Where the Truth Lies

Theology
1

Hey folks, in another thread, a debate popped up, as it does often, between differing views of the same topic. The Topic I would like to bring this topic over here. I will address the four differing views from there; however, please feel free to join in.

God, man, sin, the devil, and salvation. Where the truth lies. Overview.

(Mine Peter / Synergist) Prater15 (Belief Theodicy)TheologyNerd (Confessional Lutheran) Johann (Calvinism)

Human Ability? Grace enables the human will to yield (“Yes”) or resist (“No”). Believers act on beliefs; faith in God’s promises restores freedom. Unregenerate man is spiritually dead and hostile to God; 0% self-ability. How Faith Comes: Man responds to the Holy Spirit’s universal invitation/drawing. Man evaluates truth/lies and decides to trust God’s character. The Holy Spirit creates faith unilaterally through the Word/Gospel. God controls all and decides who is saved. View of God: Loving Father who offers genuine choice to all. Sovereign Creator who designed freedom for maximal reciprocal love.Revealed only in Christ on the Cross; terrifying apart from Christ. Totally in control of everything.

@TheologyNerd.

Your reminder that Lutheranism sits outside the typical Reformed vs. Arminian binary is a point that often gets lost in these debates, and it’s an important distinction to make.

Your breakdown of the Theologia Crucis (Theology of the Cross) versus the Theologia Gloriae (Theology of Glory) from the Heidelberg Disputation is spot on. Man cannot philosophize or reason his way to God through nature or the Law—apart from Christ, Sinai yields only terror and condemnation. Meeting God where He has revealed Himself, hidden in the foolishness and weakness of the Cross, is the central heart of the Gospel. On that foundational truth, we are in full agreement: salvation is 100% rooted in the unmerited grace of God through the finished work of Christ on Calvary.

Where my perspective lands slightly differently isn’t on the complete spiritual deadness of man apart from grace—we agree there—but on what happens at the moment the Holy Spirit introduces the Word.

When the light of the Cross is proclaimed, does the Holy Spirit’s drawing grace work monergistically to regenerate the heart without human choice, or does that initiating grace liberate the bound will just enough to bring a person to a genuine crossroads—giving them the capacity to either yield to the Spirit (“Yes”) or resist Him (“No”)?

Scripture clearly warns that people can and do actively resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51, Matthew 23:37). If resistance is a real human possibility when grace is offered, it seems to suggest that yielding—while adding zero merit to our salvation—is a real human response enabled by that very grace.

Either way, I deeply appreciate the care you took in laying out your post. Keeping our eyes fixed on the Crucified Christ as the sole source of our hope is something we can all hold fast to.

Continued..

2

To @TheologyNerd:
Your breakdown of the Theologia Crucis (Theology of the Cross) versus the Theologia Gloriae (Theology of Glory) from the Heidelberg Disputation is great. You’re entirely right to remind us that Lutheranism doesn’t fit neatly into the typical Reformed vs. Arminian binary. Man cannot reason or philosophize his way to God through nature or the Law—apart from Christ, Sinai yields only terror and condemnation. Meeting God where He has revealed Himself, hidden in the weakness and foolishness of the Cross (1 Cor 1:18–25), is the absolute heart of the Gospel. We are in complete agreement that salvation is 100% rooted in God’s initiating grace through the finished work of Christ on Calvary.

Where my perspective lands slightly differently isn’t on man’s natural inability apart from grace, but on what happens when the Word is proclaimed. When the Spirit brings the light of the Cross, does that grace act unilaterally, or does it liberate the bound will just enough to bring a person to a genuine crossroads—giving them the grace-enabled capacity to either yield (“Yes”) or resist (“No”, as in Acts 7:51)?

To @Prater15:
Your “Theodicy of Belief” offers a really fascinating angle on how our internal convictions drive our actions, especially looking back at Genesis 3. Satan’s strategy with Eve was directly targeting her trust in God’s word (“Did God really say?”), showing how disbelief leads directly to rebellion. Your thoughts on epistemic distance and why we won’t sin in Heaven also offer a great perspective—having seen the destructive fruit of disbelief on earth, faith becoming sight in God’s presence will make trusting Him so complete that sin simply loses all appeal.

What ties both of your posts together for me is the central place of trust/faith. Whether we emphasize the Holy Spirit creating that faith through the Word (@TheologyNerd) or the soul learning to trust God’s truth over the enemy’s lies (@Prater15), keeping our eyes fixed on the Crucified Christ remains the anchor for us all.

Continues.

