8 essential components for discerning God’s will

[Jim] This is NOT a 5 Ptr view

You really should know better.

You said: “This is what cracks me up about five point Calvinists. They stress God’s sovereignty so much that man is reduced to mere programmed creations that will always fulfill the Lord’s will - even if they don’t want to - and then they insist that those preprogrammed creations are guilty of making decisions that they insist cannot be made.”

Taken from http://sharperiron.org/comment/73084#comment-73084 :

Along the same lines, if we are talking about Reformed soteriology (instead of eschatology), the methodology is affected. As a 5 point Calvinist, I find myself frequently uncomfortable with the evangelistic approaches of my Arminian brothers who feel compelled to persuade others of their need for conversion…

Chip would know the five points much better than I would, and he’s the one that is saying “The only individual who actually has free will is God.” So while I will admit that maybe I misunderstand his position, I think it’s fair to say that is what he believes and that he is a five point Calvinist.
It’s been my experience that there is a significant amount of latitude between what each of the five points are between Calvinists, and that’s before you get into the common discussion about how many actual points there are - I’ve seen as high as seven (and I think, once, ten). And that’s before you get into defining what is meant by each point - Irresistable Grace, for example, can be defined two or three different ways.

[Larry]

Friesen calls the sovereign will of God everything that happens.

So you are disagreeing with that?

The key is Friesen, and I think most compatibalists, call everything that happens the will of God by definition and go so far as to say God chose all things to happen. This is different from the “freedom” side that says, while God allows all things that have happened, He didn’t chose all of them.

So what is the difference here?

What is the difference? The difference is did God decree from eternity that I would put the sock with hole in it on left foot today, or the right, or did He allow me the freedom to choose which foot.

I agree with God’s sovereignty because I believe in God and the Bible. I am not convinced as of yet that God decreed every single event in history. I think the Bible is clear some events He did decree, others He seems to allow freedom for us to choose and He makes it work out for His purposes.

If you want to tie this into physics (that is my day job if you don’t know), in quantum mechanics we have discovered that very small systems are not deterministic from our perspective, but rather probabilistic. That is to say, for example, that how long an electron in an atom stays in an excited state is UNKNOWABLE for us. All we can say is the probability of how long it will stay in an excited state. Some people reject this and say God pre-plans every roll of the dice (Prov 16:33), but I am not convinced that applying lot casting (which was a decision making tool) to general die casting (or other probablilistic systems) is valid. I wonder whether, by design, God allows freedom in certain things, and handles the situation at a higher level to make it all conform to His will, rather than predetermining every event of every particle in the universe. I don’t say that because I think He can’t control everything, I am just not convinced that He chooses to micro-manage everything. Of course He knows the outcome of every decision we make before we make it. I just am not convinced He decided them before hand for us.

I think that we would all agree that:

1. God knows all events that have and will take place before they occurred, and
2. In some events, God chose to intervene either by explicit action or through Providential working

Where there seems to be disagreement about how the dynamics work is in those situations where:

1. People make decisions that are in direct contradiction to God’s revealed moral will, or
2. People make decisions that in retrospect are proven to be unwise, or
3. Actions occur that seem completely insignificant in the scheme of the universe (e.g. whether you wore the hole-y sock on your right or left foot today)

Did God know these actions in advance and the consequences that would result and permit man to exercise “free will” and in His wisdom he works things together for His and our good? Or somehow does he take ultimate active responsibility for all actions that occur, be they good, evil, unwise, or somewhere in between?

Mark, as I think you have indicated, theologically it has to be the former. And like Tyler said, I don’t really know how it works and don’t think any us should claim to try to be able to understand and explain it in every aspect, but somehow God maintains His sovereign character and hold over the universe but at the same time I am personally accountable for the decisions I make.

So, at the end of the day, when it comes to making decisions, I can be sure of the following:

1. In every instance I am to seek to make the most informed decision I can that would glorify God and His kingdom
2. I don’t need to be afraid of always make the “100% right decision” because God in His sovereignty can take my stupidity, lack or foresight, lack of spirituality, poor advice, whatever, and work it out to His good and my benefit in ways and means that I could never have seen or expected
3. I should live in optimism about the future and not regret about the past

BTW, Mark I appreciate your honesty in sharing about your background and current thoughts. My current situation is not dissimilar to the description of yours and it’s been valuable reading the to and fro on this and thinking things through!

