Yikes. Just read the following in someone's comment thread:
What I choose to do is not in God's sovereign hand, it's in my sovereign hand . . . He's the ultimate risk-taker.
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/jared/bloo.trackback.php/531.
Bleaugh . . .
I think whoever wrote that is mistaken
Isn't this also Open Theism?
couldn't god and the individual both be sovereign, along the lines of the federal government and native american tribes? In the quote you give, it is not stated that God is not sovereign (in fact his hand is described as sovereign).
jez -- no, the individual and God cannot be both sovereign. Just simple logic: two opposite things cannot be true in the same sense at the same time. 2+2 cannot equal both 4 and 5 under the same conditions. Either God is sovereign or not. Can't be both. If man is sovereign in any sense, God is not. I think too many people mistake freedom within a given scope as some kind of sovereignty.
The quote Jared pulled is simple idolatry – the poster put himself/herself in place of God. As Jared pointed out, that’s the catch with any theology that focuses on “free will”.
I don't care much for either view. God is much to BIG to fit into anyone's view. If He wanted us to be able to totally figure out all of His power He could easily have done so.
My husband and I have GREAT times discussing this very topic. It will wind you down many interesting roads, but it all comes back to God just not letting us in on everything He knows.
My sad, pathetic little belief is that at some point something works 'backwards'. But, I have a migraine today, and if I think too deeply, I'll throw up.
Jez, what pt said.
To be fair to most free-willers, many of my friends included, what this guy said would sound objectionable to them as well. It is possible, I guess, to hold a view of free-will which maintains a biblical tension with God's sovereignty. A paradox, of sorts.
Of course, I don't agree with that myself, as I think the Bible teaches the bondage of the will (before freedom in Christ). But I think this guy's comment is more Open Theism than it is Free Will Theism -- that is, most free-willers would consider his statement borderline heretical.
but there are multiple sovereigns within earthly politics, the relationship between native americans and the federal government being one example.
Anyway, one need not be soveriegn in order to be free. I'm free, and I'm not a sovereign power in my country.
Jez, we are dealing with a theological category here, one with biblical constraints. Your Native American/U.S. Govt. analogy is insufficient to deal with it. Just as one example of its deficiency, the federal government is not omniscient. It's just not the same. We're talking spirituality and God's sovereignty over the universe; not politics.
I don't mean to be rude, but perhaps this is a category for which your sense of obligation to challenge/critique nearly everything Bill or I post is insufficient. You're welcome to discuss this subject, but as it is a biblical one, you should bring biblical examples. Analogies are fine, provided they reflect an understanding of the Bible's teaching on the thing being compared. C.S. Lewis has a famous compatibilist analogy about how scientists know that light is both a particle and a wave but don't know how that is possible (paralleling the mysterious tension between predestination and free-will), but Lewis had a basic grasp of the Bible's teaching on the matter and a familiarity with the relevant texts.
Perhaps now isn't the time to jump in and agree with the quote, but I will anyway. :-)
Goid's soverignty does not need to elipse our own. What we have soverignty over and what God does are vastly differnt things. God could manipulate each situation to suit his will, but I think that he choiooses not to. Not becasue of a limitation but a choice. To say that God will force our hand to his will(as one of the other commenters did) does not match up His pattern of behavior in the scriptures.
I did a study on the a while back titled "Is God in Control?". Many people in my churhc had used the line 'Well, God's in control,' repeatedly whenever something bad happened, to the point of dismissing any responsibility or sin they had in it. In some cases it would be told to someone who had been hurt by another rather than dealing with the one who caused the hurt. It's slightly different situation, but the study helped me a lot with the ballance of God's soverignty and will and my own feed will. It's on my weblog, here.
Goid's soverignty does not need to elipse our own.
God's sovereignty does need to eclipse our own. If not, then God is not sovereign.
Though I am not from the Reformed tradition, I side with the Westminster Catechism on this one, that God is the first-cause but not such that he is the author of sin. At the same time, though, God is indeed Lord of our failings -- he anticipates our sin, uses it, and it is well within his plan for mankind.
However faulty someone in your church's application of such belief was does not diminish the Bible's teaching on the matter. I'm not saying that what I say goes; I'm just saying that people have often believed true things badly. It doesn't make the thing less true.
And I am not obliged to determine biblical truth based on what makes me most comfortable or what disturbs my precious notion of my own freedom. I'm obliged to believe what the Bible teaches regardless of how it strikes me emotionally (or even in some cases logically).
The Bible, from my perspective, leaves no room for the sovereignty of man (as it is being discussed here).
I agree with you that God does not "force" man; but I disagree that man can freely choose God without his will being set free to have that desire.
If you disagree with that, the impetus is on you to demonstrate -- from the Bible -- the freedom of sinful man's will. Not the presence of the will, for people of my theological persuasion do not doubt the reality of the will or the substance of man's choices. But the real freedom -- the freedom of a person to choose Christ prior to Christ first choosing them.
And besides--and I could be wrong--I'm not aware of anything in the Bible that suggests we have any sovereignty of our own.
Manders, ditto. About the closest thing I can think of is man receiving dominion over the earth (to "subdue" it), but that's really a whole different ballgame.
The idea of man's sovereignty is not only erroneous, it seems to me a great offense to God.
