God Bless.

First, contrasting this form of Reformed compatibilism against “Arminian foreknowledge” presents both a straw man argument and false dichotomy. I don’t think Arminian theology is quite as simplistic as presented and “Arminian foreknowledge” is not the only view opposed to this form of compatibilism. Many Christian philosophers ascribe to either simple foreknowledge or Molinism which offers better explanations that include libertarian free-will.

Second, as a theologian and Christian philosophy, my primary problem with the doctrine of predestination and compatabilist freewill (the idea that human free will is limited within the will of God for us)is the problem of evil. I think this is true of most Christian philosophers. This view does not seem to adequately answer the the problem of the existance of evil. If all is predestined, God is the author of evil. If libertarian freewill is allowed, there is a more adequate explanation of how evil came to be.

Finally, and I won’t go into to much detail here, but having human will being limited within the scope of God’s will or an Augustinian idea of being unable not to sin and being predestined and foreknown by God implies, in my view a specific view of the nature of time. Specifically, it seems to imply that God view all moments of time at once and implies the nature of time as being static, that is to God all events of time have already transpired. This results in huge theological problems in our understanding of such things as the incarnation of Christ and the perichorisis of the Trinity.

Personally, I’m am undecided on this issue but I think it is much more complex than many think.

He blinds them certainly enough but, apparently, because they love darkness rather than light. Since that is a natural state, it seems there must yet be “natural revelation” to counter this as in Romans 1, giving them a choice:

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”

Even MacArthur suggests that this blinding is a strange act of mercy to save them from “greater damnation” at having rejected even MORE revelation.

Because, when I called, no one answered, When I spoke they did not hear; But they did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight.” (Isaiah 66:4)

David,

We cannot allow ourselves to be saved. The whole idea of being saved is that we were helpless (Rom 5:6, Ezek 16:4-6), dead (Eph 2:4-5, Col 2:13-14); we didn’t even exist (Rom 4:17). Dead people do not allow themselves to be anything. And, if such a thing were possible, if one did allow oneself to be saved, it would be a “work,” (ergon) because he would be DOING something (energeo). (Pardon the caps; I don’t know how to italicize.)

I think the best illustration of our utter inability to contribute anything to our salvation — even our inability to acknowledge that we can do nothing — is the one our Lord gives: rebirth. Can a baby allow himself (or refuse) to be born? Jesus picks this perfect analogy because man has absolutely no say in whether or not He is born. It’s a decision made entirely independent of him, indeed, before he exists. Our physical birth depends on the decision of our parents. Similarly, our spiritual birth depends on the decision of our Father. Bringing it back: a baby cannot acknowledge that he cannot be born on his own. He doesn’t exist to make that acknowledgement. Neither do we exist to make that acknowledgement (Rom 4:17).

*********************
As for “irresistible grace”, consider Cain in Genesis 4.

After a direct appeal from the Almighty! “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”.. The next thing we see him doing is murdering his brother. Was that “resistible grace” or “Irresistible Grace, Beta Version”…or did Cain chose his OWN way? Why would God admonish Cain to “rule over it” and then not give him the ability to do so. Obviously he had the ability, but chose not to.
*********************

Cain was not of the elect. Therefore, his heart and mind were darkened so that he could not see what was right in front of him. Even in the presence of God Himself, Cain could not see Him as the glorious God He truly is/was. John says “For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, ‘HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM’” (Jn 12:39-40). Cain could not see, because God had blinded his eyes and hardened his heart. This is done, “so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN” (Mk 4:12). It is also done “so that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge” (Ps 51:4). Those who are unbelieving prove God just in His wrath. “Why would God admonish Cain to ‘rule over it’ and then not give him the ability to do so?” Answer: so that the unbelieving would be ‘ever seeing, but never perceiving,’ and so God would be ‘justified when He speaks and blameless when He judges.’

