam and eve, therefore having a knowledge of doing wrong and right from the beginning of thier existence.

It also may be that satan himself asked God permission to tempt adam and eve to eat the fruit because of the way they had been created and the way he had been created. They were created without the knowledge of good and evil but satan had to be created with the knowledge of good and evil or else there would be no more logical explanation for his sin.

Since he was created this way then God's justice would demand that satan be given a chance to tempt Adam and Eve to test thier obedience since they had not known sin because they had no knowledge of good or evil but satan did know right and wrong from the beginning of his creation but the problem rests in that he submitted to the evil side of his knowledge and iniquity was found in him.

Now what happens to man is that after he eats of the fruit of the tree, he is seperated from God and this seperation makes him evil in nature and spiritually dead because God said that he would surely die.

Since satan is called the father of all lies then this would have to mean that he was created with a knowledge of good and evil from the beginning knowing what was right and wrong but you see this is where this free-will thing comes in right here. He chose to follow the evil that he knew instead of following the good that he knew and yet God knew he would do this before he made him because this was all part of God's plan to glorify Christ in the end.

You see free-will does not blow down God's sovereignty at all because he knew it was going to happen all along and it was already planned from eternity past. Everything was planned out and decreed by God from eternity past and it came into action after God started creating everything.

You see God is so sovereign that if he didn't want any of it to happen the way it happened then he just didn't have to create anything. Everything happened because God wanted it to happen that way even if the choices that these biengs made by thier will were free because even thier free wills and choices were seen in eternity past in God's mind and these free choices went along with God's ultimate plan and decree which was to glorify Christ on the cross and in the resurrection from the dead.

So you see every sin that mankind commits are already planned out and decreed by God from eternity past but the sin commited is of itself from the freedom of the will of the creation. So every sin commited goes perfectly with God's plan and purpose even if they are done with a free-will because God knew all that was going to happen from beginning to end before he even began to create the heavens and the earth.

Just put it this way, if God didn't want it to happen then it woudn't have ever been created or else it would have thwarted God's plans and purposes. The reason lucipher was created was because he fitted into God's purposes, the reason mankind was created was because they fitted into God's purposes even if both creations have a free-will, every decision they make was already forseen by God and carefully planned out in such a way that no free-willed decision can thwart God's purposes.

I can write down more but it's kind of late and this is all that i can come up with for now, I'll be happy to see your response, maybe we can both work this out to a better knowledge of God's soveriegnty and creation's responsibility.

Thoughts on Negativity: An Addendum

Last month I wrote:

My pastor has convinced me that I need to be more positive. Not in a "New-Agey" kind of way, of course; nor in a "Pollyanna" kind of way. Rather, in my opinions and polemics especially, I tend to be forceful in what I'm against; the result being that people are less willing to receive what I have to say. I agree with him, though I admit that in practice it is much more difficult than it sounds

As I experiment more with being positive in debates even with people who aren't as smart as I am whom I strongly disagree with, I'm seeing the observations of my pastor put into practice.

Case in point, I was debating (what else?) Calvinism online, against this one guy (I assume it's a guy) who was saying some things which were utterly ridiculous seemed illogical to me. For example: 

You calvinists limit God [by] just thinking that he controls everything and that's it.

And that kind of thing.

Anyway, at one point I frankly expressed my opinion totally lost it and ripped apart the bad logic, presuppositions, poor use of scripture, etc., which led to his imposition of "free-will" on some unsuspecting Bible verses. The response I got back from him was totally out of order of the same kind; scoffing in tone, he even expressed doubt as to whether I was saved.

I debated continuing my assault on his bad arguments, but in a rare expression of good judgment, I decided to become more respectful. And I was pleasantly surprised when he responded in an equally respectful tone.

Now, most of you are probably wondering what the big deal is here. But, call it my pride, call it stubbornness, call it what you will, it was actually a) surprising to me that he didn't instantly repent of his bad logic and come over to my point-of-view when I slapped him around verbally, and b) it is difficult for me to accept that if I make a conscious effort to be respectful even when dealing with idiots those whom I disagree with, then and only then will they listen to what I have to say.

