My second post was here.
Now, Dan has responded (full response here). I address his new comments below.
I had written: since the first decree [that Christ should die, making men savable] does not include any decree for application of the benefit of Christ's death, it actually does not mean "salvation is possible for everyone through Christ's death." In fact, it does not mean that salvation is possible for anyone at all, since it does not include any way for the benefit of Christ's death to be applied to men.
Dan responded: "This actually is somewhat of a fair comment, or at least it provides me the opportunities to clarify. When I say Christ death makes salvation possible, I don’t mean the application of Christ’s blood is unnecessary for salvation. It’s true Christ’s blood also has to be applied. What I mean is now Christ’s blood is available and can be applied."
I answer: It's not even a question of the application being necessary. It's a more fundamental question. It is a question of applicability being necessary. There is no provision (yet, in the Arminian order) for the blood to be ABLE to be applied. It's just a decree to spill blood, with no apparent purpose in sight.I had written: There is a real question about whether there is any Scriptural basis for an intent to make mankind "savable," as distinct from "saved.
Dan responded: "Hum… Intent is tricky. Normally, when we speak of intentions, we talk about the end goal, not an immediate one. Let’s say my family has colds and I go to the store, get them medicine and come back home an offer it to them. What’s my intent for going to the store? Is it getting medicine or that my family feel better? Both. Getting the medicine is an immediate goal and my family feeling better is the final goal. But it is normal to speak of that final goal as my intention. Similarly, God’s final goal in Christ’s death is salvation for everyone, but His immediate goal is provision for salvation."
I answer: The medicine analogy doesn't work in Dan's favor, but just the opposite. Here's why:
a) In the analogy, the fact that I intend to get the medicine is essentially an instrumental intent for the major intent of making my family better by medicating them.b) But, in the Arminian order of decrees, the "medicating" or "saving" is apparently NOT in sight in the decree that Christ would die. Instead, it's as though I show up at the store planning to buy medicine, and then think to myself - "hey, some of my family is sick, I better give this to them." That's intuitively not how God's logical order would flow, and it's hard to believe that anyone would suggest such an analogy.
In fact, the (a) analogy is the one people would think of. The decree to go to the store is logically subsequent to the decree to medicate one's family, as it is the instrumental means whereby the end is carried out. First I think, "Boy I wish my family were well," and then I think, "I'll buy them some drugs at the pharmacy."
Dan continued: "As for a Scriptural basis, I would point to Christ’s intercession. It’s based on Christ’s death (John 17:4), but not the same as Christ’s death. Both Christ’s death and His intercession are necessary for justification (Romans 8:34). So it seems Christ’s death is an intermediate part of Christ’s overall work in salvation; although it’s the basis for salvation. Hence, God’s intention in decreeing Christ’s death was immediately to provide for salvation and ultimately to save."
I answer: I don't follow Dan's argument here at all. I understand how one might argue that Christ's intercession is necessary for justification, and how one might therefore argue that Christ's death itself was a part of the overall work in salvation. I think such an argument would have problems if we turned to Hebrews, but even if it did not (and I'd rather not head down that rabbit trail) I don't see how that would help Dan out. In fact, it would seem to make his problem worse! The less that the death of Christ becomes in actually saving people, the less sense it makes for God to decree Christ's death without having the ultimate end in mind.I had also written: the second decree [the decree to save anyone who believes] still seems counter to the first decree by providing a barrier to the savability of men
Dan responded: "I don’t think it should be called a barrier. In the medicine example above, would anyone say that my coming home from the store with medicine and calling out to my family, “if you want some, come and get it” a barrier to their feeling better?"
I answer: It would, if your medicine was an adrenaline shot and your family were sick from an overdose. It would be a practically insurmountable barrier in that instance. It is a barrier here also, and an insurmountable one too unless there is a decree to give grace (which there isn't yet, in the Arminian order). And unless that grace is irresistible (which it isn't in the Arminian system) again there is a barrier, however small it may be even after the further decree to give "prevenient grace."Dan continued: "Hum… Perhaps you were addressing a difference sense for “savable” than the one I intended. Does my response above help with this as well?"