[Mark_Smith]

A. W. Pink. I have been reading his Iain Murray biography. Do you really think that God’s best plan for Pink was for him to spend 20 years on some little island of the coast of England, isolated from the world and the church. Now, God did use him to write some good books, but what was lost?

This was an excellent point Mark. D.M. Lloyd-Jones said that if he’d been like Pink in his presentation of Calvinism he would have done nothing. The problem which Lloyd-Jones saw (and to some extent Murray, but certainly R. Belcher saw), was that Pink couldn’t shut up about it. And he made it a point of contention and separation, and so self-exclusion. Pink’s own actions precipitated his ineffectiveness to a large extent. I know there is more to it, but that is a large part of it. Apropos, our wrong decisions CAN and DO impact our futures. Yet, they can be repented of and God can get things back on track.

I don’t want to enter into the compatiblist/determinist debate, but it often gets so attenuated that it raises more questions than answers. The fact is, God could have changed your direction despite your young decision. He didn’t, and you have distinguished yourself in another area of His Vineyard and have sought to glorify Him there. Where’s the fault?

Therefore, it’s not too late to enter the ministry. You don’t need Seminary. But you do need a clear indication from the Lord.

I wish you God’s clarifying wisdom!

Your brother,

Paul H

[Jim]

“This is what cracks me up about Chip. He stresses God’s sovereignty so much that man is reduced to mere programmed creations that will always fulfill the Lord’s will -… “

Possibly. I probably should have thought some more before I posted that, but I have to admit to a certain amount of admiration. Chip is not the first person that I’ve heard this from, in over fifteen years of hearing the debate off and on, but he is the first that I’m aware of to finally state bluntly where that position leads. I’ve gone round and round and round with guys, and they affirm every single point that Chip does in the way he does it, but then when you ask them a question that would indicate their determinism and they get squirrelly and insist that’s not what they meant. Or not what they said.
I mean, if that’s really what you believe, then at least have the candor and temerity to say what you believe and defend that. Don’t get measly mouthed about it. That’s why I make no bones that I’m an Arminan.

[Greg Long]

Steve Shank wrote:

The word sovereign is not used in the King James Version of the Bible, and when the concept is used, it is never used in the manner in which the extreme sovereignty view defines it.

The King James Version is not the final authority, but rather the original manuscripts. The fact that the author uses the KJV as the final authority discredits him.

No where did I say nor did I get any indication in his book that the author uses the KJV as the final authority. He’s just making a statement. He used a broad variety of Bible versions. I believe he was making his point for those “extreme sovereignty” [as he calls them] believers who might look to the KJV as an authority.
I personally do not like the KJV, but I would never say someone is discredited if they hold to it as the final authority.

What is the difference? The difference is did God decree from eternity that I would put the sock with hole in it on left foot today, or the right, or did He allow me the freedom to choose which foot.

Does he know which foot you will put it on before you actually put it on? Assuming you think he does (i.e., you are not an open theist), what’s the difference? You are going to put it where God knows you are going to put it, and you can’t change since God already infallibly knows. So there is no “real alternative” right? Do you really have “freedom”? (Used in quotes intentionally.)

How does your answer help anything? To say God didn’t decree it, but does infallibly know it ahead of time only moves the problem back one place. The outcome is still not in dispute even before it happens. You are bound by what God knows you will do. In other words, even if you are correct, you haven’t actually solved the purported problem because you don’t have the “freedom” to change your mind, right?

I think people end up trying to protect God and defend God from something he never felt compelled to defend himself from. I think we can affirm that God controls everything because God says so. And we can affirm that man is free to make choices for which he is responsible because God says so.

That’s why I make no bones that I’m an Arminan.

But yet, Jay, you deny where that “position leads” (to use your words). So why do you reserve for yourself the right to disavow other people’s assertions about where your position leads, but refuse that right to others?

