A Response to a Comment

[His clay]

Over the centuries believers have taken theoretical positions which are in opposition to each other when taken to extremes but may very well reflect different aspects of the same truth.

God created everything so knows its implications and outcomes. We have though the creation of infinities, and combinations of simple principles that create infinite outcomes. God also created the ability within animals to choose behavioural reactions to events, with different emphasises which lead to many different outcomes. Jesus declared the Kingdom was like the sower and the seed. Different soils react differently because of how they exist. Taking the parable into heart life, some peoples hearts are hard, while other soft and open. The cause of the hardness is a combination of how they are made and their choices. So one can propose people have no choice over their heart reaction because of who they are, while others can emphasis they responded which was a choice.

My problem with predetermism at the extreme is there is no need to seek out the lost and preach, to be a light, to let Gods love shine through good works, rather it is withdrawal from society to create isolated pockets of believers who do their own thing, as if the world will contaminate them. The opposite approach is hard work is needed to convince and draw people unto Jesus, and without this no one will hear or know the gospel.

I believe a person is confronted with Jesus's words, His heart and approach and they can choose to invest time and listen and follow or walk away. I have seen people do both, choose to seek out Jesus and His way and also walk away when faced with the changes they are being called to make and issues to resolve in their lives. I have understood His people hear His voice and follow, and those who do not, are not His people.
The phrase chosen has two aspects, the generic, Jesus chooses those who have followed ie. His people are His followers, or out of a crowd He chooses randomly individuals who come to be a believer.

I have been shocked to know, I do not know because I am not God, but I will preach and pray for and bless everyone, some will respond and some will reject and walk away. But I am called to be a light, so show the power of Christ transforming the heart and making me a disciple of the King.

The divide appears to be what this transformation is and how far it can go. Some are so stubborn they claim to know Jesus but refuse to resolve life issues and relationships which Jesus is calling them to resolve. My test is now if people will not repent, will not work through the issues and let change occur, they do not know the Lord of love. These folk are everywhere on every position theological one can imagine, but equally so are the Lords people. To say we are emotional beings with an intellectual framework of faith that brings us life for some is just too difficult, but it becomes clearer to me, this is what we actually are, and Jesus opens the prison doors so we can be mature, a Holy and cleansed people.

God bless you

(Part 1 of 3)

Paragraph 1: The middle of the road fallacy is utilized by pointing toward oppositional extremes, while the truth is supposedly in the middle. First, the truth is what is it regardless of extremes. Second, the use of the term "extremes" is arbitrary; for one can almost always point to one supposed extreme or another to justify something in the middle.

For example: one can point to atheism and traditional Christianity as extremes to promote the middle of deism. One can point to hypercalvinism and Arminianism to point to the middle of Calvinism. One can point to Pelagianism and Calvinism to promote the middle of Arminianism.

Suggestion: One should quit looking at the supposed extremes and focus on an exegetical theology. People's reactions to scripture are not the standard. Rather, God's word is ultimately the standard.

Paragraph 2: Choices are acts of preference in keeping with one's highest motive; hence, when a choice is made a person is anything but indifferent. To select an option is to demonstrate one's preference of that object of choice over others. There is no such thing as "infinite outcomes" or "many different outcomes". Reality is one; it is not several. The idea of "many different outcomes" is a simple violation of the law of identity. A plurality of objects of choice does not therefore mean that one can with equal ease choose any of them. It seems that a chance view of the will and reality is being advocated.

Near the end of the paragraph a dichotomy is set up. "So one can propose people have no choice over their heart reaction because of who they are, while others can emphasis they responded which was a choice." As the quote states, either "people have no choice over their heart reaction because of who they are," or "they responded which was a choice." Note how acting in accord with one's nature is pitted against making a choice, supposedly over one's nature. The problem here is that one option is simply not viable and violates nature itself. One cannot speak of having a choice over one's nature because the will or choice-making faculty of a person is part of their nature. In other words, you cannot stand outside of yourself to choose who you are going to be. You don't get to split yourself up to make such a choice. Rather, choosing is part of one's nature. And even if one cannot choose to be another person, one is still acting and making choices in keeping with the person he is. So the dichotomy fails to note that choosing in accord with one's nature is also making choices. Just because the fish cannot choose to have lungs doesn't mean that it cannot make choices in keeping with what it is. So rather than proposing a dichotomy between choice and nature, one should rather consider that the two here a falsely put into a dichotomy.