I'm not sure. It doesn't appear (to me) to address the inherent conflict in the Arminian order of decrees, which is the fundamental problem that seems to prevent it from being a reasonably acceptable position.-Turretinfan
5 comments:
When you talk of order of decrees I came across this from the Works of Arminius Volume 2, I wonder what you make of this and does this speak to what you are saying when you wrote the inherent conflict in the Arminian order of decrees?
ON THE DECREES OF GOD WHICH CONCERN THE SALVATION OF SINFUL MEN,
ACCORDING TO HIS OWN SENSE
The first decree concerning the salvation of sinful men, as that by which God resolves to appoint
his Son Jesus Christ as a saviour, mediator, redeemer, high priest, and one who may expiate sins,
by the merit of his own obedience may recover lost salvation, and dispense it by his efficacy. 2.
The SECOND DECREE is that by which God resolves to receive into favour those who repent and
believe, and to save in Christ, on account of Christ, and through Christ, those who persevere, but
to leave under sin and wrath those who are impenitent and unbelievers, and to condemn them as
aliens from Christ. 3. The THIRD DECREE is that by which God resolves to administer such means
for repentance and faith as are necessary, sufficient, and efficacious. And this administration is
directed according to the wisdom of God, by which he knows what is suitable or becoming to mercy
and severity; it is also according to his righteousness, by which he is prepared to follow and execute
[the directions] of his wisdom. 4. From these follows a FOURTH DECREE, concerning the salvation
of these particular persons, and the damnation of those. This rests or depends on the prescience and
foresight of God, by which he foreknew from all eternity what men would, through such
administration, believe by the aid of preventing or preceding grace, and would persevere by the
aid of subsequent or following grace, and who would not believe and persevere. 5. Hence, God is
said to "know those who are his;" and the number both of those who are to be saved, and of those
who are to be damned, is certain and fixed, and the quod and the qui, [the substance and the parties
of whom it is composed,] or, as the phrase of the schools is, both materially and formally. 6. The
second decree [described in § 2] is predestination to salvation, which is the foundation of Christianity,
salvation, and of the assurance of salvation; it is also the matter of the gospel, and the substance of
the doctrine taught by the apostles. 7. But that predestination by which God is said to have decreed
to save particular creatures and persons and to endue them with faith, is neither the foundation of
Christianity, of salvation, nor of the assurance of salvation.
I am enjoying the dialogue between the two of you and do not in anyway want to intervene. I am using the interaction to learn and grow.
Praise be to God!
Mitch: exactly.
beowulf2k8: I hope Mitch's post answers your question about why one might bother with this discussion.
1. So, one of your objections to Calvinism seems to be the old canard that "people are damned due to a decree."
That sounds cute, but it's a category mistake. Decrees only make things certain. The decrees are worked out by Providence. So, your objection is ultimately to certainty, for no construal of the decrees by our representative theologians, even the few Supras, construes the the permission of the fall as brought about by God's direct efficiency, nor the classic Supras state that men are reprobated apart from sin.
2. The classic general objection runs this way:
Calvinism affirms that God decreed the fall. This was certain and effacious. It was not ineffacious (as in Arminianism), bare permission. Since the Fall results in eternal condemnation, men are "damned due to the decree." Since the decree to elect/reprobate keeps them out of salvation, men are still damned due to a decree. The objection to Supralapsarianism falls on similar grounds, only slightly different depending on the Supra position one critiques. (However, if you're going to run to Platinga, you should acknowledge that his theodicy is, itself, Supralapsarian.)
Overall this objection to decrees is facile for a number of reasons:
1. Where's the exegetical argument? You, yourself, say Scripture will correct you, but Scripture says that God has created everything for it's own purpose even the wicked for the day of evil. Scripture says that there are those who have been marked out long beforehand for condemnation, viz in Jude 4. So, if you really believed the Bible, you'd at least try to mount an exegetical argument.
2. The decree to fall is a decree to *permit* the fall. So, we can use the FWD to tell us *how* the fall happened, and it doesn't require LFW.
3. Arminians also have orders of decrees. Since you're no theologian, you may not realize this. How does God decreeing the possibility of evil (to take just one example of a distinction Arminians try to make) get God "off the hook?" If they affirm that He has infallible foreknowledge, then God still creates man knowing this is inevitable.
4. Molinism has God decreeing this and only this universe by picking one from any number of infallibly,immutablly foreseen outcomes.