I for one, by the way, thank God He's in control. I don't want control of my life; I'd muck it up too badly.
jared, is the word "sovereign" misused when it is applied to anybody but god?
what is it about the fed's limited knowledge which allows native americans to be "sovereign," if that word can be applied here at all.
not challenging you man, just trying to understand sovereignty, and i'm doing that by comparing it to the political notion which i have more of a handle on. Is the defining thing about god's sovereignty that fact that it is over the entire universe?
is the word "sovereign" misused when it is applied to anybody but god?
No, but God's who we're talking about, so the category is necessarily theological/biblical.
Is the defining thing about god's sovereignty that fact that it is over the entire universe?
Basically, yes.
It is not just "being in charge" or "being the ultimate authority" or being the giver and maker of the rules.
From the Christian perspective, God's sovereignty is understood by taking the things the Bible tells us about God's nature and character, and following the evidence from there.
When the Bible says, for instance, that man plans his days but God charts his steps, that is a good text to apply to our understanding of God's sovereignty.
It's not that we can't speak of sovereignty in terms of government or self-rule or whatever; it's just that we aren't (or that I'm not, in this particular post/thread). The category is different, the defintions are different, and the reference points for our understanding are different.
I, for one, am glad that God has absolutely no concern for my free will or sovereignty, because until he violated it (Calvin (?) called this the "divine r4pe of the soul"), there's no chance my free will would choose Him.
God is pretty straightforward in the Bible that HE sets the flow of history. I freely make decisions, which are always in line with His preordained flow of events.
If we are all free and sovereign, then God is simply not in control of the universe. _Nobody_ is in control of the universe. Not much of a God if you ask me.
For definition's sake, which of these is true?: To be sovereign means to have absolute control over everything that happens, or, to be sovereign means to have and to exercise absolute control over everything that happens. Or is there no difference between the two?
Interesting thread, I’m glad you got it going (yes, I mean that :-) ). There’s a lot to respond to and a lot on my mind, bear with me if I don’t get it all down perfectly.
Perhaps we aren’t as far apart here as it would seem (Perhaps we are, we’ll see! :-) ). In definition of sovereign you’re using (absolute dominion and control over everything, no one over Him), I agree that God, and only God, is sovereign. We cannot create life, stop our heart or determine who belongs in Heaven or Hell. They are not our dominion, they’re God’s. However, I was not referring to absolute sovereignty but some level of sovereignty. Perhaps if I had said God's sovereignty over everything does not mean we have sovereignty over nothing. it would have been clearer. I see in the Bible this at work. Man has control over his decisions. He can choose evil or good, it’s in his control or ‘sovereignty’. Over and over again throughout the Bible men choose their own path and we do not see God forcing their hands. God can be very, very persuasive in His calling (ask Jonah, Moses, Gideon, Saul/Paul, etc.), but he does not, and has not, controlled man’s choice. That’s just not how he operates. Now because He has ultimate control and sovereignty, that means any ‘sovereignty’ we have is at His bidding. In other words, at any time he could take away our free will and supplant it with His own. But He does not change and therefore, I believe, will not do that. Man is free to seek God or not, to sin or be righteous, to do good or evil, and God will not stop him, unless asked to intervene.
Now self ‘sovereignty’ does not equal power. Plainly said, we are not strong enough to resist the power of evil. Evil tempts us and we buckle under, perhaps not every time, but certainly many if not most times. It’s only because of God’s mercy in sending us Jesus that we have a chance against evil. He knew that we cannot adequately resist evil, He made us like this! But He did not make us to live in the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve made a poor choice and now we must live in an environment we are not designed for. We now know it, but aren’t prepared to adequately deal with it. But rather than give up on us, God sends us a savior. He doesn’t way (as we night), “You’ve made your bed, now lie in it.”, He sends us a scapegoat. It’s up to us to recognize our need and call on Him to save us. So in a way it is as you say, God (through Christ) has chosen us first. Not individually or specifically, but in the general sense that He has chosen everyone. But it’s up to the individual to acknowledge it and to choose to respond.
So yes, God ultimately is in control. Without His action in love to send Jesus first, we’d be lost in our choices. I appreciate you pointing that out. But He has chosen to stand back and watch us choose – until we call on Him. Then He responds, and responds dramatically. Look at Isaiah 37 and the response of God to a simple prayer of Hezekiah. A kind is routed in humility and 185,000 men are killed. The passage clearly says that it was man’s action (prayer) that moved God to act, not God’s own initiative. Look as well at Psalm 18 for God’s reaction to our calling on Him. It is my opinion that God is content to watch until we call on Him, and then watch out!
Robert, You say God is pretty straightforward in the Bible that HE sets the flow of history. I freely make decisions, which are always in line with His preordained flow of events.. How can we have any free will if everything we do is within God’s ‘preordained flow of events’? Do you mean to say that everything that happens is something that god wants to happen? If that’s the case, then how can there be sin? If I lie, well, God wanted it to happen so it must be OK. Perhaps that’s taking you out of context. I think that the truth is that God has created us, and the universe, to behave a certain way. In that way everything is in line with how He wants it, but He does not dictate the course of history. He did not put Hitler in place to kill millions. He did not send places into the WTC. He could foresee them coming because He knows our weaknesses, and us, but He did not ordain them.
Whew. Next. :-)
Sheesh, I used MS Word and spell check this time and it's still riddled with errors. Oh well, you should get my point. :P
God can be very, very persuasive in His calling (ask Jonah, Moses, Gideon, Saul/Paul, etc.), but he does not, and has not, controlled man’s choice. That’s just not how he operates.
