Did God Cause the Fall of Man? A Response to Arminian Today Part 4

This is the 4th and final installment of a series of posts. I encourage you to go read parts 1, 2, and 3 as well as Arminian Today's article, "Did God Cause the Fall of Man."

In the final paragraph of his post Roy writes:

To me it is not a question of sovereignty as much as it is a question of God's love. If God truly loved humanity why would he want to grant by his own sovereign choice that Adam would Fall and that this would plummet mankind into a horrible existence marked by death, destruction, and decay?

This is a fair question that does need to be addressed by myself and others who hold my position that God predestined the fall of man. The question in my own words is, "how can a John 3:16 God predestine such a catastrophic event that would hurt so many people?" Let's look at how the Bible defines the love of God.

As I have written in the past, I do not believe that Calvinists can simply replace the word "world" that appears in John 3:16 with the word "elect." It seems to me that a natural reading of the text indicates a love of God for the world. However, I am troubled at the emphasis that the word "world" gets from so many people when discussing such a Christ centered verse. In light of the context it seems best to understand John 3:16 as a wonderful description of God's willingness to save people from such an evil world. Because the verses that follow 3:16 explicitly disallow for a universal understanding of salvation we must realize the difference between God's love for the world in a general sense and His love for those whom He has chosen to save.

It was important for me to go through all of that to make the distinction between God's love for the world and His love for the elect because I think we can clearly see how God's love fits perfectly with predestining the fall of man.

Here are 5 verses that show the greatness of God's love and the necessity of the fall for that love to be demonstrated:
Red= God's loving purpose.
Bold= Necessary consequence of the fall of man.

"Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you." (John 15:13-14)

"Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline..." (Revelation 3:19)

"In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:10)

"I have loved you,' says the LORD. But you say, 'How have you loved us?' 'Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?' declares the LORD. 'Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated." (Malachi 1:2-3)

"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." (Ephesians 5:25-27)

"For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:6-8)

Just to recap. God's love is shown in:
Death.
Reproof and discipline (which doesn't happen without sin).
Loving people who don't love Him.
In contrast to those whom He does not love.
Removing wrath that was meant for sinners (that's what propitiation does).
The Church (the church is a called out assembly of believers in Christ).
Sanctification and cleansing (which doesn't happen to perfect people).
Our Weakness.
Our Ungodliness.
Our Sinfulness.

When we allow God to speak for Himself through the Scriptures it is clear how His love is best demonstrated. I am willing to accept the Arminian claim that they do not hold to their views because of free-will but, rather, because of their understanding of the love of God. However, I disagree that the Arminian understanding of God's love is the correct understanding. The Bible displays God's saving love as amazing for 3 reasons: (1) it is a love for such vile sinners, (2) it is a particular love for those whom He chose to love, and (3) it is a love with an infinite cost, namely, the death of the Son of God.


I think it is good for people to engage in civil debate from time to time. Roy and I would disagree on this subject whether I wrote a response to his post or not so I didn't think it would hurt to voice my disagreement. If you have questions or comments (whether positive or negative) I would love it if you would post them in the comment section.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

Did God Cause the Fall of Man? A Response to Arminian Today Part 3

Now that I have made myself clear on the issue of whether or not God predestined or decreed that the fall of man would happen I must defend my position by answering Roy’s main question, "Did God cause Adam to fall into sin?" This is not an easy question to answer but I do believe we can look to the Bible for guidance. Continuing the quote from Roy’s post:

“The Scriptures clearly teach that God does not tempt men (James 1:13). Adam fell through the act of his own free will…But if there is really no such thing as free will then Adam fell because God essentially made him sin. This is the only rational response to the problem of Adam's sin.”

Before I can even address the majority of the content previously quoted I must make some distinctions that Roy does not make in his post. He writes, “Now to be fair, there are many Calvinist who would deny that Calvinism teaches that God caused the Fall. Most Calvinist would stop short of saying that God predestined the Fall of humanity…” (emphasis added).

Roy uses several words interchangeably that should be distinguished from one another. To predestine, to cause, to make someone do something, and to tempt are all different things. The fact that God predestined the fall to happen does not negate the fact that Adam willingly sinned against God.