5. Open Theists might deny the foreknowledge, but then they must concede there is unplanned evil. That's conceding the problem of evil to atheism.
So, how is the Arminian really in a better position than the Calvinist? The FWD implicit in their own decree of the fall is intended to accentuate man's responsibility over God's, but how does that accomplish the purpose? The issue isn't "Is God responsible?" the issue is "Is God to blame?" And if the Bible says God is responsible *in any way* then we as Christians are obligated to accept its word over our intuition - which you,sir, do not appear prepared to do.
As a matter of fact, it's the Amyraldian and Arminian who have the hardest problem with the objection that men are damned due to a decree. Nobody ever takes the time to look at that:
Here's basic Amyraldianism:
Creation
Permission of fall
Atonement for all
Election/reprobation
Application
Because the third decree is construed as a real desire to atone for the sin of everybody, the 4th decree works @ cross purposes. It manifests a contradictory desire.
Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism don't have this problem. So the problem that you're trying to address is really *a nonCalvinist* problem, not ours, even on an Arminian order. It's only a pseudoproblem for us. It's really a problem for others, including you. Like many an objector to Calvinism, you are mirror-reading.
It's a problem for the Arminian and Amyraldian alike, for it's a problem for any order of decrees that construes the atonement in general terms then includes a decree to elect - no matter how election is contrued - will fall prey to this problem. The atonement manifests a real desire to save everybody. The decree to elect - or recognize the elect by their faith (Arminianism) is construed as desire *not* to save everybody - for everybody is not saved. The Molinist would say God decreed this universe knowing that very outcome, and the Arminian must say that not everybody will believe the Gospel - for not everyone will hear the Gospel.
The inherent conflict in the Arminian order of decrees is readily admitted by Arminians, even Arminius himself:
ON THE DECREES OF GOD WHICH CONCERN THE SALVATION OF SINFUL MEN,
ACCORDING TO HIS OWN SENSE
The first decree concerning the salvation of sinful men, as that by which God resolves to appoint
his Son Jesus Christ as a saviour, mediator, redeemer, high priest, and one who may expiate sins,
by the merit of his own obedience may recover lost salvation, and dispense it by his efficacy. 2.
The SECOND DECREE is that by which God resolves to receive into favour those who repent and
believe, and to save in Christ, on account of Christ, and through Christ, those who persevere, but
to leave under sin and wrath those who are impenitent and unbelievers, and to condemn them as
aliens from Christ. 3. The THIRD DECREE is that by which God resolves to administer such means
for repentance and faith as are necessary, sufficient, and efficacious. And this administration is
directed according to the wisdom of God, by which he knows what is suitable or becoming to mercy
and severity; it is also according to his righteousness, by which he is prepared to follow and execute
[the directions] of his wisdom. 4. From these follows a FOURTH DECREE, concerning the salvation
of these particular persons, and the damnation of those. This rests or depends on the prescience and foresight of God, by which he foreknew from all eternity what men would, through such
administration, believe by the aid of preventing or preceding grace, and would persevere by the
aid of subsequent or following grace, and who would not believe and persevere. 5. Hence, God is
said to "know those who are his;" and the number both of those who are to be saved, and of those
who are to be damned, is certain and fixed, and the quod and the qui, [the substance and the parties
of whom it is composed,] or, as the phrase of the schools is, both materially and formally. 6. The
second decree [described in § 2] is predestination to salvation, which is the foundation of Christianity,salvation, and of the assurance of salvation; it is also the matter of the gospel, and the substance of the doctrine taught by the apostles. 7. But that predestination by which God is said to have decreed to save particular creatures and persons and to endue them with faith, is neither the foundation of Christianity, of salvation, nor of the assurance of salvation.
So, we're left with universalism - and that is pure unbridled, unvarnished heresy despite your protests, without a scintilla of exegesis given to support it. Good job, Dr. Reppert. Your problem isn't with Calvinism, it's really with any consideration of any sort of decree emanating from God, for decrees, at the very least, get us to some sort of certainty, and that's going to involve God creating with certain damnation in mind, if you believe in any sort of hell at all. That smacks of being a sin problem on your part, nothing more.
Thanks for the additional thoughts, Gene!
Post a Comment