Why, O Lord, do You cause us to stray from Your ways
And harden our heart from fearing You?
Return for the sake of Your servants, the tribes of Your heritage (Is 63:17).
God causes men to stray from His ways. Wait a second, “Doesn’t God desire not the death of the sinner but that all may come to repentance?” Well, He does, but He also desires that the wicked are punished and that vessels of mercy can see what they are spared from. This is why He hardened the Pharaoh. So, God is not compelled to show all mercy, and as just punishment for sin He gives sinners over to the hardness of their own hearts.
Lastly, though this may be stretching it a bit, the final phrase in the verse is probably a prayer in light of what was just said. Isaiah is asking that God stop hardening their hearts and stop allowing them to stray. So, what point would such a prayer have if the Holy Spirit cannot positively affect the will of a man?
Either way you dice it, you cannot deny the Scripture is monergistic.
If any one verse actually “destroyed” any particular theology, then we have a lot less disagreement and a lot more unity among Christians. Christians of various stripes tend to emphasize one verse, deemphasize another, interpret one verse in light of another or vice versa: resulting in not “destruction” of any particular viewpoint but multiplication of viewpoints. In the end, there are very many Christians who, with valid (that is, logically coherent) arguments (“diced” different ways than yours), do deny your interpretations of Scripture.
“If any one verse actually “destroyed” any particular theology, then we have a lot less disagreement and a lot more unity among Christians.”
Not exactly. John 1:1 calls Christ God, but JWs reject He is God. So, just because people ignore a verse or interpret the Scripture inconsistently, it does not make the Scripture any less clear.
“Christians of various stripes tend to emphasize one verse, deemphasize another, interpret one verse in light of another or vice versa…”
THis comes from bad hermeneutics. For example, if we emphasize a couple of verses pertaining to something like “binding and loosing” and then radically reinterpret entires books of the Bible that would not allow for the conclusions extrapolated from such binding and loosing verses, that’s just bad hermeneutics. But, it happens every day.
“Bad” being, of course, a subjective measure. 🙂 Apparently, the vast majority of Christians in the world either practice “bad hermeneutics,” or else Scripture is not quite so clear as you suppose.
Scripture generally is clear, but people hear and see what they want to, even if it is clear that they should think otherwise. sEE lUKE 9:45.
Perhaps you’re right — since interpretation, for any of us, is an act of the mind and will. It’s true that people’s interpretations of Scripture are shaped by the traditions they’re a part of; but many sincere Christians earnestly seeking do indeed come to different conclusions of interpretation and meaning. There are, of course, different understandings of various passages even within the Reformed tradition.
That’s why I cite Luke 9:45. If you look at the immediate context, you see that Christ could have not made it any clearer that He was going to die and after thee days rise again. The Scipture reports that the meaning of this plain statement of fact ” was concealed from them so that they would not perceive it.”
So, it was not what was said that was the issue, but God intellectually blinded them. So, tons of people I am sure make honest attempts to understand Scripture, doctrines, and etcetera, but apart from the Holy Spirit even very plain statements like found in Is 63:17 make no sense.
If that’s the case, then verse 19 of the same chapter destroys Calvinism, because it claims God has not ruled over someone. It’s a lament, for goodness sake. When you cry out to God, do you ever say anything unfair about Him? Pretty much all the prophets do.
verse 19 says nothing of the sort, try again 😉
“19We are yours from of old;
but you have not ruled over them,
they have not been calledc by your name.”
There is someone God has not ruled over? Oh My Goodness, He must not be sovereign then! Yes, it’s silly, just as taking verse 17 to mean God doesn’t allow free will is silly.
“There is someone God has not ruled over? Oh My Goodness, He must not be sovereign then! ”
Not exactly, it is in reference to the Israelites rejecting God (their true ruler) and so God did strive with them, but left them to their own devices (if not hardened them as punishment, as verse 17 would indicate.) Try again if you like.
God leaving someone to their own devices cannot exist in the deterministic world or Calvinism. Rejecting God in any literal sense can’t exist either, because if God is doing all the determining, they can only resist him if he wants them to. If man can reject God, then man is a free agent. I’m already starting to think you’re a closet open theist,lol.