One thing I like about Roy’s post is that he appeals to direct statements in Scripture. Though I certainly disagree with him on many of his conclusions, I want to make it clear that he is most helpful when He goes to the inspired word of God and he does that quite often. It seems to me that his “knockout” verse is James 1:13. For the sake of context we will look at 13-15:

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

The seeming contradiction that Roy presents between this text and the idea that God predestined the fall can be resolved when we look at James’ definition of temptation. Look at the text again and you will see that temptation is defined as a luring and enticing which is done by a person’s own desire. This is remarkably similar to Genesis 3:6 which tells us that Eve desired the fruit. I am not arguing that God tempted Adam and Eve to sin against Him. I am arguing that His sovereign will was that the fall would happen for His plan and purpose, namely, to bring about redemption for His glory. So I reject the idea that God’s decree of the fall means He tempted anyone to sin or even forced them to sin.

Undoubtedly many of you are wondering how Adam and Even fell into sin by God’s decree apart from God being the one to somehow tempt or push them into it. My answer is simply that I don’t know what the nature of Adam’s will was in a pre-fall state. But I will say that I don’t think it is helpful to insist that he must have had the ability to go against God’s sovereign plan. I briefly demonstrated in a previous post that free will, as defined by Arminianism, is not described in the Bible. The existence of choices, wills, and responsibility does not necessitate the unrealistic view many hold of ultimate free will. So unlike some Calvinists and Arminians who have thought through these things before me I do not offer a positive explanation of what Adam’s will was like. The Bible is silent on how Adam was capable of sinning apart from being born into sin and so I am silent on the issue as well.

In conclusion, I think the question is too vague for a simple yes or no. In light of my distinctions I will answer this way: God did cause the fall in that He predestined that it would happen exactly the way it happened. It could not have happened any other way or (in the strictest sense) not have happened. He did not, however, cause the fall by being a direct agent in the execution of the temptation or the sin itself. Scripture speaks on the relation of God’s decree of sin and the murder of Christ in this way:

…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)

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

Did God Cause the Fall of Man? A Response to Arminian Today Part 2

This is part 2 of a series of posts in response to the post on the blog Arminian Today entitled "Did God Cause the Fall of Man?" I suggest you begin by reading Roy's post and my introduction to the series.

Because of the issue we are dealing with I think it would be helpful to begin with a couple of questions that can guide us.

Did God have a purpose in creating man?
If so, what was that purpose?
Did God intend for Christ to come into the world?

If God is a God worthy of our worship (and He most certainly is) He doesn’t just create haphazardly. The Bible clearly indicates that God is a God of purpose. He doesn’t only have purpose in the world now but He had purpose in the world when He created it. In short, God’s purpose in creation was (and is) His glory (Isaiah 43:7). God is most glorified through the work of His Son, Christ Jesus, who is the “radiance of the glory of God” (Hebrews 1:3), for whom and through whom He created everything (Colossians 1:16-18). The glory of God in Jesus Christ shines most brightly in the work that he has done for us in redeeming such vile sinners (Ephesians 1:6, 12, 14, 2 Cor. 4:6).

In the post to which I am responding Roy states,

“God did foreknow that Adam would fall but he did not force the Fall (1 Peter 1:20). God foreknew that Adam would transgress but he did not predestine the Fall.”

Sandwiched between two statements is his reference to 1 Peter 1:20,

“He [Christ] was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God” (1:20-21).

In no way does this text give the impression that God did not predestine the fall. One cannot separate what God foreknows from what he decrees, especially in the case of Christ. If Christ was foreknown in the same way that Roy says the fall of man was foreknown then God must not have even planned the incarnation. But I suggest to you that Christ was foreknown as the one who would come to save us from our sins. I suggest to you that God not only knew the fall would happen but that this fallen world is leading to the best of all possible worlds that will glorify God because of what He has done through the God-man Jesus Christ.

My confidence in this belief that God's purpose in creation was the same before and after the fall is not merely derived from logic or what I believe about God. What seals this belief for me is the continuity of the existence of the gospel before and after the fall. If this is true we can confidently say that the fall did not alter God's original intention in creation in any way. Here are a couple of examples:

Genesis 2:24 gives us a pre-fall institution of marriage. Certainly marriage was affected by the fall because Adam and Eve and all of their descendants would be marred by sin. However, the purpose of marriage was not changed by sin. Rather, the purpose of marriage was fulfilled because of the existence of sin. In Ephesians Paul tells us exactly what God's purpose has always been for marriage. After quoting Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31 Paul gives this new understanding to an old institution, "This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." The word "mystery" can be interpreted in the light of Ephesians 3:5 as something that was hidden to previous generations but now revealed.