To answer your sarcastic question, it was not irresistible grace because that is given only to the elect. There’s no such thing as ‘resistible grace.’ Either the gift is given or it’s not. In Cain’s case it was not. Cain did choose his own way, and was free to do so within the bounds of his nature. However, his nature was one that could only have made the choice he made.

Just in case that’s hard for you to swallow, let me illustrate crudely. Just like man, a fish is created with a nature. A fish can choose freely to go anywhere it wants……. provided that it swims. A fish cannot get up and walk on land, for it is not in its nature to do so. It has not been created with a nature that can do this. It can freely choose its course within the bounds of its nature, but no farther. So it is with man. We are free to choose within the bounds of our nature, but our nature is one that will always choose sin, and never choose God. (That’s just what it means to be dead. helpless, ungodly, sinning, enemies [Eph 2:4-5, Rom 5:6-9].) Cain freely chose to disobey, which was entirely in the bounds of his nature. But his nature was sovereignly created by God.

I sincerely hope this helps, is edifying, and points to the glory of sovereign grace. Like I said with Kent, I’d love for God to present His Truth through me such that you brothers would see it for what it is (not my words, but His). But if this simply will not be the case, I don’t want to be academic, polemic, or merely intellectual with the Word of Truth.

MIKE

Let me say that I’m enjoying our interaction. I hope you’re not sensing any hostility on my end. Sadly, these things can get like that, and I don’t want you to misunderstand my disagreement with hard feelings. Along the same lines, I’m wondering if our discussion is edifying. My prayer is that those of you who have been disagreeing with me would be enlightened to the glory of God’s grace in salvation, such that His glory is not shortchanged by man’s actions and so that He will be glorified in His grace. If there’s no chance of this happening, it might be best not to continue our discussion… just because we don’t want to approach God’s Truth as a textbook to debate over, or develop intellectual positions from.

On the chance that we’re not just writing for writing’s sake, let me say that I don’t find your original interpretation of 2Th 2:13 to be the plain reading. I found the meaning to be very plain when I read it, and believe that the “through sanctification and faith in the truth” is referring to salvation and not the choosing.

Now, can we separate the choice from the salvation? In one sense, certainly not. For all who are chosen will be saved (John 10:26-30). The election is effectual. And so when you say you can’t separate them, I agree with you on this plane of thought.

However, is the choice salvation? No. And in such a sense they can be separated. When God chose us for salvation before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) we weren’t saved right then. We were chosen to be saved. Now again, what we’re trying to do here is intermingle the infinite with the temporal, and so one might say we were saved from before the foundation of the world, because God’s election is effectual. But the reality is that when God chose me to be saved, He didn’t save me right then. First of all, I didn’t exist. Secondly, I was not taken from my corrupted flesh into His presence. Thirdly, I lived as an unsaved person for 15 years. My point is illustrated by Romans 8:30, which talks about foreknowing, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. Unless all of those things happened at once — and we know we’re not justified and glorified at the same time — we can say that salvation is separated from (and preceded by) election.

Also, I appreciate your fervor for the text itself, but we must not forget that the text has implications. I’m a huge huge huge proponent of letting Scripture speak for itself, and I embrace the grammatical-historical, literal hermeneutic. But if you take the Scripture at face value without carrying what it says out to its logical conclusions, you never get to a synthesized theology, and that will lead you to contradictions in Scripture. All this is to say that it is okay to take an idea from Spurgeon, namely: “Faith is the gift of God. Every virtue comes from Him. Therefore it cannot have caused Him to elect men, because it is His gift. Election, we are sure, is unconditional, and altogether apart from the virtues which the saints acquire after salvation,” and deal with that. Unless this is unsound, Scripture should accord with this, right? So if every virtue comes from God Himself, how can man have faith to be foreseen that was not planted there as a gift of God?

As far as faith being the means of salvation, I believe this is the plain meaning of the phrase, “saved by grace through faith.” Our salvation is a gift of God’s grace, totally unmerited, unmotivated, and unwarranted on our part. We procure that grace by faith in Christ. But we know we can’t “take hold of a gift.” It is given or it is not given. It’s not offered and debated upon. So if we believe, it is by grace that we believe (John 6:65, no one can believe unless it is granted [here's the gift] by the Father). God appoints that we be saved before time, and we believe in time as a result of that sovereign, effectual choice (Acts 13:48, as many as were appointed believed).

