Mark

I definitely agree with you about the complexities of foreknowledge, Molinism, and compatiblism! Those are long drawn out topics. I also am grateful for this irenic exchange.

To answer your questions about God’s creating darkness and calamity, I think we have to remember that such actions are brought about as God’s judgments. The passage in Isaiah is particularly embedded in such a context. Isaiah 45:5-7 certainly doesn’t prove that ALL evil comes from God, otherwise verse 9 wouldn’t make any sense. Why would God bring woe upon those that quarrel with their maker if he made them to quarrel with him in the first place? God certainly has the right to bring judgment through calamity and even takes responsibility for the actions of the human actors (see Cyrus in the same passage) up to a certain point, though he subjects them to judgment in others (see the Babylonians elsewhere in the Isaiah).

As to the question over the meaning of foreknowledge in passages like Romans 8:29 I am convinced that it means “to know beforehand” rather than “fore-chosen/loved.” The rationale is spelled out nicely in this article:
http://www.chafer.edu/journal/back_issues/Vol%209-1%20ar3.pdf

Good question about the kind of freedom God has. I have been working through some the philosophical issues of both libertarian and compatiblistic views of freedom, and while I hold to libertarianism officially, I see both beset with certain difficulties. However, I believe compatiblism has more difficulties. Compatiblism simply states that free will is compatible with determinism. Determinism simply means that for every action there is an effectual cause antecedent to the action. Applied to God, this would mean that, while being “free” insofar has fulfilling his desires, he was determined to create the world. He could have not done otherwise. But this seems to fly in the face of the common belief that creation was a free act of God and that it was not necessary. He did not have to make it. Therefore, I reject the antithesis between determinism and capriciousness. God’s actions are influenced by his character, but he also has the capacity to deliberate between options rationally, which in turn gives ground to the reality of rationality. If determinism is true (as compatiblism affirms) rationality is an illusion. We are only able to arrive at our decisions via the outcome of antecedent causes, and the rationale for those decisions, is only rational (or not) in an incidental fashion. Libertarianism allows for a rational deliberation that gives plausibility to attending to different options avialable to us that are not determined. Thus self-determination becomes a coherent concept.

Anyway that is a very brief introduction into a vast subject (I am more of a philosopher than an exegete if you can’t already tell!). I hope this helped in some way. Thanks for the good discussion.

First let me say that I appreciate your response and willingness to discuss the issues in a rather irenic manner. It is clear that we have substantial disagreements with one another, but of course this does not afford us to be pejorative or condescending, so thanks for your level-headed response on a tough topic.

Regarding compatiblism and molinism, I think we need to save that discussion for another day, as I am sure it would lead us into a very long thread (and a little off topic). I see what you mean by conditional and corporate election and where, like McKnight, you find the warning passages to lead you away from the classical Reformed view. Regarding God’s nature in regards to his sovereignty of all things, including evil, I am curious what you do with, say Isaiah 45:5-7 which says:

5 I am the Lord, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
I equip you, though you do not know me,
6 that people may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other.
7 I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the Lord, who does all these things.

Can you agree with the biblical testimony that God creates darkness and calamity inasmuch he makes light and well-being? I would argue that, since God is good, all goodness is directly related to his nature; on the other hand, God is not evil and cannot be tempted by evil, but that does not mean that there is an indirect asymmetrical relationship there. In other words, God’s relationships to good and evil are not parallel or equal.

I do not see how someone can be an “inconsistent Calvinist” in believing that God wants to save people. I do not know of any Calvinist personally who believes that God merely can but does not desire to save people. Rather, I would argue that God’s desires to save people are grounded in his foreknowledge (fore-loved/fore-desired) and predestination, rooted in his divine purposes in grace from all eternity (before the foundations of the world).

Regarding the unevangelized and those who have not heard, I have wrestled with that for four years and happened to have made that my central topic for research and writing outside class. I am hoping to delve into that discussion more in the future here as I talk about the mission of the Holy Spirit in regards to the fate of the unevangelized.

Anyway, I understand your position, though I disagree. I do not think that a Calvinist is inconsistent when he believes that God wants to save people; rather I would call that person a hyper-Calvinist. It would be utterly foolish for me to believe in unconditional election if I did not believe God loved them and desired for them to be saved, for God has ordained the means (i.e. personal witness and preaching of the gospel) to communicate His desire and love to them that they may be saved.

One last question, though: Does God have libertarian free will. If he does, then how can he bring about what he desire the most? Would God’s will no longer be grounded in his character but rather capricious and arbitrary?