In order for the argument that God "foreknew but did not predestine" something to make sense it should be demonstrated that God was not actively "predestining" something that was directly affected by the event in question. Revelation 13:8 tells us that the Book of Life was written before the foundation of the world. Not only that but it is the Book of Life of the Lamb who was Slain. For what purpose was the Lamb slain?

God's foreknowledge is not a passive taking in of the future. In fact, every instance of the word imply God activity and contradict the thought that He was passive.

Next week, in part 3, I will deal with the difference between God's decree of the fall and the charge that this would mean He "caused" the fall. In part 4 I will defend the Biblical concept of God's love in view of the fact that He predestined the fall of man.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

Did God Cause the Fall of Man? A Response to Arminian Today Part 1

Theology matters. It matters because it is the study of God. It matters because all of human history is tied up with the true God of the universe. Within Christian theology there are several disputed doctrines. There is hardly a doctrine that is not vital for saving knowledge of the gospel that has not been debated by faithful Christian men and women.

However, the fact that theology matters and that debate is important in settling issues does not negate the fact that humility, grace, and love should be characteristic of those debates. My attempt in this series is not to be mean spirited or hateful but, rather, loving and honest.

Roy, who writes the blog Arminian Today, is a good Christian guy. I discovered his blog after he commented on Jason Lapp's blog and Jason told me I had to look it up. I found Roy to be a good writer with a high view of God and Scripture and a gracious and loving tone. One thing about the blog struck me as odd, it was Arminian. Many of you have probably never heard a positive definition of Arminianism. Most probably know it as "not Calvinism" which is a good start but not a fair summary. However, rather than using this post to define Arminianism for you I simply commend Arminian Today for your research. I agree with many of the things Roy writes and appreciate even the things with which I would respectfully disagree. The point I want to make is that I had never read an Arminian that writes so much like my Calvinist friends and influences. It's great! I hope that you will read Roy's writing with the same discernment I expect you to use when reading my writing (which should be a lot!).

My next three posts will be a response to his article, "Did God Cause the Fall of Man?" Please read my tone as loving and honest. I will occasionally say that I flat out disagree with his interpretation or use of particular passages of Scripture. That does not mean that I am trying to be hateful or mean, it simply means that I disagree with him. This is a true response to him because he is fully aware of it. I hope that he can get the time to read this and respond a little but I have told him that it is not expected of him because he has a lot on his plate right now.

The fall of man is described in Genesis 3 and Romans 5:12-21. This is important stuff because I am making the case that God predestined the very event that put this world in a tailspin of sin and death. However, I see the Bible as presenting a God that decrees this kind of world so that He can rescue it for His glory.

Here is how the series will go:
Part 2- God Predestined the Fall
Part 3- Did God "Cause" the Fall?
Part 3- The Demonstration of God's Love After the Fall

Please read Roy's article before reading my response.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

High Five- Solus Christus

Today we continue a discussion of the 5 "solas" of the reformation. The series is available here.

Solus Christus

Salvation is In Christ Alone

"Without fear or hesitation I proclaim the good news- hear my presentation From the Bible, God’s Word- clear revelation You can’t earn paradise with sheer dedication The Great Physician- He’s got your spirit’s medication Christ’s resurrection- not mere speculation Check the evidence- it bears investigation Solus Christus ideas and meditations" -Shai Linne

In order to really understand what salvation is all about we must first understand why salvation is necessary. We cannot know what the remedy to anything is without first knowing the ailment. That problem can be summarized in Romans 3:10-18:

"None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
"Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes." (ESV)

Here Paul quotes the Old Testament to summarize the point he has been making in chapters 1:18-3:9. He has shown that man is utterly opposed to the glory of God, suppressing the truth and loving sin. At this point it seems pretty hopeless for mankind. No man is good, they don't even seek after God. This is, of course, a problem because the wrath of God is coming against such people. God cannot overlook or wink at sin. It must be punished. Therefore, no one can escape hell by their own goodness. It seems that from birth every man is destined to eternal flames.