Obviously, I disagree.
And I look at those heroes of the faith you've cited and see in every one of their stories God violating their will and freedom. Heck, Paul wasn't looking for God at all! And God not only showed up and commanded him to follow, he blinded the poor guy. Not very hands-off gentlemanly, if you ask me.
Man is free to seek God or not, to sin or be righteous, to do good or evil, and God will not stop him, unless asked to intervene.
I see basically no evidence in the Bible for this. And I've looked. I was a free-willer six or seven years ago fighting with all my intellectual might against the pull of Calvinism, and the more I prooftexted and looked for supports for the position of my youth, the fewer I found and the thinner I found them.
Every time the Bible speaks to the quality of the will of an unsaved person, it speaks to its inability, its bondage, its death. The Bible flat out says we cannot choose God apart from him choosing us first.
Not individually or specifically, but in the general sense that He has chosen everyone.
Not all are saved. "All are called, few are chosen." Have you read Romans lately? You might also take a gander at my paper on Individual Election in Romans (available via my Writings link in the upper left navbar). The weight of biblical evidence is on individual election.
But He has chosen to stand back and watch us choose – until we call on Him.
This sentiment used to appeal to me.
Now it practically offends me. My God is not at my beckon call. My God does not need me to "free him" to move. My God does whatever He wants, whenever He wants, to whomever He wants. The God that needs man to tell Him what to do is a rather pathetic god, in my opinion.
As far as prayer "moving" God:
I believe prayer is effectual. But I also believe our prayer is predestined.
Do you believe God knows what will happen tomorrow? If so, how can it be any different? Say God knows your goldfish will die tomorrow, but that you have been praying all day today that your goldfish will live. Will your prayer change what God knows about tomorrow?
How can we have any free will if everything we do is within God’s ‘preordained flow of events’?
Um, we can't. That's the whole point.
If you are starting with the a priori assumption that the libertarian notion of free will is true, you have to toss out all kinds of ideas about God's sovereignty, much of what the Bible teaches on the subject. You have, in effect, made a man's notion on something which the Bible says next to nothing about (free will) superior to the Word's extensive teaching on God's sovereignty. All because we cherish our freedom. All because it bothers us for some reason that we wouldn't be in control. Because it makes us uncomfortable or violates our own ideas about what "God is love" means or some such thing.
But we are not in the position to decide that what is most comfortable or pleasing to us is theologically correct.
Do you mean to say that everything that happens is something that god wants to happen?
In a very real sense, yes. Man's sin is man's own. God is not the author of it, nor is he responsible for it. But everything that comes to pass comes to pass because God allows it. And even evil and sin fall within God's sovereign will; he uses our sin and our failings to his glory just as he uses our faith and our victory.
He did not put Hitler in place to kill millions. He did not send places into the WTC. He could foresee them coming because He knows our weaknesses, and us, but He did not ordain them.
Again, God is not the author of sin.
Yet did God not harden Pharaoh's heart? Did God not send his own Son to die?
None of the things you've cited occurred outside of God's control. God did not leave the building on 9/11.
Whatever evil happens, God is there and will ultimately use it in this Story he is telling in the lives of His children.
There's not been enough Bible in this convo, I don't think. It's all well and good to say God wouldn't violate our free will, but unless you can point to a biblical teaching that demonstrates such a thing, it's all just feel-good rhetoric.
Here are some texts I believe support the Reformed understanding of man's "un-free will" and God's choosing us before we can be able to choose Him (and even a few extras that speak to other subjects touched on -- eg. where sin falls in God's control of events, etc) . . .
-- Prov. 16:4 "The LORD works out everything for his own ends -- even the wicked for a day of disaster."
-- Jer. 13:23 "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil."
-- Matt. 11:27 "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
-- Matt. 22:14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen."
-- John 1:12-13 "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God -- children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."
-- John 6:35-40,44,65 "The Jesus declared, 'I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day ... No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day' . . . He went on to say, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him'."
-- John 8:34 "Jesus replied, 'I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin'."
-- John 15:16 "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit -- fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name."
-- Acts 13:48 "When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed."
-- Acts 16:14 "One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message."
*** -- 1 Cor. 2:12-14 "We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
-- Phil. 2:12-13 "Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed -- not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence -- continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."
-- 2 Thess. 2:12-14 "And so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."
I'll post the biggie in a separate comment below . . .
ROMANS 8-9:24
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory,
and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand,
not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had [prepared in advance (NIV)] unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"
There’s a lot here, I’m going to take this one comment at a time. This relates to your first comment.
This is a great discussion. It’s forcing me to think more about this issue, which is very good. You allude here in your first comment that perhaps I’m going into this with the presupposition of man’s free will. Actually, I think it’s a little closer to the opposite. I hadn’t thought deeply about it, but while I felt that I had my own choices I assumed that every little thing that happened was a part of God’s grand design. When I did my paper (have you read it? I’d be interested in your thoughts.) I saw a pattern that was different. Paul wasn't looking for God at all! And God not only showed up and commanded him to follow, he blinded the poor guy. Not very hands-off gentlemanly, if you ask me.
I see this differently. God acted with in His (self imposed) dominion. He created a light which blinded because of the way He created man’s vision. Paul then could have chosen to ignore it or dismiss it. No one else knew what had happened because the voice was not understood by the others. His will was not violated, but certainly God was radically trying to get his attention! One could say that Paul was looking for God, he was just ill informed about where to find Him.