3

Thank you for bringing those direct citations from Article II of the Formula of Concord into the thread @Johann!

Having the explicit confessional text right in front of us clears up a lot of clutter. You hit on the exact historical balance the Reformers were striving for: rejecting Stoic/Manichean fatalism and physical compulsion on one side, while firmly rejecting Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian self-merit on the other.

Where my own perspective lands slightly differently is on what happens at the moment that offered grace touches the human heart. While I agree that initial grace is 100% initiated by God through the Word, I see that grace as liberating the will just enough to give a person a real, grace-enabled choice to either yield to the Spirit or resist Him (Acts 7:51).

That said, your point remains vital: any view of salvation that takes the locus of saving power off the Cross and places it into human boasting is a departure from Scripture. Grounding everything in God’s initiating mercy is the standard we all need to hold to.

Appreciate the sharp eye for the text and the Greek blessing from Ephesians 4! Grace and Shalom to you and your family as well, brother.

Be blessed, guys!

Peter

1 Like
4

I hold to a Synergistic view of salvation. I believe man is spiritually dead apart from God, but when the Holy Spirit draws us through the Gospel, His grace frees our will so we can genuinely choose to either yield to Christ or resist Him. Four differing views, if you have a 5th or more, jump in. Lets discuss these things with love and respect, and perhapse find where the Truth lies.

@All, be blessed, be a blessing.

5

Peter, thank you for stating your position clearly and for the spirit of respectful discussion.

You affirm spiritual death yet hold that the Spirits drawing through the Gospel restores sufficient freedom for the will either to yield or to resist. That is classic synergism.

So I will set beside it the passages that speak most directly to the condition of the unregenerate will and to the nature of the new birth asking whether the syntax and morphology support a restored ability to choose prior to regeneration.

Ephesians 2:1 and 5

καὶ ὑμᾶς ὄντας νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν

καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ

The participle ὄντας is present and describes the continuing state of being dead. The finite verb συνεζωοποίησεν is aorist active indicative third singular God is the sole subject who made us alive. There is no intervening clause that grants the dead any capacity to respond before the making alive occurs. The aorist presents the act as decisive and complete.

John 6:44

οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν

δύναται is present middle indicative third singular of δύναμαι and with the negative οὐδεὶς states absolute inability. The conditional ἐὰν μὴ followed by the aorist active subjunctive ἑλκύσῃ makes the Fathers drawing the necessary and sufficient condition. The same structure appears in verse 65 with δεδομένον the perfect passive participle of δίδωμι underscoring that the ability itself is a granted gift.

John 1:13

οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν

The aorist passive ἐγεννήθησαν places the new birth entirely in the divine passive. The three preceding prepositional phrases with ἐκ explicitly exclude blood fleshly will and human will as originating causes.

Here the morphology leaves no room for a prior human decision that cooperates in the begetting.

Romans 8:7 to 8

διότι τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν τῷ γὰρ νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται οὐδὲ γὰρ δύναται

οἱ δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ὄντες θεῷ ἀρέσαι οὐ δύνανται

The present indicative δύναται again with the negative states incapacity. The participle ὄντες describes those who remain in the flesh. The inability is not merely moral reluctance but an ontological limitation that is removed only when one is no longer ἐν σαρκί.

1 Corinthians 2:14

ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστιν καὶ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι

δέχεται and δύναται are both present indicatives with negatives. The natural person neither receives nor is able to know the things of the Spirit. The text supplies no intermediate state in which the Spirit first liberates the will so that reception becomes possible before regeneration.

Titus 3:5

ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου

ἔσωσεν is aorist active God alone is the subject. The means are the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. No human yielding is named as a concurrent cause.

These passages consistently employ present tense statements of inability aorist verbs of divine action and passive constructions for the new birth.

None of them introduce a restored libertarian freedom that operates prior to or independently of the regenerating act itself. The morphology and syntax present the unregenerate will as remaining bound until God makes it alive.

That is why the Reformed tradition has judged the monergistic reading to be the more straightforward account of the grammar.

This discussion is about what the Scriptures themselves say rather than what they are made to say through a Reformed, Lutheran, or Arminian presuppositional lens.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate without fear of being met with biting, scorched, flaming heat.

J.

6

Please don’t take my silence as disinterest. It’s honestly theological and heuristic ignorance.

I can’t decide on how to articulate my thoughts on the topics at hand. I’m honestly truely ambivalent about free will, and election, at this point in MY walk ( 35+ years )

Regarding others? I tremble to make that judgement.