This preserves ideas about relationality, love, and moral responsibility. I may sound like an Open Theist here, but I don’t think they are necessarily wrong on those points. However, since I am a Molinist of the Arminian variety, I do not share their presupposition (that they ironically share with Calvinists!) that knowing the future means determining the future. I reject compatiblism in that it implicitly makes God the author of evil. We may be responsible for our own actions in such a scheme, but so is God. Since “predestination” means bringing everything to pass without any conditions in your view it follows that not only are the good things we do from God, but ultimately the bad as well. God’s character–not human autonomy–is at stake.

Again, I think the names you site show Calvinists can be missional, but I do not think that means that Calvinism is missional. There are plenty of Calvinists I’ve met (since I was one) who take comfort in not having to wrestle with questions about “those who have never heard” because God did not “choose them.” The logic is consistent: God doesn’t want to save everyone so don’t worry about it when people die in their sins. It is God’s will for his glory. Historically, mission movements have thrived on the belief that God wants to save people, not merely in the belief that he can. I am thankful for those inconsistent Calvinists, like Spurgeon, who believe God desires to save everyone (1 Tim 2:3-4) when they clearly hold to a theology that teaches he does not.

Last word is yours.

“I’m thankful for the “missional Calvinism” of the pastors you pointed out, but their ministries don’t prove that Calvinism is missional.”

I would be interested in hearing just why you believe that to be the case. Nevertheless, Calvinism is missional not because of 21st century expressions but, as I have aforementioned, in the life of Paul and the early church. Calvinism is an anachronistic if you use that term, but the doctrines of grace that propelled Paul to be missional also propelled Calvin, propelled Carey, Fuller, Judson, Whitefield, Martyn, Edwards, Brainerd, Spurgeon, Paton, and on and on.

Well, I can assure you that is not the first time (or the last!) that I have said some that does not make any sense.

What I mean by leaving the redemptive purposes in the hands of men is that if God was not sovereign in salvation, if he did not plan (predestination) and execute it to perfection (cross work), then no one would be saved. Think of what Peter said in Acts 2 and 4. Peter wrote:

“this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”
Acts 2:23

“for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.”
Acts 4:27-28

Now those who crucified and delivered up Jesus were not mere puppets. They did what was right in their own eyes. Yet God was sovereign over their choices, and their actions were perfectly in line with what God had planned to do in bruising His own Son. The free choices of responsible men are not in contradiction to the divine decrees of God (i.e. compatibilism).

I would disagree and say that God’s predestination is eternal, not conditional. The whole idea of “predestination” denotes a fixed and unchangeable purpose. To argue that predestination is conditional is to speak contrary to the most fundamental meaning of the word. Yet, God’s mission is universal–that is what, for instance, the gospel of John and book of Acts is all about. It is not all about the Jews, but Gentiles also. When you give your explanation that “God sets things up that way,” I really do not follow you there. Why? How? Do you have a biblical argument to support that claim or the claim that predestination is conditional? I agree that God’s decree does not make God impersonal or entirely transcendent. Yet God has not left his mission, its planning, purpose, and accomplishment in the hands of men. It is his work. He planned it and accomplished it, and he is working through his people to call all men everywhere to repent. To argue, however, only for God’s relationality and love reflects much of the revisionist work of Pinnock and Sanders in their view of an open God and open future (I am not saying you are an open theist, but that you are making that argument here).

Regarding the elect and confidence in preaching to all, I do believe God loves everyone he has created, but I also believe God has set his affection on those whom he has chosen (electing love expressed in foreknowledge). Now, does any of us know who the elect are? No. I preach to all men indiscriminately, knowing that God will use such preaching to call out those whom he has chosen. To not believe in election when you preach gives you no certainty that anyone would be saved, since their salvation is in the hands of man’s will and not God’s. That’s a huge difference. When Paul goes into a place where he is beaten and imprisoned, what encouragement does he have that anyone will be saved? Conditional predestination? The goodwill of man? No. He goes, “bound by the Spirit,” because he knows that God “has many in that city” who will believe, and “as many as were appointed for eternal life believed”. That is why Paul tells Timothy to “do all things for the sake of the elect” (2 Tim. 2:10). We preach, suffer, and give our lives to the gospel (doing all things) precisely because we know that God’s mission will not fail. It is purposed and grounded in God’s irrevocable plan unconditionally fulfilled in Christ.

To Timmy,

Once again you are able to torch a straw man in a gracious way. I hope Bro. Tom lets you preach on a regular basis down in FL.

As far as mission goes, it may be true Calvinism gives an evangelist a kind of confidence that some will be saved irresistibly by the power of God, but it certainly doesn’t give us confidence that God desires anyone we preach to be saved. Those of the Reformed Baptist persuasion will know the agony of pondering over whether one’s child is elect. The only way to “solved” that agony comes back to how we think of God’s mission: God damning your child before the creation of the world for his glory is what it’s all about if God wants it that way.

I’m thankful for the “missional Calvinism” of the pastors you pointed out, but their ministries don’t prove that Calvinism is missional.

This sentence doesn’t make any sense.