[Greg Long]

Steve Shank wrote:

This view leaves people with a passive, “Que sera, sera; whatever will be, will be” attitude about life. This view in its extreme form tells us that all things are of God, so God is behind all things. However, if you see God behind all things, you then see God behind all evil. In effect, you are calling good evil; worse yet, you are calling God evil!

No, this view doesn’t. This is a misunderstanding and a mischaracterization of this view.

Help me understand how. I have experienced repeatedly people, when told about an evil, say, “Well, God is in control. This is what He must want.” Are they saying God wants evil?!?!?

If I do something bone-headed, does it matter between GOD ALLOWING ME to do something stupid and GOD MAKING ME do something stupid? It does to me.

Think of it, God decreeing someone to get in debt excessively, or pick a bad job, or moving to a city where things go bad, or getting into a car accident. I don’t think Scripture teaches that. I think Scripture teaches freedom in those issues and we can choose to make wise decisions or bad ones, but He doesn’t decree it. Now, He knows what we pick though from eternity past.

Maybe that makes no difference to you…but it makes a lot of difference to me.

[Michelle]

Greg Long wrote:

Steve Shank wrote:

This view leaves people with a passive, “Que sera, sera; whatever will be, will be” attitude about life. This view in its extreme form tells us that all things are of God, so God is behind all things. However, if you see God behind all things, you then see God behind all evil. In effect, you are calling good evil; worse yet, you are calling God evil!

No, this view doesn’t. This is a misunderstanding and a mischaracterization of this view.

Help me understand how. I have experienced repeatedly people, when told about an evil, say, “Well, God is in control. This is what He must want.” Are they saying God wants evil?!?!?

[Larry]

What is the difference? The difference is did God decree from eternity that I would put the sock with hole in it on left foot today, or the right, or did He allow me the freedom to choose which foot.

Does he know which foot you will put it on before you actually put it on? Assuming you think he does (i.e., you are not an open theist), what’s the difference? You are going to put it where God knows you are going to put it, and you can’t change since God already infallibly knows. So there is no “real alternative” right? Do you really have “freedom”? (Used in quotes intentionally.)

How does your answer help anything? To say God didn’t decree it, but does infallibly know it ahead of time only moves the problem back one place. The outcome is still not in dispute even before it happens. You are bound by what God knows you will do. In other words, even if you are correct, you haven’t actually solved the purported problem because you don’t have the “freedom” to change your mind, right?

I think people end up trying to protect God and defend God from something he never felt compelled to defend himself from. I think we can affirm that God controls everything because God says so. And we can affirm that man is free to make choices for which he is responsible because God says so.

[MDLeys]…somehow God maintains His sovereign character and hold over the universe but at the same time I am personally accountable for the decisions I make.

Every Calvinist that I know would affirm this statement! If anyone thinks otherwise, then they do not understand Calvinism.

God is sovereign over the good and the bad, and both serve his purpose. Man is responsible and will be judged for the evil he has done, even though that evil ultimately serves God’s purpose.

There’s no fatalism in Calvinism - God did not cause Joseph’s brothers to sell him into slavery, nor did he cause Potiphar’s wife to lust after Joseph and lie to her husband, nor did he cause the butler to forget Joseph once he was restored - all of those things came out of the wickedness of their own hearts. BUT, God used all of those unrelated events to bring Joseph to power in Egypt and to “save many people alive.” Gen.50:20

[Larry]

That’s why I make no bones that I’m an Arminan.

But yet, Jay, you deny where that “position leads” (to use your words). So why do you reserve for yourself the right to disavow other people’s assertions about where your position leads, but refuse that right to others?

Hi Larry-
I’m not following you on this. I can argue that man has free will and that God has a plan that He is carrying out and not drift into either Open Theism, where God is anxiously waiting to see what His creation will do, or Determinism, where man is following the ‘divine programming’ that exists within. Can you clarify?
I should say that I agree with the Society of Evangelical Arminians, not the traditional teachings of Arminianism (a denial of predestination, the ability to ‘fall away’ from salvation, etc).