7

Thank you, Johann. Analyzing the Greek syntax and morphology elevates the discussion and keeps our focus where it belongs: on the text itself. I share your desire to let Scripture speak directly rather than forcing it through a confessional lens.

You’ve set out the classic Monergistic reading clearly: the unregenerate will is totally incapacitated, and God’s act of regeneration (συνεζωοποίησεν) is an unmediated, sovereign act that precedes any human response.

To offer the Synergistic counter-perspective in the same spirit, the core difference between our views does not require denying the present states of inability or the divine subject of the aorist verbs. Rather, it centers on how prevenient (preceding) grace operates in time and how the New Testament describes the function of the Gospel message itself.

Here is how a Synergistic reading accounts for the passages and syntax you raised:

The dynamic of draw (Ἑλκύσῃ) in John 6:44 & John 12:32: we grammatically agree that Δύναται with οὐδεὶς establishes absolute human inability apart from divine action. We completely agree: no one can come on their own initiative.

The Synergistic nuance: The debate is over the effect of ἑλκύσῃ (the Father’s drawing). Does the drawing irresistibly drag the sinner all the way into salvation, or does it liberate the bound will so that a genuine, responsible choice is enabled?

In John 12:32, Jesus uses the same verb (ἑλκύσω): “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (ἑλκύσω) all people to myself.” If ἑλκύω guarantees effect (effectual calling/regeneration), John 12:32 would imply universal salvation. If instead ἑλκύω refers to a real, enabling grace extended through the cross, then the drawing frees all who hear the Gospel to respond, while remaining resistible (as seen in Stephen’s charge in Acts 7:51: “You always resist the Holy Spirit”).

Ephesians 2 & Romans 8, we grammatically agree that in Ephesians 2:1–5, ὄντας νεκροὺς describes our true state apart from grace: spiritually dead. God is indeed the sole subject of συνεζωοποίησεν (made alive).

While there is no intervening clause in verses 1–5, the larger context of Paul’s theology emphasizes the Gospel as the power that alters this state. Romans 1:16 calls the Gospel the “power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.”

In the Synergistic framework, the Holy Spirit uses the proclamation of the Word to penetrate spiritual death, convicted hearts (Acts 2:37), and grant the temporary, gracious capacity to yield. The decision to yield is not a “meritorious cause” or a “work” of the flesh (ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς in John 1:13); it is simply the cessation of resistance to God’s unmerited gift.

The sequence of faith and regeneration: John 1:12–13. Syntax: You highlighted the divine passive ἐγεννήθησαν (were born) in v. 13, which rules out human initiative. But notice the syntax of verse 12 immediately preceding it:

“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God…”

(ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ)

The participle τοῖς πιστεύουσιν (those believing) and the aorist ἔλαβον (received) condition the granting of the authority (ἐξουσίαν) to become children of God. Synergism does not view faith as the originating cause of new birth (which is solely ἐκ θεοῦ), but as the God-given condition upon which He bestows regeneration.

The cognitive and spiritual inability: 1 Corinthians 2:14. The Natural Man (ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος): The ψυχικὸς person, left solely to human equipment, cannot understand spiritual truths. The Synergistic view holds that the preaching of the Cross, which the natural mind considers folly, is accompanied by the illuminating conviction of the Spirit. The Spirit bridges the ontological gap described in 1 Corinthians 2 before final regeneration, granting enough light for the individual to either embrace or suppress the truth (Romans 1:18–19).

Johann, your linguistic analysis forces us to confront the sheer gravity of divine grace. The core question for our ongoing discussion might come down to this: Does God’s grace liberate the human will so it can genuinely respond, or does grace bypass the human will to regenerate it before faith?

Looking forward to continuing to dig into the text with you!

Shalom,

Peter

8

Just curious, if you do not believe either, how do you see the election and or freewill? If you do not believe it is either or, what could it be? Just curious about your view.

Peter

9
Element Greek Construction Theological Force
Human inability οὐ δύναται + infinitive (John 3:3; 6:44; 1 Cor 2:14; Rom 8:7) Absolute inability to see, come, know, or submit
Divine condition ἐὰν μὴ + divine passive/aorist subjunctive (John 3:5; 6:44) Regeneration/drawing is the necessary prerequisite
Divine action Aorist active indicative with God as subject (Eph 2:5; Acts 16:14; 2 Cor 4:6) God alone makes alive, opens, and shines
Human response Present participle/infinitive following the divine act (Acts 16:14; 1 John 5:1) Faith and attention are the fruits of the Spirit’s prior work

And…

The grammar, as you can see, consistently places the sinner in the passive voice (or middle voice of self-willed refusal) with respect to regeneration, while God is the active agent. The heart must be quickened (Eph 2:5), opened (Acts 16:14), given a new nature (Ezek 36:26), drawn (John 6:44), and illumined (2 Cor 4:6) before any believing “response” is possible.