It is actually remarkable the change that came over this guy when I changed my tone: before, he was doubting my salvation, implying I hadn't spent much time studying the Bible, etc., basically sounding very "spiritual". But afterward, he was willing to discuss with me; he said he would be "happy" to hear my reply; he hoped that by talking we would both come to better understanding of the issue.

So, what is common knowledge to most is earth-shattering revelation for me: that when you're nice to people, they'll be nice back. I still believe that strong language and sarcasm are good and necessary; but I need to be more selective in where I apply them. This is one of the many ways in which the Lord Jesus needs to conform me to His image. Debate and disagreement are normal and useful for learning; but only when people actually listen to each other. And people only listen when they aren't defending themselves.

So, OK, maybe my Pastor is on to something here; maybe common wisdom is actually worth listening to in this case. Maybe I should be nice in debates more often from now on.

Maybe I'll start tomorrow...

"Those" Calvinists

To many, Calvinists come across as self-righteous, condescending, arrogant, unfriendly, argumentative, and even stingy. The fact that we're not all that way is irrelevant....

It won't be easy to change the pejorative stereotype that clings to Calvinism, but we can start by admitting that it is accurate far too often. Then we can make sure we are manifestly not self-righteous, condescending, arrogant, unfriendly, or argumentative. Also, you can count on us to buy dinner or coffee sometimes.

Paying attention to those who disagree with us and taking them seriously, even if we're pretty sure we'll still disagree, is part of what it means to be in the body of Christ. It's humbling; it sanctifies. It will make us better husbands and wives. It will make us better Christians, and maybe even better Calvinists.

Read More

OK, I admit - I probably can come across as one of "those" Calvinists - the relentless, uncompromising, condescending, argumentative, etc. type. It's not my intention, it's not actually how I want to be seen. But I may very well come across that way, especially to those who don't know me well. 

Yesterday, I wrote on how the "middle ground" between Calvinism and Arminianism. This comes specifically in response to discussions I've had over this issue in online doctrinal forums. (You can find them here and here). There always seems to be that one guy who pops in and says "well, let's stop arguing, because the Bible talks about both God's sovereignty and our free-will." I'll re-affirm here that I think that's an ignorant statement. Read my rationale for that in yesterday's post. So, in that sense, I am uncompromising.

Yet, at the same time, I've had some fruitful and honest discussions with Arminians lately. One thing that I've noticed is that even the most ardent Arminians don't always deny the sovereignty of God, or the glory of God, or even that the will is tainted by sin. Calvinists are convinced that Arminianism fails to give due glory to God - but this is not because the Arminian is unconcerned about God's glory, or sovereignty. In fact, even John Wesley, possibly the foremost Arminian in all of history, sounded downright Calvinistic in many of his hymns.

So there is at least common ground between Arminians and Calvinists. In fact, Charles Spurgeon, in the midst of an article he wrote defending Calvinism, said this:

Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." ("A Defense of Calvinism")

In that same article he equated Arminianism with heresy and Calvinism with true Christianity, yet he spoke so highly of John Wesley's character and his work for the Kingdom of God.

So, while there is no middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism, we do not necessarily need to be constantly at war with each other. It is possible, in fact, it is urgently necessary, that while we don't pretend our two views can be easily reconciled, we do show brotherly love to each other - to the point where we are willing to lay down our lives for the sake of our brother or sister in Christ who does not share our views on God's decrees.

So, I stand with Spurgeon when he says:

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.

But I also need to learn from his high praise of John Wesley. I will never accept any "middle ground" on the issue of Calvinism. But may God give Calvinists and Arminians alike the grace to admit that the other side isn't all that bad. If we believe in Christ, we are all one body in Him. 

A Challenge from A.W. Tozer

The devil is a better theologian than any of us, and is a devil still.

A.W. Tozer

What a sobering thought. I can get my theology right and still perish eternally. While those who know nothing correct about God or the gospel cannot be saved, knowledge by itself avails nothing. 

The solution? In the words of Martin Luther in the 95 theses: 

When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent!", he called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance....As long as hatred of self abides (i.e. true, inward repentance), the penalty of sin abide, viz., until we enter the kingdom of heaven....Any Christian whatsoever, who is truly repentant, enjoys plenary remission from penalty and guilt. 