“God leaving someone to their own devices cannot exist in the deterministic world or Calvinism.”
I do not think you understand reformed theology. If you are actually interested in what Calvinists teach about how God hardens hearts, I recommend you read the following: http://christianreformedtheology.com/2014/07/28/reformed-commentary-on-job-chapter-1/
You can click control F and search “Sproul.” The long short of it is that most Calvinists believe that God sovereignly hardens a man’s heart by handing a man over to Satanic temptation. Because men’s hearts are depraved, without God’s grace, the removal of such leads to man pursuing the depths of wickedness already latent in his will.
Though I personally am not opposed to predestinarianism, it is not a necessary conclusion from the Scripture and has been rejected by the vast majority of Calvinists and earlier Monergistic theologians.
“Rejecting God in any literal sense can’t exist either, because if God is doing all the determining, they can only resist him if he wants them to.”
This does not make a ton of sense, and I don’t think your objection has a Scriptural basis. God wills that men pursue Him and He gives them the grace to do so. He also wills that men who do not are punished, and that punishment includes hardening their hearts. There is no contradiction in this and in fact, specific Scriptures that support it. What you cannot find in the Scripture is a clear verse that says man’s will is inviolable or “unmanipulable.” Yet, there are several specific instances where the will of man is manipulated towards God’s ends.
So, you theology is based upon your own opinion, why Calvinist theology is based upon making sense of what the Scripture actually says.
“If man can reject God, then man is a free agent.”
Sure, he is free to act according to the nature God has given him. Man, left to himself, always rejects God. “There is none who seeks after God” (Rom 3:11). “There is no one who calls on Your name” (Is 64:7).
” I’m already starting to think you’re a closet open theist,lol. ”
If that is a serious comment, how is this the case?
Westminster Confession:
I. God from all eternity did by the most and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.
In other words, God ordains all things, including our sin, not because he foreknew it, but because of some secret counsel that we can’t understand. Therefore, your future is set in stone. Appealing to second causes does not help at all, because God decreed those causes. Appealing to free will is also pointless, because we are only talking about a compabilist notion of free, not autonomous freedom. How can anyone not see this as the same as determinism or fate? This is the basis of Reform Theology.
Therefore, I stand by my statement that man can not reject God in a literal sense under Calvinism. He has decreed their rebellion.
“I. God from all eternity did by the most and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass…”
Do you reject this?
“Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.”
Do you reject this too?
“In other words, God ordains all things, including our sin…Therefore, your future is set in stone.”
That is true, as is the end times in Revelation of John. God knows both the beginning of the story, the end, and everything in between.
“Appealing to second causes does not help at all, because God decreed those causes.”
He sure did, see Job chapters 40 and 41.
“Therefore, I stand by my statement that man can not reject God in a literal sense under Calvinism. He has decreed their rebellion.”
You miss a point I already made from the Scripture (something you have avoided in defending your viewpoint): men by default are wicked and will wickedness. Hence, God has decreed man’s rebellion simply by leaving him to his own devices. Grace is what’s lifts man out of this.
Then, how did righteous men like Job exist, if all men are Totally Depraved? Was Adam the exception to man’s depravity? If so, how did the fall happen?
I haven’t defended my view per say, yet, I’m making sure I understand yours first.
I don’t completely agree with either of those statements from the Westminster confession. They make that whole Biblical record an elaborate game where God plays both sides of the board.
“Then, how did righteous men like Job exist, if all men are Totally Depraved?”
He was righteous by faith, there is a whole commentary on it on this website, but I point you to Job 29:14. No one has earned their way to heaven.
“Was Adam the exception to man’s depravity? If so, how did the fall happen?”
The Arminian’s final redoubt is always theoretical questions about Adam and Eve asking for details the Bible does not give. Because the Bible does not discuss such issues, I do not comment on them, but I would be more than happy to comment on the several explicit Scriptures that affirm the total depravity of man.