I did not one day “Decided to choose” Jesus as my Lord and Savior out of my own “freewill” speaking from experience Peter.

Shalom.

J.

10

When did you hear the Truth? Remember, my brother,

"“How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?”

The whole reason for the Great Commission,

“And how are they to preach unless they are sent?”

That is us. Jesus just sent us.

“As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’ But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” Romans 10:14-21

I grew up in a little Hamlet where my grandmother made me go to church every Sunday- Presbyterian, I think. Oh, I knew there was a God, Jesus, and was even in some of the Church plays. Still got pictures. But I had NO Idea what the truth really was. It was not until I was 21 that I started hearing about Salvation and Jesus’ sacrifice, atonement, Sin, and such. It was not until then that I accepted Jesus and became saved.

Was I looking for God? Nope. I was working in security. I had no real interest in growing in faith or the Word. Did God call me? Yup. In the middle of a Mall, at 2 am. It was at my next job, working for Chief Rowley, when a professional Boxer friend asked me about God and the Word. He came to my home, and we had a Bible study- and that is a whole other topic- and he got saved on the top of a mountain at like 4 am.

My point is, I was not looking; I do not know if Jimmy was, however, we both responded after HEARING the truth. Have I seen people reject it? Of course. Does that mean God does not want them saved? Of course not. They choose to reject it. Reject Him.

We fully agree on human inability apart from grace. A sinner in their natural state (ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος) cannot seek God or submit to Him (Romans 3:11, 8:7). Where we differ is not on man’s baseline helplessness, but on what happens when the Gospel is proclaimed. We believe the Holy Spirit attends the Word to temporarily liberate the listener’s will (prevenient grace), enabling an otherwise impossible response.

God is 100% the active agent who makes alive (συνεζωοποίησεν), opens hearts, and illumines minds. However, Scripture explicitly shows God’s enabling action extending to hearers who nevertheless resist. In Acts 7:51, the Holy Spirit is actively working on the hearers, yet Stephen says: "You always resist (ἀντιπίπτετε) the Holy Spirit."

If divine action always irresistibly causes regeneration, how can divine action be actively resisted?

You noted that human response follows the divine act, citing Acts 16:14 and 1 John 5:1. Let’s look closely at the Greek in both:

Acts 16:14 (Lydia):

"The Lord opened (διήνοιξεν, Aorist Active) her heart to pay attention (προσέχειν, Present Infinitive) to what was said by Paul."

Notice what God opened her heart to do: not to be instantly regenerated, but to pay attention / give heed (προσέχειν) to the preached Gospel. God’s initial action granted her the mental and spiritual capacity to listen and evaluate the truth, leading to her faith and baptism. This is the definition of prevenient grace: God opens the heart so that one can respond to the message.

"Everyone who believes (ὁ πιστεύων, Present Active Participle) that Jesus is the Christ has been born (γεγέννηται, Perfect Passive) of God and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him." 1 John 5:1

Monergists often argue that because γεγέννηται is Perfect Passive (“has been born”), regeneration must precede faith. However, Greek syntax experts note that a present participle paired with a perfect tense verb often describes a continuing characteristic of someone in that state, rather than establishing temporal priority.

Compare this to John 1:12: “To all who did receive him… he gave the right to become children of God.” Here, receiving/believing is the stated condition upon which the right to become God’s children is bestowed.

Like you, Johann, I don’t believe I “boast” in my choice or generated faith out of unassisted human free will. My will was completely bound until the Holy Spirit illuminated my heart through the Gospel and freed me to stop resisting Him.

The glory belongs entirely to God; our disagreement is simply over whether His grace irresistibly causes faith or graciously enables it.

Shalom to you as well, brother. Thank you for such an enriching discussion!

Peter

1 Like
11

I’m ambivalent. Don’t give the topic of free will or predestination much thought, unless or until a conversation such as this arises.

I really have no horse in this race.

I’ll say this; If the world’s most respected theologian came to me and said " I regret to inform you that your not one of the chosen, and your not destined for heaven " I’d tell him that’s a lie from the pit of hell, and go back where you came from.

1 Like
12

I might describe myself as a Molicalarminian.

Hopefully we can agree that our commitment to scripture doesn’t entail our commitment to Luther or Calvin, or Cephas, or Augustine, or Arminius and so on.