The Christian life is one of continuous repentance, and this repentance is sufficient to enjoy freedom from guilt in this life, and eternal life in the age to come. 

May God have mercy on your soul and mine.

Free-will and God's Sovereignty: No Middle Ground

I just posted on Fundamental Forums how the idea that "free-will"  is somehow compatible with the sovereignty of God, or that there is some middle ground between the two concepts, is blatantly false. Here's what I wrote:

There's a nasty rumour going around that both ardent Calvinists and Armininians are missing the point in trying to justify their beliefs against the other side of the debate - because (as the thinking goes), "the Bible affirms both that God is sovereign and that man has free will."

For the last time, no it doesn't. Not even close. First of all, the sovereignty of God and free-will are logically incompatible; they are mutually exclusive. "Free-will" was a concept developed expressly to counter the philosophy of determinism (that there is a higher being controlling every detail of life). The two concepts have always existed in opposition to each other. Trying to reconcile them is just ignorant. 

Second, while God's sovereignty is explicitly taught in Scripture (Isaiah 46:9ff; Ephesians 1:3ff; Romans 9:6ff, etc.) the concept of "free-will" can only be found in Scripture if the person reading the Bible has already assumed it is there. It is never explicitly stated. In every debate between Calvinism and Arminianism, I have yet to be given one single verse which says explicitly that man has free-will. It is simply not there. 

So, please, to all you folks who want to believe there is middle ground between the two positions. No there isn't. There never has been; there never will be. Stop wasting everyone's time by pretending differently.

Read more: http://www.fundamentalforums.com/calvinism-arminianism/87435-to-all-you-folks-who-think-theres-middle-ground.html

Technology: Friend or Foe?

Some think technology is out of control, or that it's contributing to social ills, underdevelopment/immaturity, "adult"escence, etc. The National Post carried an editorial some months ago on the subject of "vaguebooking", or posting intentionally vague Facebook status updates in order to bait others into responding. The article's diagnosis?

Perhaps, in this online world where everyone has an immediate voice, a problem has arisen: no one is listening. As a result, people have started to yearn for the dialogue lacking in our one-way communication culture. Maybe people aren’t vaguebooking for attention, but are simply doing it to elicit a response. Maybe Facebook, Twitter, and all the other social sites have in fact painted us into a lonely corner and this is the social butterfly’s way of inducing good old fashioned conversation in a new world format.

Or maybe we’re just a bunch of egomaniacs. (Read more)

On the other hand, another article I recently posted on the "Death of the Phone Call", puts a different spin on social networking technology:

The telephone, in other words, doesn’t provide any information about status, so we are constantly interrupting one another. The other tools at our disposal are more polite. Instant messaging lets us detect whether our friends are busy without our bugging them, and texting lets us ping one another asynchronously. (Plus, we can spend more time thinking about what we want to say.) For all the hue and cry about becoming an “always on” society, we’re actually moving away from the demand that everyone be available immediately.

In fact, the newfangled media that’s currently supplanting the phone call might be the only thing that helps preserve it. Most people I know coordinate important calls in advance using email, text messaging, or chat (r u busy?). An unscheduled call that rings on my phone fails the conversational Turing test: It’s almost certainly junk, so I ignore it. (Read More)

So, on the one hand status updates can be frustrating to those who just want human contact, it's also helpful for those who only want meaningful contact. I suppose this is really just a introvert/extravert problem: if you just want to be around people, two-way conversation is the ideal and social networking is a "one-way" street which seems unhealthy. For introverted folks like myself, talking to anyone about anything simply for its own sake is equally disconcerting - I only want to talk to certain people about certain things; it is barely hyperbole to say that small-talk is the bane of the introvert's existence.

Anyway, all this is to make the wider point that technology is neither inherently good nor bad; how it's used determines its value. Technological advances are not the result of sin; in fact, they are part of God's original purpose for humanity - that we "fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen. 1:28). Granted, sinful humans do not do this is a way that honours God. For example the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1-9):

Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” (Gen. 11:4)

The tower of Babel was a technological advance; the problem was not that mankind was advancing in technology, but their underlying motivation for doing so: "Let us building...a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth." There were two problems:

1. "Top in the Heavens...make a name for ourselves" - they committed the sin of Lucifer by trying to assume God's place, and steal God's glory.
2. "Lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth" - they decided to rebel against God's command to "fill the earth". Rather than be dispersed, they would rather stay in one place and become gods unto themselves, rather than obey God and fill the earth. 