“I don’t completely agree with either of those statements from the Westminster confession.”
What part of Eph 1:11 is confusing?
The Ephesians verse says that all that God accomplishes is “according to his counsel and will,” not that all that takes place is God’s accomplishment in accordance with his counsel and will.
I agree that Job was justified by faith, but there is nothing in that verse to say that he was specially “elected”. The grace you speak of is offered to all, but not all accept it. It’s not as if God thumps some people over the head and drags them into his kingdom while ignoring others.
Titus 2:11
But, to get back to Isaiah and God hardening hearts, it is not God saying he did this, it is a man. Look at chapter 65, when God is speaking: “I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.
2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;”
If God did harden their hearts it was after they had already hardened their own, and it was to reach them for redemptive purposes.
“The Ephesians verse says that all that God accomplishes is “according to his counsel and will,” not that all that takes place is God’s accomplishment in accordance with his counsel and will.”
You left out the detail that God “works all things” (Eph 1:11). So, the question then would be, what “exceptions” to all things would still allow the words to mean “all things.”
This is not the only part of the Bible that speaks of it in the context of God’s foreknowledge (as obviously, that is the immediate context of verse.)
“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son…” (Rom 8:28-29).
Then we have chapters 40 and 41 of Job where God makes it clear that He created Behemoth and Leviathan, which if you read commentaries on the subject (including my own) are in reference to Satan. Concerning Satan the chapters say the following:
“He is the first of the ways of God” (Job 40:19).
“Will you take him for a servant forever? Will you play with him as with a bird” (Job 41:4-5)?
So, the Scripture even speaks of God manipulating Satan. This is why Arminianism is so weak. It cannot offer a meaningful exegesis of any of these verses, nor make sense of them in context. A big reason this website has moved away from polemics against Arminianism is that I do not even find it an interesting topic to explore. The Scripture is so clearly against it, and never explicitly endorses it, it becomes an argument apart from the Scripture which is one I am not interested it.
“I agree that Job was justified by faith, but there is nothing in that verse to say that he was specially “elected”.”
All of God’s redeem are His “elect,” do you honestly believe their ae non-elect redeemed?
“The grace you speak of is offered to all, but not all accept it.”
There are different kinds of grace. Indeed, the grace of forgiveness is offered to all, but not all have the grace of having their hearts moved like Lydia (Acts 16:14) so that they may place their faith in Christ and experience that former grace.
“It’s not as if God thumps some people over the head and drags them into his kingdom while ignoring others.”
I am not quite sure about the thumping, but yes God does pass over some and show grace to others. Jesus specifically says that Tyre and Sidon would have repented if He performed miracles there. SO, If God desires not the death of the sinner but that all may repent without question, then why did He not perform miracles in these cities when He knew they would repent? Obviously, He did not elect them to mercy.
“But, to get back to Isaiah and God hardening hearts, it is not God saying he did this, it is a man.”
Again, you need to read chapter 1 of my commentary on Job. I discussed this at much length. Reformed theologians believe that God does not change the will of a man when hardening him, but rather withdraws grace so that the man who is hardened is handed over to wickedness latent in his own heart which was otherwise restrained due to His grace. God is not making men puppets, literally forcing them to do evil. Predestinarians teach that. Predestinarianism is historically considered heresy, and the vast majority of Calvinists are not predestinarians. You need to study your terms!
I think you misunderstood my point about Eph 1:11. It says that whatever God works is according to his will. Does God work evil? No, so “all” here does not mean all the evil which is the work of Satan and men. I’ll have to look at your commentary.
To say that God offers grace, and then say that God does not move or allow that person to accept his grace is just gobbledygook. It’s totally meaningless to offer rescue and then not supply the means to be rescued.
I will attempt to read the commentary on Job before responding farther.
“I think you misunderstood my point about Eph 1:11. It says that whatever God works is according to his will”
It specifically says that God works all things in accordance with His will, not whatever God works is in accordance with His will. This means, if a Tornado happens, it works in accordance with God’s will, not in spite of it. You are purposely bungling the verse because you do not like the ramifications of it.