A theodicy is an attempt to bring clarity to the question of why God not only allows evil (temporarily), but actually set up a scenario wherein He knew that evil would come into existence.

So the proverbial Problem of Evil (PoE) issue questions how God could be acknowledged as the efficient cause of the scenario and the context for the scenario that resulted in the existence of evil, without being the direct efficient cause of the evil. I believe that the Theodicy of Belief answers that question.

More importantly, I believe the Theodicy of Belief can equip believers to more effectively and successfully navigate the evil that plagues our lives.

However, it isn’t intended to be a fully fledged comprehensive theological framework, or “denomination”.

I understand that some components of it would be anathema to some denominational traditions. So a believer would have to evaluate its merit scripturally. And it might be true that this additional understanding might sway our ecclesiastical commitments. But that’s not its’ primary purpose.

13

I think it deeply important to understand the difference between the Lutheran and Reformed positions, not just because it clarifies things; but because those differences actually reach down into the root-systems of each tradition.

Now, I am about to make my Lutheran bias incredibly obvious, and so I am sure there are Reformed Christians who will take issue with some of the ideas and thoughts I’m going to express here. But I think it is important to express the Lutheran “heart” on these matters.

The heart of Luther’s theological impulse is pastoral. Luther was not doing “systematic theology” so much as he was doing pastoral theology. Luther’s chief concern was how the Gospel comforts the ordinary Christian who, having grown up in late-medieval Catholicism had essentially heard a life-long message of Christ the Judge, who will cast the unworthy into eternal hellfire. Luther himself was exactly that Christian. The young Martin entered law school because his father, Hans, desired his son to get a law degree and succeed materially–but the young Martin threw that away when one day when he was caught in a thunderstorm he, terrified for his life, vowed to St. Ann that if God would spare his life he would become a monk. A promise he kept when he joined the Augustinian Order. And it was as a monk that he met Fr. Johann Staupitz, a man who radically changed the direction of Martin Luther’s life by consistently pointing the young monk to Christ. To find the God of mercy in Jesus Christ. It was Staupitz who recommended Brother Martin to study and teach theology–and thus sent Martin to Wittenberg. It was there that Martin learned the Scriptures, and it was there that the young Martin would encounter St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: “By [the Gospel] the justice of God is revealed from faith to faith, so that as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith’” Not the justice of God by which He condemns and judges, but the justice by which He justifies.

Luther had known God as terrible, terrifying. And knew himself only as a damnable sinner. It was here, in the Jesus who is crucified, that the Augustinian monk would encounter mercy, not terror.

And from the outset, from the 95 Theses in which he sought to argue that the sales of indulgences was an afront to the Church, and to the Pope; to the Heidelberg Disputations, to the Large and Small Catechisms, Luther’s concern was continually about the people in his parish, in his town, the Christians of Saxony, all the Christians in the Holy Roman Empire, and the world over. The Christian should be comforted by the sweet fragrance of the Gospel. The sinner should hear the Gospel and meet the God of love and mercy who descends into the misery and shame of death on the cross. For Christ has borne upon Himself the full weight of sin from Adam until now, making satisfaction where we could not; in order that on the Cross Christ should offer His life as a ransom unto death; in order that we who deserve death and hell should be made alive with Him in His resurrection.

For Luther, predestination is not about God picking who is saved. Predestination is the compassionate and merciful Father of Jesus Christ choosing us in Christ. That is why the Lutheran Confessions explicitly reject a predestination of the damned, of God saying “I choose you, I choose you, I don’t choose you”; predestination and election are not doctrines of condemnation and law, but doctrines of grace: It is so the Christian, baptized, might believe and have confidence in the Jesus who died for him. For you. For me. For us.

14

Amen! Thank you for your honesty.

Be blessed

Peter

15

"For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow.

So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building." 1 Corinthians 3:4-9

Amen!

So I believe you see Calvinism accepts that God ultimately ordains all events, including fall/evil, for His ultimate glory, though He is not the moral author of sin. While Arminianism preserves God’s character by attributing evil entirely to human abuse of free will, placing God’s setup as a risk inherent to giving genuine freedom.

Molinism posits that God knew precisely which evil actions every free creature would commit in every potential scenario, yet chose to actualize this specific world anyway because it achieves a greater good or maximizes saved souls (“Optimal World”?

The only problem I see is this. If God intentionally selected a world where He knew with 100% certainty that specific evil acts would occur when He could have actualized a world without them, critics argue that God remains the ultimate responsible party for bringing that specific evil into existence.