Sorry that this is so long. I wish we could talk in person or something. It’d be much quicker, and probably much clearer. Don’t really know to end this… cuz I’m tired.

MIKE

Man frequently boasts about things he ought not, e.g. “I beat cancer” after hours of surgery and months of treatment administered by someone else. Likewise, allowing oneself to be saved is not a “work”.

As for “irresistible grace”, consider Cain in Genesis 4.

After a direct appeal from the Almighty! “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”.. The next thing we see him doing is murdering his brother. Was that “resistible grace” or “Irresistible Grace, Beta Version”…or did Cain chose his OWN way? Why would God admonish Cain to “rule over it” and then not give him the ability to do so. Obviously he had the ability, but chose not to.

I appreciate you dealing with the actual text. That often doesn’t happen in discussions of doctrine. Gill says that belief is the “means” of salvation. The Greek word translated “through” is the preposition en. I believe Gill is reading in the instrumentality based upon his theology. I could not give you any examples of the preposition en showing instrumentality, and when it does, it is only with certain verbs that still show location, like “baptized with (en) fire.” So saying that belief in the truth is the “means” of salvation contradicts the usage of en, so is not good grammar.

You can’t get away from belief connecting with chosen, because chosen and salvation are bound together. The people chosen to salvation are in the sphere of belief in the truth. It is a jump to say that the choosing is causal to the belief. This is not the plain reading of that verse.

There cannot be a world which hypothetically exists if God had done this or that differently. The world we live in is not only the best of all possible worlds (see Piper on that), but it is the only possible world. This conclusion is built on the premise that (1) God is infinitely glorious and worthy of utmost glory and esteem; (2) It is idolatry to not give glory and utmost esteem to that which is most worthy of it; (3) God cannot commit idolatry.

There is only one possible way that God could be glorified to the greatest degree, and that is to create the world as He has. He never changes His mind (Acts 15:18, Mal 3:16) and is uninfluenced by nothing but His own counsel (Is 40:13-14, Is. 46:10, Eph 1:11). (This touches upon what my more complete response would have been to Kent’s other question; i.e., God does not elect based on foreseen faith because His decree is uninfluenced by anything aside from His own counsel. Nobody has been His counselor, Is. 40:13-14, and He will do all HIS pleasure, Is. 46:10).

One of our great objections to Calvinism is, that it so shackles God’s infinite knowledge as to despoil him of the knowledge of future contingencies, or of those events which depend upon man’s unnecessitated choice: absurdly supposing that God knows what he absolutely decrees, and no more. “If events were undecreed,” says Mr. Toplady, in his Hist. Proof, p. 192, “they would be unforeknown; if unforeknown, they could not be infallibly predicted. How came God to foreknow man’s fall,” says Calvin, “but because he had appointed it?” Thus Calvin and Mr. Toplady, in one sense, allow less foreknowledge to God, than to a stable boy; for without decreeing any thing about the matter, a postilion knows that if the horse he curries gets into his master’s garden, some of the beds will be trampled; and that if a thief has an opportunity of taking a guinea without being seen, he will take it.
[The works of Reverend John Fletcher : Volume 2]

“But,” others say, “God elected them on the foresight of their faith.” Now, God gives faith therefore He could not have elected them on account of faith, which He foresaw. If there were twenty beggars in the street, and I determine to give one of them a dollar, will anyone say that I determined to give that one a dollar, that I elected him to have the dollar, because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense. Likewise, to say that God elected men because He foresaw they would have faith, would be too absurd for us to listen to for a moment. Faith is the gift of God. Every virtue comes from Him. Therefore it cannot have caused Him to elect men, because it is His gift. Election, we are sure, is unconditional, and altogether apart from the virtues which the saints acquire after salvation.