“I’ll have to look at your commentary.”
Here is chapter 1:
http://christianreformedtheology.com/2014/07/28/reformed-commentary-on-job-chapter-1/
“To say that God offers grace, and then say that God does not move or allow that person to accept his grace is just gobbledygook.”
Not really, you fail to show why.
“It’s totally meaningless to offer rescue and then not supply the means to be rescued.”
Not so, what you fail to understand is that men do not want to be rescured. Just try telling the next stranger you run into about Jesus. He doesn’t want to here it. This is the default. God does not have to do anything to make men reject Him, while in order to make men accept Him the Holy Spirit must be at work for “No one says Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 12:3).
“I will attempt to read the commentary on Job before responding farther.”
Much thanks, the first chapter is a broad, but relatively precise overview of these things.
I understand that men do not naturally want to be rescued . That’s why they need prevenient grace to open their eyes to their need. The Holy Spirit must provide conviction. But, a belief in irresistible grace cancels out prevenient grace. There is no need for God to first open their eyes, when he is going to irresistibly save some and pass by (damn) others. Reformed theology has a picture of a God who sees us all hanging over hell, yanks some to safely and ignores the screams of all the rest. In Arminianism, he offers his hand to all, and only moves on when one refuses to show faith by saying yes to his offer.
Again, does God work evil?
Ok, I’ll shut up for now…really.
“I understand that men do not naturally want to be rescued . That’s why they need prevenient grace to open their eyes to their need. The Holy Spirit must provide conviction.”
Here we agree.
“But, a belief in irresistible grace cancels out prevenient grace. ”
No, because grace can precede a faith decision and in God’s foreknowledge, be the means which brings about the faith decision. I’m not looking to make a mountain out of a molehill on this.
“There is no need for God to first open their eyes, when he is going to irresistibly save some and pass by (damn) others.”
Yes there is, because opening the eyes of blind men is amongst the means God uses to bring about their faith decision.
“Reformed theology has a picture of a God who sees us all hanging over hell, yanks some to safely and ignores the screams of all the rest.”
This is not accurate. The Bible teaches that God sees a bunch of men going to hell as a just consequence of their own sin and He has mercy on some as on the others, hardens their hearts more as punishment for their sin.
“In Arminianism, he offers his hand to all…”
He does offer His hand to all, God’s offer of grace through His Son is an open invitation. He does not give to all additional grace to understand and desire the invitation. This is how God can be equally gracious to all in one sense, but additionally gracious in another. Being that grace is grace, it is a free gift, and not one God is obligated to give equally to all, or it is no longer grace it is owed to man.
“Again, does God work evil?”
No, but He created beings and things that work their own evil, because the evil they work oftentimes meaning it for evil, God uses for good.
Lol, I’ll give you this snickers bar, I just won’t let you eat it. Can’t you see how ridiculous it is to say that God gives grace, but not the ability to accept him? A gift is not a gift if the reciever isn’t given the option to actually receive it.
At least you can admit that the idea is a logically consistent way of interpreting the Scripture, right? I am not arguing that it is a religious idea that I prefer. I am merely arguing that is is the only consistent interpretation of several difference ideas in the Scripture.
And, for what it is worth, your snickers bar comparison does not make a great deal of sense. It would make more sense to consider us serial thieves who steal to finance our heroin addiction and God as the judge. He gives us chance after chance to kick the habit, offers to put us into programs, and even give us those little pills that chemically negate the effects of heroin so that there no longer is a chemical addiction. God does all of this for everyone.
Usually, heroin addicts don’t change their ways until people force them to (friends, family, the law, etcetera). However, unlike heroin addicts that by their own free will can choose to end their addiction without any outside compulsion, we with our sin problem NEVER chose to stop sinning and seek God (which not doing is in of itself sinful). Our sin problem is worse than heroin.