Be blessed, be a blessing

Peter

Peter

16

Thank you for your Honesty. So, Lutheranism looks for God exclusively where He has revealed Himself in weakness and lowliness: the incarnate, crucified Jesus, and the tangible means of grace (Water in Baptism, Bread and Wine in the Lord’s Supper, the spoken Word of Absolution).

Predestination is strictly an evangelical (Gospel) doctrine meant to offer absolute assurance. God unconditionally elects believers in Christ before the foundation of the world (single predestination). However, Lutheranism explicitly rejects the logical symmetry that God decrees anyone to damnation (reprobation).

When someone is saved, it is 100% God’s grace; when someone is lost, it is 100% human resistance to grace. Lutheranism willingly accepts this logical paradox to preserve both divine grace and human responsibility.

Historical Reformed theology (particularly classical High Calvinism) embraces double predestination as a matter of logical and scriptural consistency: if God unconditionally elects some to salvation out of His sovereign grace, He has sovereignly passed over or decreed the damnation of the rest (reprobation) for the display of His justice.

So let me ask you this, if you do not mind. You reject the idea that humans have the free will to cooperate with, choose, or accept God’s call to salvation on their own. Yet, you deny that God creates anyone for damnation, even though it rejects human free will to choose salvation?

Do you believe, as I believe @Johann, that fallen human beings possess free will in mundane, earthly matters (choosing what to eat, what career to pursue, or obeying civil laws)? However, in spiritual matters, specifically the ability to turn to God, accept the Gospel, or initiate faith, the human will is entirely dead and bound by sin.

This means faith is not a decision a human makes to accept a gift; faith is entirely a work of the Holy Spirit. The problem I see is this. A person cannot choose to accept God’s call. When someone hears the Gospel and believes, it is because God’s grace unilaterally created that faith in them (100% God’s grace). While a human cannot choose to accept grace, a human can actively resist, reject, and shut out that grace (100% human responsibility). If God chooses who is saved (100% Grace), and humans cannot choose God on their own, then by not choosing everyone, God is functionally choosing to let the rest go to hell, or creating them for damnation.

So? If you are saved, praise God:100% election, grace, and divine initiative. If you are lost, blame yourself: 100% human resistance and stubbornness. But how could you reject it if you do not have the free will to choose?

Not attacking you @TheologyNerd. Just searching for the Truth.

Be blessed.

Peter

17

Thanks @PeterC you bring up some great points.

First, about God’s responsibility for sin. An attribution of responsibility to God for sin requires a truncated, or deficient view of free will. Either created persons have the capacity of morally significant decisions, or they don’t. If they do, it’s labeled second-order causation, and God is in no-wise responsible. We get into those weeds if you like.

But the second thing shares the same weed patch, so we’ll go on to that, if you please.

Could God have created a better world? Leibniz said “no”. I listened to Plantinga speak on the subject yesterday, offering observations like, God could have added on more butterfly, and made a better world. Or prevented one more robbery.

His point being that you can always add one more to the set of natural numbers, out to infinity. So it maybe true that there is no “best possible world”, or it may be true that an infinite number of worlds would be tied for the title.

I think it’s a lot simpler than that. I think that God would create the best possible world, for His purposes.

Best possible sun, moon, and stars, best possible animals, best possible angels, and best possible humans.

What is God accomplishing?

Shared weeds - specific evils. God created human persons for eternal fellowship with Him, and all that that entails. Two arms, two legs, rational mind, eternal soul. He could have created human persons differently, and cut back substantially on the amount of evil in the world. Just make us dumber, or ease up on the sex drive, or leave out the pride entirely. The list goes on.

But God has “best possible” eternal relationship with “best possible” persons in mind.

We are horrified at gang rape or child torture. If God ruled those out by determined fiat, we’d be horrified at tax evasion and snobby mothers-in-law.

We are horrified by tsunamis and volcanoes. If God made a safer world, we’d be horrified by tooth decay and burnt toast.

So, in theodical pursuit, our challenge is to find God’s purpose. And nothing ad hoc. Real, verifiable purpose. We might agree that God is justified to allow evil in fact, and specific evils as well, if He has a greater purpose. The greater purpose(s) should be discernible by direct scriptural justification, or by comprehensive scriptural principle.

And I think we have that. It’s an incommensurable good to know God in fullness. It’s an incommensurable good to be loved by God. It’s an incommensurable good for God to destroy evil forever.

These are things that Jesus knows. And these are things that Jesus believed when faced with a choice - take His cup, or not.