The end of the story runs thus:

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.” So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth. (Gen. 11:5-9)

So many points of interest here:

• there is a link between technological advance and communication problems like the ones we are discovering in social media: God confused the language while mankind was in the midst of their greatest technological advance at the time, because they were using their technology both to rebel against God and to take the place of God. Communication problems which stem from technology, when understood this way, exist a) because of our sin, b) to restrain us from becoming puffed up over our technological advances and daring to usurp the place of God. 
• there is a contrast between the confused language of man which resulted in disagreement and, ultimately, unfinished work, and the clear language between the members of the Godhead - God says "Come, let us go down" (I take this to be a reference to the Trinity), and the rest of the story suggests that whoever God was talking to agreed, and the work they decided on (confusing language) was finished. No unclarity, no confusion, no disagreement. Man's communication was befuddled because of their pride, and their story ended with the tower being left unfinished; God's communication is perfectly clear and ended with the result He had initially intended. 
• The key to understanding the story, I believe, is the use of the word "disperse": "Lest we be dispersed....the Lord dispersed them....the Lord dispersed them." Man wanted to not be dispersed (i.e. to rebel against God's command to "fill the earth"); the Lord came down and confused their language in order to fulfill His original purpose for mankind - hence why I say that it is how technology is used that determines its value. 

Some practical conclusions:

1. We should realize that technology doesn't create communication problems - sin does. As such, they are part of the curse that God place on mankind and on the creation, and will persist until God creates the New Heaven and the New Earth. Technology is not the problem; sin is. To solve communication problems in social media, we must solve the sin problem with the gospel. 
2. Christians should not fear technology, but neither should they make it into an idol. Technology is good only insomuch as it fulfills the command to "fill the earth and subdue it" while at the same time keeps humans under the authority of God. If we try to challenge God's authority, then He may very well thwart our technological advances, as in Genesis 11. So, while we must beware of evil uses of technology which usurp God's authority, we also must not run from technology, lest we force God to scatter us where we are trying to remain in one place. 
3.  Churches should view technology as a chance to spread the gospel in fresh ways. Just as Gütenberg's printing press enabled the mass-production of the Scriptures, today's technology offers myriads of opportunities to get the gospel "out there". Specifically:

• There is little excuse for modern churches to not have a working website, even just a basic site which gives physical directions to the church and service times. The internet is where we get a large portion of the information we need - if churches don't put their information in the place where most people are going to look, it is small wonder if they aren't well-known. A working knowledge of Facebook gives you most everything you need to know to maintain a website powered by, for example, Wordpress. When I'm trying to find a church to go to in a new place, it's downright annoying if I can't find in on the web. 
• There is great value in Pastors starting blogs, or at least posting their weekly sermon audio/video. Abraham Piper has reflected on this in this article. My church's associate pastor does that very thing, posting thoughts based on his lessons at youth group on his own blog. I personally subscribe to many blogs of pastors, seminary teachers, and other ministry leaders which greatly enhance my own understanding of the Scriptures and current theological and social issues. 

Social media are simply that: mediums, ways of communicating. They are not messages - they are ways of communicating messages. How do we redeem technology? By conveying a good message. Paradoxically, it is for that reason that I don't value the use of video, powerpoint or clever illustration in sermons - they are means of communication as well, but I find them superfluous in helping me understand the words of Scripture through the words of a sermon. They don't help convey the message. If you can't explain what you mean in words, how is video going to help?

But that's another post altogether...

The Four Spiritual "Flaws"?

CAMPONTHIS: The Four Spiritual Laws? The gospel is not an offer, but a command and call to follow Jesus Christ as Lord

The Myth of "Free" Will

I started a forum thread explaining the philosophical and theological basis of my distaste for the term,"free-will". Hoping for many replies:

The Myth of "Free" Will - The Fighting Fundamental Forums