Not all are saved. "All are called, few are chosen."
Perhaps I should have used the word ‘called’ in my comment rather than ‘chosen’. That’s closer to what I meant when I said “He has chosen everyone.”
You might also take a gander at my paper on Individual Election in Romans (available via my Writings link in the upper left navbar). The weight of biblical evidence is on individual election.
I will read your paper. If only certain individuals are elected (is that what you’re saying?), why evangelize? Why would be called to go ‘fishing for men’ if God’s already elected certain individuals?
My God is not at my beckon call. My God does not need me to "free him" to move. My God does whatever He wants, whenever He wants, to whomever He wants. The God that needs man to tell Him what to do is a rather pathetic god, in my opinion.
God does not need anything at all. He absolutely can do what ever He wants. I believe that He chooses to limit Himself to give us the freedom to choose Him. We can not say we have chosen God if we can not just as easily not choose God. A God that willingly steps back from His almighty power, watching us mock His laws for the sake of our will is an amazing God worthy of my worship..
But we are not in the position to decide that what is most comfortable or pleasing to us is theologically correct.
No argument there.
Man's sin is man's own. God is not the author of it, nor is he responsible for it.
I don’t understand how those two things can co-exsist. If we have no free will, how can we be responsible for our sin? If everything is predestined, why am I punished for sin, I could not control whether I happened or not?
One thing that troubles me about the ‘un-free will’ is that it seems to go against what I see happening around me. Men make choices of how to live. Also, how to we reconcile a God who “does not show favoritism” with a God that chooses some and not others? If we do not have free will to determine who we are and what we do, on what basis does God make that choice? I guess I should be grateful that I am among the ‘chosen’, but what of those who are not? And what of Mathew 25 where God separates the sheep from the goats on the basis of their actions and choices? How just is that (and God is repeatedly described as just) if He determined their actions?
Now to go through your scripture references. :-) I’m sure that you’ve answered some of these questions there; I just haven’t gotten to them yet.
When I did my paper (have you read it?
No, but I will shortly.
His will was not violated
What do you call being interrupted and blinded? The Lord did not say, “Here are your options.” He said, “Why are you persecuting my people” and then commanded Paul’s repentance. I don’t see much deliberation on Paul’s part.
And this experience surely colored his thinking on God’s actions vis a vis man’s will. Paul, after all, is the guy who wrote that salvation is not contingent upon man’s decision or “man who wills” but upon God who has mercy.
If only certain individuals are elected (is that what you’re saying?), why evangelize?
Several reasons:
1. It is commanded of us.
2. Because it is a privilege. Part of the way God brings redemption to those he has chosen is through the preaching of the gospel by the chosen. We are blessed and honored to be an integral part of God’s calling of his children. The Bible says something to the effect of “how can they believe in him whom they have not heard, and how can they hear unless someone be sent?” Basically, we evangelize because we are God’s mouthpiece in the process of the lost sheeps’ conversion.
3. Because we do not know who is elect and who is not. Yes, God does not choose all to salvation, but only some. But we do not know who it is he has chosen – it is beyond our scope of knowledge because it is part of God’s eternal economy. It would be inappropriate for us to know, also; imagine the danger of man knowing which unrepentant man is elect and which is not.
Charles Spurgeon once said that if God painted a yellow stripe down the back of all of his elect, he (Spurgeon) would go up and down the street, lifting shirt tails, and preaching to the yellow-striped folks he found. But because God does not do that, Spurgeon preaches the gospel to all.
We can not say we have chosen God if we can not just as easily not choose God
Right. We can’t say that, because it’s not true. Jesus himself told his followers that they did not choose him, but that he chose them.
And the second part of your statement doesn’t really make sense given the default state of fallen man’s nature. We are born with sinful natures; right off the bat, we have not chosen God. And the Bible says we don’t even want to choose God. The mind enslaved to darkness does not want the light. That desire has to be placed in it from the outside.
A God that willingly steps back from His almighty power, watching us mock His laws for the sake of our will is an amazing God worthy of my worship..
Well, you are right, but only from the sense that God is worthy of worship no matter how he acts or what he does. God is worthy of worship because he is God.
But I find your statement objectionable only because I don’t see any biblical support for such a view. The idea of God stepping aside “for the sake of our will” has no clear biblical support as far as I can see.
I don’t understand how those two things can co-exsist. If we have no free will, how can we be responsible for our sin?
That’s the million-dollar question, isn’t it?
Honestly, my answer is I don’t know. All I have is what the Bible says about each subject, and I have to believe it all. So ultimately, I suppose we must maintain a tension between God’s sovereign control (and predestination) and human responsibility because the Bible teaches both. It is more biblical, in my estimation, to hold these views in tension than it is to sacrifice the vast selection of texts teaching God’s control over man’s choosing God because they don’t make everything neat and tidy in our minds.
Some things don’t make rational sense – the Trinity, for instance, or the Incarnation. But the Bible teaches them, so I make my rationality, my “logic,” take a backseat to the Bible’s teaching.
It would be harder to do so if I could find this libertarian notion of free will taught in the Bible. But I can’t. It is an idea from man’s mind, a clinging to our own self-determination which dictates that God’s sovereignty must somehow “fit” our preconceived notions of our own freedom.