So, one thing I’ll mention that I don’t think gets noticed enough. God doesn’t want us to barely squeak into heaven, smelling like smoke. He created us with a strong desire for greatness, and then He gives us the opportunity to achieve greatness.

Achieving greatness requires an evil, extremely difficult context. We remember that Job is described as the “greatest man in the east”. Satan challenged God - “change his context, and he will curse you.” Nowadays, Job has an eternal reputation. So does his wife.

Our good God would allow evils to occur in order to challenge us on every level, and thereby prove what sort of person we will choose to be. There are eternal consequences to our choices.

He doesn’t miss a tear, or a sigh, or steely eye. He gives us the chance to show what we are made of.

Hopefully I’ve made some sense - I feel like I’m in “ramble on” mode.

1 Like
18

I have spent some time over the decades pondering election when it comes up. I suppose it’s interesting to speculate on the Will of The Creator when establishing all that exists.

But I can’t help to ponder the fact that our Good Lord also created time and space, and is independent of the " rules " He established. As such, chronology of events takes on a much different meaning to. It really becomes irrelevant.

And confirms for me, it’s just idle curiosity that compels the question.

Regardless if I have free will, no free will, or the illusion of free will, my actions are not motivated by any of those options.

1 Like
19

Before I get started Bro Pater15 said:

While I have a distaste for consulting the great multifaced AI-idol, especially in any search for truth, I did ask that serpentine electronic-deity what “Molicalarminian” was. It didn’t know, but now I think I get the joke. I’m slow.

I also like @Pater15’s definition of “theodicy”, almost as much as the linguistic definition, “Divine Justice” (theo=god, dike=Justice).

I was thinking once-again, of attempting to share my personal viewpoint on these difficult subjects, but upon reflection, I doubt it would be fruitful, or edifying. Nothing you all haven’t heard ad nauseum. Instead, I’d like to remind my readers of some less frequently discussed ideas about “Where The Truth lies”. (The irony of that phrase makes me giggle like a school girl. The phrase segment “Truth Lies” has a delicious irony available only in English. How can Truth Lie?)

First, and definitely foremost, The Truth is more than just an understanding of facts, or even a rejection of error. The Truth is a person (Jn 14:6). Because one person claims to be “The Truth”, if He is correct, I surmise any factual understanding must originate with Him. I believe Jesus-God-Savior is The Truth and that any understanding of reality originates and culminates in Him. I doubt few, if any reading this disagree. This means to me that there is no efficient pursuit of truth that avoids an active pursuit of Him, personally and relationally. Where scientific endeavor pursues truth, but insists on rejecting the source of Truth, it almost surely will derail any hope of arrival at an accurate understanding. (Please don’t hyperbolize what I’m saying and accuse me of suggesting science collectively knows no truth. I’m NOT! Obviously.)

Secondly, The Truth (Jesus) is recorded as saying many things that are easily misunderstood, and often were (and still are). The ability to both hear, and perceive The Truth surely resides in His willingness to open “heal” spiritually deaf ears, and enliven spiritually dead eyes. This Spiritual reality was elucidated and demonstrated throughout the New Testament through marvelous signs and wonders. Still, many deaf were not healed and many blind did not receive their sight. Some were not healed who definitely did have faith, such as John the Baptist, whose detached head rolled off the chopping block, while others of no apparent faith were healed like the servant of the high priest whose bloody ear slid down Peter’s sword. The process of sign-healing often seemed transactional; the gift of healing offered requiring a demonstration of faith to receive it. But almost as often the process was not transactional; terminally ill were healed from afar, and dead persons were raised back to life both of which had no ability to enter into any kind of a transaction. These testimonies are without controversy, and these realities must not be forgotten or marginalized.

Thirdly, the pursuit of Truth is never described as advancement in knowledge, or an apprehension of information; obtaining truth is not the special privilege of the illuminati, the highly educated, or the sophisticated. It is not even the possession of those who have learned to use the best search engines, or have the largest libraries. The New Testament seems crystal clear that Truth is dispensed through the “least of these”, the weak, the humble, the abused, the meek, the hungry, the peacemakers. It would be much easier to build a case that intellect and education do not aid a person in their pursuit of The Truth than to build a case from The New Testament that either are necessary or even aids to the noble quest. The trajectory of a person newly born from above seems to be toward obscurity, “death to self”, and becoming a “servant of all”. The person growing in The Truth is diminishing in the World’s elevation, the person who is a disciple of The Truth is becoming like The Wisdom from Above who is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. (James 3:17-18) This apparent lowering trajectory is a design feature so we don’t miss The Truth; humility is the essential environment for the disciple so that “no flesh should glory in His presence” but he who glories, glories ONLY in the LORD." This reality is also without controversy.

“Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. … Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence.” 1 Corinthians 1:18-31)

Our noble pursuit of The Truth will release us from our hard-earned skills and our prideful self-elevation, and drive us down, to our knees, as pitiful needy children who look to our Father for every breath. The Truth has told us this many times in many ways. This is an uncomfortable reality. Giving up self is a difficult and unpleasant endeavor, a rending of all we hold dear. Counting all our accomplishments as rubbish is scary. Resignation feels like vulnerability, yielding like giving-up, and bearing the martyrs cross feels like a waste of my god-given talents. I know. Still, we’re traveling this narrow road together. I’m glad you are all here with me.

Humbly
KP

20

KP, I agree that humility is indispensable to the pursuit of Truth. Scripture repeatedly warns against pride, self-exaltation, and trusting in human wisdom. But I think you have made a false dichotomy by setting humility against the pursuit of knowledge, understanding, education, and intellectual investigation. Scripture does not do that.

In fact, Scripture repeatedly commands us to pursue knowledge and understanding. “Get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding” (Prov 4:7). Proverbs does not tell us that the pursuit of understanding is a worldly distraction. It commands us to pursue it.

The same book repeatedly tells us to seek knowledge. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov 1:7). “Incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding… If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God” (Prov 2:2, 4-5). Notice the language: incline, apply, seek, search. That sounds remarkably like intellectual pursuit.

And Scripture actually connects the pursuit of knowledge with knowing God. “For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding” (Prov 2:6). Hosea says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hos 4:6). Ignorance is not presented as a virtue.

The New Testament continues the same pattern. Paul prays that believers would “abound more and more in knowledge and in all judgment” (Phil 1:9). He does not pray that they would become less intellectual. He prays for increased knowledge accompanied by discernment.

Paul also tells Timothy, “Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things” (2 Tim 2:7). That is particularly interesting because Timothy is being told both to think about what Paul says and to depend upon God for understanding. Those are not competing activities.

The Bereans provide perhaps the clearest example. When Paul preached to them, they did not simply accept his authority. “They received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). Luke calls this noble. They listened, investigated, compared the teaching with Scripture, and reached a conclusion. That is not intellectual arrogance. It is intellectual responsibility.

Paul likewise tells the Thessalonians, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess 5:21). John says, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1). Christianity is therefore not presented as intellectual passivity. We are commanded to test, examine, discern, and distinguish.

Jesus Himself asked questions, reasoned from Scripture, challenged faulty interpretations, and repeatedly said, “Have ye not read?” (Matt 12:3, 5; 19:4; 21:16; 22:31). When answering the Sadducees, He said, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” (Matt 22:29). Notice the problem: they lacked knowledge and understanding.

And Luke deliberately presents Jesus at twelve years old as one who was “sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions,” with those who heard Him “astonished at his understanding and answers” (Luke 2:46-47). Intellectual engagement is not presented as contrary to godliness.

Even the Great Commandment includes the intellect: “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matt 22:37). Mark’s parallel says “with all thy heart, and with all the soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength” (Mark 12:30). The Christian is not called to abandon the mind but to love God with it.

Paul makes the same point when he says, “Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom 12:2). A renewed mind is not an irrelevant accessory to discipleship. It is part of Christian transformation.

So I think the biblical distinction is not between humility and intellect. It is between humble pursuit of truth and proud confidence in one’s own wisdom.

Paul can say, “Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth” (1 Cor 8:1), but notice that he does not conclude, “Therefore do not pursue knowledge.” In the very same passage he says, “if any man love God, the same is known of him” (1 Cor 8:3). The problem is not knowledge itself but knowledge detached from love and humility.

And Scripture actually gives us an even stronger warning against refusing to think. “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hos 4:6). “The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going” (Prov 14:15). “The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge” (Prov 18:15).

That last verse is difficult to reconcile with the idea that intellectual pursuit does not aid the pursuit of Truth. The wise person is specifically described as one whose heart gets knowledge and whose ear seeks knowledge.

Therefore, I completely agree that no amount of education makes a person spiritually superior, and no amount of intellectual ability substitutes for humility, obedience, or the work of God. But that is very different from saying that intellect and education do not aid the pursuit of Truth.

Scripture gives us something more balanced: humility without ignorance, knowledge without pride, wisdom without self-exaltation, discernment without arrogance, and intellectual investigation under the authority of God and His Word.

My 2 cents here…

J.