Further, Jesus points out that out of the heart comes evil deeds in Matthew 15:19.

 

[His clay]

(Part 2 of 3)

Paragraph 3: We can note another false dichotomy. The "predetermism at the extreme," leading to isolationism and gospel laziness in proclamation is pitted against "hard work is needed to convince and draw people unto Jesus, and without this no one will hear or know the gospel." Again, we have another false dichotomy. Many Calvinists are very well aware of the failures of hypercalvinism. A person who many consider to be the father of modern missions was William Carey, a Calvinist. Other Calvinists have pointed out that God ordains the means as well as the end. The use of means in carrying out God's ends was a key feature of Carey's understanding of missions. Other missionaries have worked hard precisely because of their trust in a sovereign God. He is sovereign in that He is the ultimate reason why people believe because of His grace. He is also sovereign in that He has commanded the proclamation of the gospel. He is also sovereign to place a love for Himself in the hearts of true believers, and a true believer will want to please God because of his love for Him. What the above dichotomy fails to note is that biblical predeterminism leads to strong motivations to witness, pray, work, etc. However, why pray for God to work in hearts that are ultimately a random chance happening of the will? What the dichotomy does not spell out is that work, the gospel, convincing, etc are reduced to pointless endeavors under indeterminism. None of these cause a person to choose under an inderminist view of the will. Not only does the paragraph promote a false dichotomy, but it also has committed the selective evidence fallacy. Apparently, only the negative of prederminism is focused upon and the positives of indeterminism are lauded, while all the while ignoring the evidence of the good aspects of prederminism and the serious problems of indeterminism.

Paragraph 4: The opening sentence is rather revealing. "I believe a person is confronted with Jesus's words, His heart and approach and they can choose to invest time and listen and follow or walk away." Here one can note the conflation between objects of choice (invest time and listen or walk away) and the supposed ability to choose between either (can choose). Besides being an obvious demonstration of a libertarian freedom bias, the conflation simply fails to deal with the decision making process. People are not indifferent when they choose, for to choose is to prefer one over the others. A choice is in keeping with one's highest motive or preference. A person is only one person; a person is not two. Hence, when a choice is made, one person makes a choice in keeping with a highest motive, and it cannot be otherwise than the nature of the person leading up to the choice, otherwise one has a violation of the law of identity. Simply put: yes, many are confronted with the choice to follow Jesus or walk away, but how one arrives at the choice is a different matter. And because people are anything but indifferent when making a choice, then it stands to follow that one simply cannot choose either in an inderministic way.

The next sentence states, "I have seen people do both, choose to seek out Jesus and His way and also walk away when faced with the changes they are being called to make and issues to resolve in their lives." First, the fact that different people choose differently does not eliminate the reality that when one person is confronted with a choice, he chooses in keeping with what he most prefers. The introduction of multiple people does not change the reality of an individual's nature. The danger here is conflating differing choices of differing people into the ability of one person to choose in the same way. Second, one is again presented with no commentary on why people make the choices that they do; hence, the sentence omits the evidence of why the different choices were made by different people. If one goes back to paragraph 2, one can again note the false dichotomy between nature and choice. And again, one can note the impossibility of choice being above essential nature.

Before the next sentence is stated, note the interesting repeated use of the first person in the paragraph: "I believe a person..." "I have seen people..." "I have understood..." This betrays a rather man-centered way of viewing things. Again, rather that starting first with self and looking outward to extremes; one needs to look first to God's word and see the critique God's word brings upon ourselves and others. Historical theology needs to take a subservient role to biblical authority.

Another revealing piece of information is stated, "The phrase chosen has two aspects, the generic, Jesus chooses those who have followed ie. His people are His followers, or out of a crowd He chooses randomly individuals who come to be a believer." A couple of points are worthy of note. First, this is a statement of conditional election, for His choice is conditioned upon people following. Second, it falsely represents unconditional election when it states, "out of a crowd He chooses randomly . . ." This is a straw man because unconditional election does not reduce down to random election. The "unconditional" element of unconditional election addresses the man focused aspect of election. In other words, human actions have no ultimate bearing upon God's choice of who to save. Note again the focus upon the negation of human action. Note what is not said. It was never said that God has no reason whatsoever outside of the human negation. That was simply assumed by the "chooses randomly" objection. In contrast, all that is needed for unconditional election is the negation of human decisions being the ground of God's choice; what is not addressed is God's purposes and infinite wisdom governing His decision to choose. And this is where the "chooses randomly" objection becomes blasphemous. By asserting that God's choice is random, simply because human choice-making is not the ground of God's choice, and failing to see God's infinite wisdom and design in the choice He makes, the objection blasphemes God by reducing His infinite wisdom, goodness, and design down to "chooses randomly."