And to be consistent, you’d have to answer your own question if you subscribe to the orthodox view of original sin. We are all born with sinful natures and deserve the punishment for that sin – hell and separation from God. How can we be born responsible for that sin, before we’ve done anything right or wrong?
I don’t know, but Paul says God chose to love Jacob and to hate Esau before either was born, before either had done anything wrong. It doesn’t feel good; it doesn’t “make sense” – but the Bible teaches it. The doctrine of original sin itself teaches that we are responsible for our sinful nature – not merely our sinful acts. It is not behavior which merits us hell, but our character.
If everything is predestined, why am I punished for sin
Again, because of original sin. Because the curse we have inherited from Adam.
The prelapsarian Adam and Eve had free will. They could choose to sin or not to sin. They chose to sin and we have received that fallenness as our default nature ever since. We are punished for sin because we are born sinners.
Paul anticipates this argument, also. By now I guess you’ve read the Scriptures I pasted, including the passage from Romans. According to Paul, the punishment for sin, declared from the beginning of time, somehow brings God glory. Take a look at the whole “vessels for destruction/wrath” stuff.
One thing that troubles me about the ‘un-free will’ is that it seems to go against what I see happening around me. Men make choices of how to live.
To go back to the Adam/free-will thing . . .
I want to clarify something about my view (and I think the view of most Calvinists). We do not deny the reality of the will or man’s ability to choose things. I believe Adam and Eve, before the fall, had free will. They chose to sin, and part of the curse of the Fall was the enslavement of the will. Now we cannot please God; our spirits are at enmity with him. The carnal mind does not please God, nor can it. So now our will is fallen, dead actually.
And dead men can’t raise themselves.
I do believe that if any postlapsarian creature possesses anything akin to free will, it is believers in Jesus. (“If Jesus has set you free, you are really free.”) Those of us walking in the newness of life in Christ are now free to sin or not to sin, much like prelapsarian Adam. The only difference, though, is that we still have the sinful habits of our old nature to contend with, whereas Adam was truly sinless before the fall.
So I don’t deny the idea of free will entirely. I try to restrict the discussion to the question of salvation, though, because that is what the Bible speaks most about in this regard. And I see the biblical texts overwhelmingly teaching that fallen man’s will is dead and cannot choose God without God awakening it to.
how to we reconcile a God who “does not show favoritism” with a God that chooses some and not others?
Because God does not show favoritism based on anything inherent in man. He does not choose some because they’re good looking or rich or from the right family or born in the right country – or, and here’s the crux of he issue, because they are “good” or because they have chosen him. (Notice Paul doesn’t write that he chooses “those whom he foreknew would choose him,” but that he chooses “those whom he foreknew” period.)
God does not show favoritism in that he chooses some on the basis of anything man does or is.
If we do not have free will to determine who we are and what we do, on what basis does God make that choice?
His own free-will. ;-)
Seriously, though, that is the mystery of grace. Paul writes that God’s choices are made because they bring him the greatest glory. God’s choices are made on the basis of his sovereign will and his mysterious grace.
What other basis makes good theological sense? If God chooses us based on our choosing him, than we have a works-based salvation and a reason to boast.
I guess I should be grateful that I am among the ‘chosen’, but what of those who are not?
That is of course the most uncomfortable thing about my view, and it was the final stumbling block before I was ready to fully accept Calvinism.
But is it really that much better if your notion of “free will” is true? I mean, the idea that a loving God would send people to hell is harsh no matter what side of the fence you’re on. If God really loved mankind, he would just save everyone. It’s within his power to do it.
I don’t see the real theological substance in saying that God allowing us to choose our own hell is somehow more loving than God passing over some who are going to hell and choosing some for salvation. God’s love is still astounding. Everyone’s headed to hell; no matter how you slice it, the fact that some don’t end up there is a miracle of love.
This gets sticky because we begin to think of love in human ways, ascribing our own sense of love to what would be most loving of God. Which leads me to one of your next statements . . .
How just is that (and God is repeatedly described as just) if He determined their actions?
Paul would say, “Who do you think you are, man, to say to God why have you done such-and-such?”
I’m not that harsh?
I’d basically just say that it is easy to ascribe our own sense of fairness and justice to the biblical notion of God’s being just. (I won’t say “fair,” because you didn’t use the word and because the Bible really doesn’t even hint that God is fair.) We have to be careful that we don’t replace what the Bible tells us about God’s justice with how we would do things or with our own ideas of inter-human justice.
The really just thing would be for God to send us all to hell. We all deserve it. That some go to hell means God is just; that some do not proves God is love.
God is just because He is God and is justified in taking whatever action he wants. Whatever thing God does is just because God did it. It is not just because it fits our ideas of fairness or “evenhandedness.” Again, the Bible leaves little room for such notions of God’s justice.
And what of Mathew 25 where God separates the sheep from the goats on the basis of their actions and choices?
Do you believe salvation is based on works? That good works earn salvation?
If not, then you must come up with an alternate interpretation of this passage yourself.
Now to go through your scripture references
Cool. The integrity of this discussion really does hinge on handling the relevant Scriptures. Logic and rationality will fail us unless they are guided by the Bible’s teaching.
What I have done is try to show the biblical evidence for my view. What I’d like to see is biblical evidence for the libertarian view of free will. Not passages that merely show man choosing something – because I don’t deny the presence of the will or the reality of choice – but passages that show how man came to choose, especially how he came to choose God.