God compels us with our sin problem to seek the true cure for our sin, that is His Son. But He does not compel everyone equally to bring about the desired result. Just like with heroin addicts, there are some friends and family which are less influential in helping their loved ones kick the habit. Because God owes nothing to man, He does not have to compel all men equally. In fact, because all of these men actually deserve punishment, he won’t compel them at all and in fact, offer the circumstances that they will have more opportunity to sin by their own free will. So, while God makes the opportunity for the cure available to them, He does not intend that they take it and so does not compel them in the same way as He does others.
Again, you may say this is unfair, but that’s really not my affair. Show me where it is Biblically inconsistent and then I will listen.
It’s inconsistency with the Bible starts in Genesis and ends in Revelations. Every time God tells his people to obey him, he must provide them with a genuine free choice, not a theoretical choice that they cannot actually access, else God is a liar.
“Every time God tells his people to obey him, he must provide them with a genuine free choice…”
Yes, and when then those men out of their own free will do not seek obedience, what contradiction is there in God moving them by their Spirit to will what they ought but otherwise not what they would will on their own? This I can show from the Scriptures, Acts 16:14 is an example. What I don’t find is this rigid “God sits on His hands and does nothing.” You infer it from the Scriptures, or from your won philosophy, but you cannot show it from the Scripture and have failed to show a single example.
I could list multiple verses, but I mentioned Titus 2:11 earlier. A grace that bringeth salvation can not be a grace that A. Gives some no choice but to choose salvation while B. Giving others no choice but to reject it, because the verse specifically states that a saving grace appears to all men.
Sorry, that verse does not prove your contention. You are drawing inferences that simply are not there. I mean, the more sensible false inference is that there is universal salvation, which we know to be false. I do not even see where you can even draw the inference you draw. God brought salvation to all men, both Jews and Gentiles. It does not mean all men are universally saved for that autonomous free will exist. The verse does not speak to that.
Doe the “all” in this verse not mean “all”?
“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.”
Of course irresistible grace can’t be offered to all, or all would be saved. But grace is not irresistible.
But the verse is not talking about that. It does not say grace came to all men, it says salvation has come to all men. All men means both Jews an Gentiles, slave and free, man and woman. Read the cahpter, you are taking one verse, applying it out of context, and making it pass comment on grace when it says the grace of God appeared and brought SALVATION to all men.
You need a different verse, this one does not prove anything for you.
But hey, I got one:
“There are none who seek after God” (Rom 3:11).
At least that one literally says what I espouse 😉
We have already agreed that there are none that seek after God unless God enlightens them. What kind of grace brings salvation? The kind that opens mens eyes to their need of Him, so they can make a free choice to accept or reject his salvation.
“Read the cahpter, you are taking one verse, applying it out of context..” You mean, like you did with Is. 67:17?
Yes, I have read the whole chapter.
When Jesus’ birth was announced is was as good news of great joy that will be for all the people. It was not good news for a few selected individual people chosen for salvation and terrible news for all the people who had been pre- selected for damnation.
“We have already agreed that there are none that seek after God unless God enlightens them. What kind of grace brings salvation? The kind that opens mens eyes to their need of Him, so they can make a free choice to accept or reject his salvation.”
You merely kicked the can down the road. So, if man is given the grace of open eyes to see the truth, what separates him from a man cured even more spiritual blindness where the former rejects Christ and the latter accepts Him? The point is, God at all times achieves His desired end, and because He is God He can use any way He chooses and always get it to work and do the right things, because He has perfect knowledge. In this way, God can open eyes, make lame walk, cause suffering, do anything that rattles the cages of men to accept Christ. In the same way, He can blind, make wealthy or destitute, or do anything else to keep men away. All of this can occur without violating free will.
It begs the question, if the Bible does not dwell on free will, why do we? Calvinists aren’t rejecting free will, so why do we enter something we don’t disagree about into the argument. The real issue is that you reject that God can make light out of darkness, even that in men’s hearts, without violating free will.
“You mean, like you did with Is. 67:17?”
Is this like Rom 17? Where can I find it 😉
“When Jesus’ birth was announced is was as good news of great joy that will be for all the people. It was not good news for a few selected individual people chosen for salvation and terrible news for all the people who had been pre- selected for damnation.”