The sentence displays conditional election, falsely represents unconditional election, and blasphemes God. Conditional election, because of the false assumption of libertarian freedom, gets the cart before the horse. It elevates man's choice over God's nature. In open theism it means that God learns. In other views, it means that God's knowledge is dependent upon human actions, and thusly the ground of His choice is upon the choice of man. Such a view upends reality. Rather than a God-centered view of reality, now man's choice is the ground of God's nature and thusly becomes a painfully obvious man-centered view of reality. This is also a denial of God's self-sufficient nature, for it says that God's knowledge is logically dependent upon man's choice, which denies that holistic self-sufficiency of God. All of this stems back to libertarian freedom and the idea of choice preceding nature, or at least choice being indeterministic, or the agent being indeterministic. (the problem of goal post shifting is real and in evidence here)

Note also, the issue isn't whether or not people follow Jesus. Rather, the issue is the ultimate ground for why they follow Jesus. Verses like the following point to Jesus' call being ultimate ground for the person's following. "As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. 'Follow me,' he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him."

 

[His clay]

(Part 3 of 3)

Paragraph 5: This paragraph is a bit contradictory with the what the author stated previously. But one can again note the self-centered method of expression. "I have been shocked to know, I do not know because I am not God, but I will preach and pray for and bless . . . But I am called . . ." First, note again the use of the first person. The individual seems rather focused upon talking about himself. Granted, the last use of the first person, quoted above, is focused upon personal responsibility. This is commendable. God's commands are not negated by His sovereignty; rather, they are grounded upon His sovereignty. Reality cannot be another other way for His creatures, and God sets the standards and rules. Second, being self-centered is an aspect of the fall. All sinful people will struggle with this, whether a Christian or not. This is an easy rut to get into, so the condemnation of this response being self-centered cuts against myself as well. It is good to be reminded to not be self-centered. Fallen thinking is dangerous because it pushes people to be narcissistic and selfish.

The final sentence states, "But I am called to be a light, so show the power of Christ transforming the heart and making me a disciple of the King." Uh oh, all of a sudden the author here seems to reverse his earlier sentiment. Before the person chooses their heart and nature, but now Christ is transforming the heart and making one a disciple (a follower) of the King. The God-centered focus is definitely appreciated, but this seems to present a rather problematic internal inconsistency with the author. Does a person now choose to follow Christ because God transformed their heart? This would seem to remove the conditional election, mentioned previously as well as the "infinite outcomes" or "many different outcomes" view of reality.

Paragraph 6: The paragraph rightfully point to the inconsistency of people who say they are followers and believers in Christ and having lives that betray that no change has taken place. True believers will evidence a transformed heart; this is often described in terms relating to regeneration and repentance. The first speaks towards God's action to change a person; the second speaks towards man's turn around in living. Both are true of true believers. But when one lives in a way that demonstrates an unchanged heart and a consistent sinful lifestyle he is essentially announcing that he does not love God. In many ways, this paragraph is the best one as it calls people to truly repent and believe, as opposed to endorsing shallow, facades of Christianity.


Most Significant Concern: The single most dangerous thing about libertarian freedom is the perversion of faith. One can use the language of "faith" and "belief" while all the while denying it with the assertion of libertarian freedom. How exactly does this happen? Libertarian freedom asserts human or choice ultimacy, and the ability to do otherwise. The danger is that one then trusts in his decision. He trusts in his ability to do otherwise. One self-sufficiently chooses to believe, and so now one has wedded human self-trust (personal ultimacy and ability) with the language of belief in Christ. This is profoundly and eternally dangerous. Faith needs to be understood in the context of human dependency, stop! The gospel points to people who are depraved and helpless apart from God's many works to save them. It is the helpless look to Christ upon the cross, bearing the punishment due sin, that constitutes faith. Human self-sufficiency needs to die to a dependency/faith upon God's work of redemption. As one person said, self-sufficiency needs to be made shipwreck upon rock of Christ and His power to save. The great danger is that libertarian freedom may deceive people into thinking they have the power, in-and-of-themselves, to believe. And it also may deceive one into thinking that he has trusted Christ, but really the person is ultimately trusting in his own decision to believe.