If you can find just one passage that shows sinful man’s ability to choose God prior to God giving him that ability, I’ll be grateful for it.
Certainly God is sovereign; he created all that we see.
But that is not the definition of sovereignty. You have only acknowledged his status as Creator, perhaps his omnipotence. But sovereignty has to do with the very control you deny throughout your paper. Sovereignty means an active lordship – yes, a control -- over creation.
Nothing we see would exist if he hadn’t set this whole universe in motion.
This statement begins a number of troubling ones throughout your paper which border on the philosophy of Deism. Deism teaches that God created everything, set everything in place for the world to run properly and then went hands off. You do allow for God interacting with his creation at certain points, but your default position for God’s activity is that of the deist.
The following passage really disturbed me, because it reflects common misconceptions of what folks like me really believe:
If God is in control, I don’t need to challenge that brother on his sin; God will take care of it. If God is in control, I don’t need to question my leaders; God is guiding them. If God is in control, I don’t need to deal with my own sin; God will guide me in the right direction. If God is in control, I don’t need to share my faith; God will bring people into the kingdom. If God is in control, we can absolve ourselves from responsibility and use it as an excuse to not be concerned with doing the right thing.
JKared,
Help I'm drowning in info! :-)
Serieusly, I appreciate this discussion. I've got friends in for dinner tonight so I'm not sure how much I'll get read let alone responed to. (I'm still working through your first three responses!)
Salguod
While you're waiting for salguod, I have a question: does Calvinism/predestination deny the idea that man can make any decisions? Say, can he pick chocolate ice cream over strawberry, or somthing trivial like that?
Andy, I addressed that issue several times in my several responses to Salguod, although I can't blame you for not wading through all that mess (or for not spotting those responses while wading through my dense verbiage ;-).
Just as a brief response, I'd say that, yes, Calvinism affirms the reality of the will and the reality of decisions.
I typically try to restrict talk of this issue -- predestined choices -- to talk of salvation. Mainly because the Bible seems to restrict talk of this issue to talk of salvation. Going further -- did God predestine me to choose chocolate ice cream? -- gets into a realm of speculation for which the Bible provides clues but is not entirely clear on.
Logically speaking, I think it makes sense that God predestines the minutiae. His omniscience determines that. In other words, if God knows you will choose chocolate ice cream for dessert tomorrow, you are not free to choose otherwise. Otherwise, his knowledge is faulty. (Open Theists acknowledge this conundrum and logically opt to say God does not know the future free acts of his creation, rather than sacrifice their precious notion of human freedom.)
But this sort of tangent rapidly gets into theological hairsplitting and speculation beyond what the Bible's concerns are. It also starts becoming "cold," sounding more and more like fatalism because it is more concerned with a micro-managing God programming us like automatons than it is with a loving God charting the lives of His creation, telling a great Story of redemption.
I fear I've already unnecessarily added to the dense thicket of my responses in this thread. I won't say anymore at the risk of being too redundant. If you haven't read any of my above responses, I recommend you give them a try to see if any further questions have already been addressed.
If not, feel free to throw some more out there!
This will teach me to miss a day... So many comments to read through!
if God knows you will choose chocolate ice cream for dessert tomorrow, you are not free to choose otherwise
But that does not mean your choice of chocolate ice cream (a bad one, by the way) is not freely made. I freely make decisions; God is not forcing me to choose what I do choose. But that I would freely choose what I do choose, is preordained. My brain still evaluates the factors that play into my decision. I choose what I want to choose according to my nature and my will. But God has foreordained it.
Salvation is similar. My decisions are bound by my nature. As a fallen man, I would never choose God. God does not cause me to choose Him despite my nature. Instead, He unilaterally exercises His sovereignty and changes my nature (regeneration) and then I _freely_ respond to His call and turn to Him in faith and repentance.
Another way of looking at it: if God can know the future with certainty, then the future is fixed and consequently we do not have libertarian free will. If God knew, one hour ago, that I would by typing this comment, then there is no way I would not be typing this right now.
If God is simply a really good guesser, then we can still have our thoroughly unbiblical libertarian free will. But I think I missed a post about that higher up...
I suppose this is where we delve into mystery that, if analyzed too deeply, will start making no sense and/or will cause our brains to spontaneously combust. :)
First, please excuse any typos. I'm working at a computer without spell check and I'm a lousy proofreader. :P
I've been thinking about this a lot. Jared, I appreciate the scriptures above, they give me something to study. I honestly cannot answer them directly now, I need to study them more. Oh, I have some gut reactions I could share, but I fear that they are more rationalities of what I want to believe than what is true. So I'll keep quiet on those.
So rather than address your verses that show the consistant and true portrayal of God's soveriegnty in the Bible, I do want to present my own list of verses that I think also portray a consistant pattern of man's ability to make his own decisions and 'soverienty' over his own life. Over and over men are descibed as making choices. Even some of the verses you mention talk of man's choices (For example, John 1:12-13 says God gave "to those who believed in his name".) Certainly in our own life, we make choices, or appear to. If God is really making all those choices behind the scenes, then it seems that a big part of our existance is a lie. Isn't it contrary to God's nature to decieve? (Num. 23:19, Titus 1:2)
Here are some verses to consider:
-- In Deut 30 Moses calls the people to choose God. Throughout the book there are numerous mentions of God choosing them, but they also had a choice. It's full of "if you ... then ..." statements. The outcome of their life was contigent on their choices.