If the government announces a tax amnesty let’s say, that’s good news for everyone, even if not everyone takes advantage of it because they are lazy.
Now, the difference is ALL MEN are too “lazy” and unwilling to take advantage of the sin amnesty through Christ. This is where Reformed doctrines concerning soteriology. The news is equally good. You just have the unbiblical idea that just because the news is good, some men got to want it. I disagree. No one wants it. I know I didn’t.
Sorry, I meant Is. 63:17.
I don’t believe there was ever a time that I didn’t want truth. What we don’t want is to submit to God. We HAVE to make the choice to humble ourselves, no matter how much light we have been given.
“So, if man is given the grace of open eyes to see the truth, what separates him from a man cured even more spiritual blindness where the former rejects Christ and the latter accepts Him?”
This is only a problem if you believe there is no such thing as libertarian free will. What separates them is one choice. How can anyone say the Bible does not dwell on free will? God is constantly begging his people to repent, so they don’t suffer his just judgement. To say men are not free to choose repentance is to make God ask for the impossible. You just dance around the implications of your theology by blaming it on man, when your charter makes it clear that man can’t be blamed for anything, because God ordained man’s every move. This is why arguing with a Calvinist is always like trying to pin smoke to the wall. Since your beliefs are self-contradictions, you can say one thing and mean another.
You say men can take advantage of salvation while at the same time saying God only chooses to save certain individuals? Here’s your candy bar! Nope, I take it back.
If ever there was thoughtless comment made about a single school of theology ,,, it is this one by one Mr. Truglia. He seems to view himself as the final word in a controversy that has challenged brilliant and saintly minds on both sides of the Christian aisle. At first glance, I thought he might be serious, however, no Christian would venture this far out on Calvinistic dogma. Good evening, all!
Just because a school of theology exists, such as Arminianism, it does not mean that it has any intellectual legs to stand on. Unitarianism as entire seminaries, am I supposed to think that it is a serious theology that is difficult to disprove with the Scriptures?
The same is true of Arminianism. Its view of soteriology is foreign from the Scriptures, and rather, it is imposed upon them. Of course, this means that there are several Scriptures which are impossible to reconcile with their soteriology, such as Is 63:17, which proves my point.
Amen wilds, you did what you could. The hardness of the Calvinist’s hearts…maybe irresistible grace is true XD! Thank you for beautifully articulating that all Calvinism is double-speak and contradictory, and therefore they can make excuses for literally anything. God be praised!
I have spent many hours with proponents on both sides of this historical controversy. The conclusion, after some sixty- years of listening and reading on the subject, is that there are brilliant men on both sides, however, brilliance should not be equated with “SPIRITUAL DEPTH.”
Reformation Theology has been undergoing its own Reformation for the past 75 years or so. Men like Charles Simeon and Richard Baxter put God first and their doctrine was based on the Word. I greatly fear that giving one’s doctrine the primary place in theology and relegating God to second or third position creates considerable pride in the mind and leaves the heart desolate. Many of the older Reformed scholars were deeply spiritual and knew God from personal experience while some were heady and enjoyed self-gratification.
Craig, I find it very disconcerting that you are so dismissive of the arminian view, First, the overwhelming majority of the church since the patristics were armininan oriented and not calvinist orientated. For someone Finally,who is converting to EO you will definetely have to reconsider your calvinism. Second, many of the verse that you say refute arminianism, do no such thing. I have read arminian commentaries which actually say very similiar things you say on these verse. Third, you wrote an article on how catholics and protestants misunderstand each other because of differences in terminology. I wish you could bring that spirit when it comes to the Arminian and the Calvinist differences.
The Augustinian emphasis, also found in Thomism, is the majority Western emphasis. it obviously is not the emphasis of the East.
Prior to Augustine, western emphasis was similar to east.But since you are converting to Eastern Orthodoxy, i will be curious to see you future posts on free will. I don’t see how you will be able to coherently integrate your view of free will in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
It is a difference in emphasis, but I will not argue mine
Are you Catholic or Protestant?