-- Joshua makes a similar call in Joshua 24. After reminding them of how God has blessed them, He says in 14-15:
"Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD ."
28 "Then they will call to me but I will not answer;
they will look for me but will not find me.
29 Since they hated knowledge
and did not choose to fear the LORD ,
30 since they would not accept my advice
and spurned my rebuke,
31 they will eat the fruit of their ways
and be filled with the fruit of their schemes.
32 For the waywardness of the simple will kill them,
and the complacency of fools will destroy them;
33 but whoever listens to me will live in safety
and be at ease, without fear of harm."
31 Do not envy a violent man
or choose any of his ways,
32 for the LORD detests a perverse man
but takes the upright into his confidence.
10 Choose my instruction instead of silver,
knowledge rather than choice gold,
11 for wisdom is more precious than rubies,
and nothing you desire can compare with her.
Salguod, I'm not sure if you haven't made it through my previous comments yet, but I have specifically said several times that I don't deny the reality of the will or the reality of man's choosing.
All you've done with these references is provide examples of man making choices or the call to man to make a choice. I have never denied any of those things. You will need to find scripture that refers to how man is able to make those choices, not just references to choices being made.
As I wrote in comment # 25:
To simply say “Man chooses something” or even “The Bible shows people obeying or disobeying God” says nothing about how that man came to choose something or how people come to obey or disobey. The example of a choice does not prove “free will;” it only proves the obvious – choices exist.
You’ll need to find Scripture that speaks to the relative freedom or bondage of the human will, not just examples of the exercise of the will.
OK Jared, I obvously have missunderstood you, sorry. I missed your thought's on man's will, that you don't deny that we have one. So is your view is that man has a will, it's just not free? If so, I'm having a real time trying to wrap my mind around that, logically separating the will from freedom. I think I may be getting it (see below).
Perhaps it would help it we each tried to explain our position in simple bullet points. I think the sheer number of words here may be muddying the waters. Actually, you may understand me perfectly. I on the other hand seem to be a little slow on the uptake here. Here's mine (staying to the general idea of soveriegnty that was the original subject adn ignoring the other tangents like saved by works that came up along the way)
-- God is absolutely and exlusively soveriegn over everything. He is the 'boss' and has no 'boss'.
-- God has willingly granted man limited soveriegnty over his own life and choices.
-- God does not force man's hand in anything, man is free to do and choose as he pleases.
-- The irony of man's free will is that he cannot seek and find God on his own. He is not capable. He can only realize his limitations an turn to God in humility only to find that God has sought and found him already. God has done all the work, he has only realized it.
That last point is kinda a rough draft and has holes in it, at least in my mind. Your speaking of the idea that we cannot possibly have freedom because we are not capable of reaching, finding, seeking or choosing God has gotten me thinking. A lot. I have more studying and thinking to do on it, but there's a preliminary thought anyway. I don't think I would have added that at the begining of this thread.
Now give me yours and then comment on mine.
Enjoying this. I hope you don't take my strong responses as uncharitable or even "mean." I know it can come across that way when folks are discussing opposing theological views in such a "cold" manner across the impersonal divide of cyberspace. If I ever offend you, I assure you it's not intentional, but please let me know, and I will apologize straight off.
Absolutely ditto to that. :-) I mean no offense and harbor no anger and would like to know if I came across as such.
Thanks
Well, even though I don't like this idea much (because it just seems like another way to make our own propositions without dealing with the relevant Scripture), I'll play along.
To respond to your bullet points . . .
I think you have assembled a set of contradictory propositions. The most striking is that if man is "not capable" of "seeking and finding God on his own," it makes no sense to say that he can turn to God given God's own self-limitation. If we are unable to turn to God on our own (which I agree with), than how is it ever possible if God remains hands off?
I also want to go back and quibble with something you said in an earlier comment. You said that salvation is perhaps 99.9% God's work and .01% ours. I know that was your attempt at reducing the impression that we earn our salvation through works -- and I know you don't honestly believe we earn our salvation through works -- but .01% is still work. If, even by the tiniest effort, we have achieved our salvation, it still makes Christ's sacrifice not totally effectual.
Here are my bullet points, which I present with some protestation given that a) I've already expressed these points, some more than once, in my previous comments, and b) I fear they will become the focus of rebuttal rather than the Scriptures I cited becoming the focus of discussion.
-- Adam is the first man created with free will. That is, he is able to choose to sin or to choose not to sin. Unfortunately, he chooses to sin.
-- The Fall of mankind brings a curse upon Adam's descendants. This is the curse of original sin, and part of that "fallenness" passed on is the enslavement of the will to sin. (1 Cor. 2:14)
-- Because of this bondage of our will, its enslavement to sin, we cannot choose God because we do not want to. This desire has to be placed in us first. Much like a dead body cannot choose life and rescusitate himself, but requires someone to bring him back to life.
-- Jesus does the hard work of dying for our sins, an effectual act which conquers sin (as his resurrection conquers death), the working of which pays the price for the sins of God's elect. And all whom God elects will be saved. (2 Thess. 2:12-14)
-- When we are awakened to our need for Christ, we cannot but help to want it. We see the depth of our sin for the first time because we see the goodness of God for the first time, as a resurrected man sees life as if for the first time. We then choose God because he has chosen us. His work comes first and enables our own. (John 6:65, Romans 8-9).
We love because He first loved us.
That's about it in a nutshell.
As I said, though, I hope you will continue to consider the Scripture references I provided earlier. I might also suggest a couple of books to you, ones that were particularly helpful for me when I first began studying the subject. I'd recommend Chosen by God and Willing to Believe, both by R.C. Sproul.
If you want to get a little more historical (and a little more "difficult"), I'd recommend Martin Luther's The Bondage of the Will and Lorraine Boettner's The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.
The cheapest resource and the best bang for your book is a little book called TULIP, I think written by a guy named Edwards. Could be wrong on that, but the title is right, and it's a short book that costs, like, eight bucks or something (probably less).
Anyways, I've enjoyed the discussion. I don't think we'll much beyond where we are now until we start digging into what the Word says. I have no worries about it, anyway. I'm passed the point of needing to convert everyone into Calvinism. I hope, though, that I've given you something to chew on and if it only makes your present view more refined, I can settle for that.
Here are my bullet points, which I present with some protestation given that a) I've already expressed these points, some more than once, in my previous comments, and b) I fear they will become the focus of rebuttal rather than the Scriptures I cited becoming the focus of discussion.
Thanks for playing along. I did not mean to bypass the releveant scripure, just feeling a little confused and wanted to 'cut to the chase' so to speak. Thansk for your scripture references, I wish I woulda thought of that. More comments later.
Well I said I'd have more comments later, but I guess I don't. I'm still prcessing things and will probably have a post or two on my 'blog spring from this conversation, but nothign more to add here. Your thoughts seem to spring from a foundation in original sin, which is something I don't subscribe too (Ezekiel 18). But that's a whole other discussion. :-)
Thanks Jared for the thought provoking comments and the civil debate.
original sin, which is something I don't subscribe to
Ah yes, well, that'll do it. (Although, taking a look at Ezekiel 18, I can't for the life of me see what it has to do with the historical and orthodox doctrine of original sin.)
It is true, though, that when pondering the Calvinist soteriology encapsulated in TULIP, that once one agrees with the "T", the rest sort of fall in place logically. If the "T" won't fly, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax than trying to argue the "U" or the "I" (which are the two main points we've been debating), so it looks like we've got the cart before the horse here.
Thank you for the convo, as well. I look forward to your blog posts.
Well, I won't add any more regarding my own opinions becasue they aren't completly formulated at this point. Anything I say would just be shooting from the hip without appropriate scriptural research and thought, so it's best left unsaid. However, I am interested in learning more about Calvinist doctrine, if for no other reason that to be better informed.
Perhaps I misunderstand (likely) the 'historical and orthodox doctrine of original sin'. My understanding, closer to an assumption actually, is that is simply means that we are born with sin, born guilty and separate from God. If that's the case, then Ezekiel 18 is relevant becasue it states in verse 20 "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him." That seems to apply to the idea I have of what original sin is about. I guess I don't understand it well. I don't expect you to explain it all to me in a comment thread (I've got some reading to do if I really want to know more), but I would like correction on this point.
Thanks.
I gather that you take that verse -- "The soul who sins" -- to imply that some souls do not sin. Maybe that, because babies can't be rightly thought of to have sinned behaviorally, we are born with sinless souls. But the Bible says that "All that have sinned and fallen short of God's glory." That doesn't leave anybody out.
The traditional doctrine of original sin is not that sinful actions earn us hell, but sinful natures do. And the biblical teaching is that everyone is born with a sinful nature inherited from Adam. It is not our behavior which earns us hell, but our character (or heart) -- just as it is not our behavior which earns us heaven.
This does not mean necessarily that babies who die (or mental deficients) go to hell (although all mankind deserves such a fate). I've explored my thoughts on that matter in a couple of other posts on infant salvation on this site, if you're interested. In a nutshell, I think Calvinism has a better explanation for the salvation of infants because for us salvation is predicated on God's act, not free will. Because if free will is necessary for salvation, it'd be very hard to explain how babies or mental deficients are able to exercise it.
Jared,
I've been wondering all this time if you ever read my paper, and skimming through this again I find that you did and commented on it here. I somehow missed it.
I think you make some good points on it. As I wrote in my blog last night, I too feel that it's too 'Deist'. In fact, for some time now i've felt that it needed some further investigation, but I've not gotten back to it. I think some of your other comments can be addressed by pointing out that audience of this paper was disciples. In that sense it lines up a bit more with your 'A will Conformed to Reality' post. My point was that many disciples in my fellowship of churches have fallen into the trap of blowing off their responsibility to do the right thing with the flippant comment 'God's in Control'. I find that offensive for it treats God's standards with contempt, making it His responsibility to make it right. Who are you, man, to ignore what’s right and lay the burden of fixing it on God?
BTW - I did read your paper and it frankly went right over my head. I didn't comment on it because I couldn't. I need to go back and read it again someday now that my mind is able to get around some of these concepts.
Hey Jared, been a while since I posted here. Must have been God's will that I happened to hit a link that brought me to this thread.
Salgoud, don't despair with your attempts to debate with Jared. I know from experience that it isn't easy. :p
Jared,
What scripture do you use to base this statement on as it relates to infants?
I think Calvinism has a better explanation for the salvation of infants because for us salvation is predicated on God's act, not free will.
Sorry, just did a search and found your previously mentioned post here.
Thus, not any scripture to directly back up, just your belief in Calvinism.
Mucho uncomfortable here. I have heard the same thing from many people.