Now that we know what the disease is we can look at the cure. That cure is spelled out in the next verses of Romans 3:

For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:22-26)

So the remedy to the problem, and the nature of salvation, is that God "put forward" His Son, the God-man Jesus Christ, to live the perfect life that we couldn't live and then be punished for sin in our place (also see Colossians 2:13-15 and 2 Corinthians 5:21). For this reason the apostle Peter proclaimed "there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

The reason salvation is in Christ alone is because he is the only man who has (or can) bear the wrath of God on our behalf and impart to us a righteousness that is sufficient for us to be in God's presence. Again, Paul tells us, "there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus..." (1 Tim. 2:5).

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

High Five- Sola Gratia

This is a continuation of a series on the five “solas” of the reformation. Feel free to check out last week's post: Sola Scriptura and the introduction.

Sola Gratia

Salvation is by grace alone.

This week I want to take a look at Sola Gratia; that is, salvation is by grace alone. This idea comes straight out of Ephesians 2:8-9:

…by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it
is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Because of clear passages like this no confessing Christian of any stripe (whether orthodox or not) claims that salvation is not by grace alone (pardon the double negative). The real question comes down to what grace really is and how God really saves. Does grace alone mean that God has provided a sacramental system by which one works their way to heaven as Roman Catholics claim? Does it make all men merely savable as some evangelicals claim? Or does it mean that salvation is 100% of God as the reformed tradition claims?

In order to understand where the reformers were coming from it is important to know something of what they were up against. Martin Luther famously opposed the Catholic concept of indulgences by which a person could buy a loved one’s way out of purgatory. The saying of Johann Tetzel went like this “when a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs” a phrase as poetical as it is heretical. Many Roman Catholics would now say that it was right for Martin Luther to oppose this act. Perhaps the medieval church went too far in allowing people to buy their way out of purgatory.

What I want to point out, however, is that the assumption of the concept of indulgences is actually one of the proofs that the Roman Catholic works-righteousness system is not sola gratia, namely, purgatory. To say that one must go to a place before heaven to atone for their own remaining sin is the opposite of what Ephesians 2 teaches. The grace taught here is apparently that Christ’s death achieved very little (especially when considering the concept of the Eucharist which considered a continual sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ).

Unfortunately the debate on this issue doesn’t stop at Catholic vs. Protestant. Within Protestantism are synergists and monergists. Synergists believe that salvation involves the cooperation of two wills: God and man for salvation. Even if you believe this is 99% God and 1% man you are a synergist. Monergists, on the other hand, believe that only one agent, God, is at work in salvation and the exercise of man’s will is an outworking of what God has done in them. When discounting the extremes of these two views they are both considered orthodox, though only one of them can be correct.

My personal belief is that Scripture teaches a monergistic salvation. I believe that when I was saved I put my trust in Christ because the Holy Spirit opened my heart to believe the gospel. This seems to be what Ephesians 2:1-7 teaches. Man is dead in sin which is defined as following our own desires led by Satan. But God saves us out of this by making us alive in Christ. Then in 2:8 Paul says that “this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God…” The question is, “what is the gift of God?” A synergist would say that Paul is simply speaking of salvation. This is because the way the sentence is constructed “this” can not point specifically to what we might consider the most natural word, “faith”. However, those with much more knowledge of Greek than myself (that’s not hard to do) point to this as an example of a word being used to sum up the entirety of the preceding phrase. In other words, when Paul says “this…is the gift of God” he means grace, salvation, and faith. If that is the way Paul meant his words there is very little doubt left that the monergist understanding of salvation is correct.

I don’t go into this much depth to confuse people or to be overly technical but to show that (1) the fact that there is this much to debate between the two protestant sides shows just how far off the Roman Catholic understanding is. (2) It seems clear that salvation by grace alone means that God saves man rather than merely making man savable. (3) How great is this grace which we encounter daily, mostly without realizing it or being thankful for it.

Salvation by grace alone is surely a wonderful doctrine which we should seek to understand at greater depths. Next week we will look at sola fide, the understanding that justification is by faith alone (Galatians 2:16). Or is it? (James 2:24)

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

High Five- Sola Scriptura

Just in way of reminder, the purpose of this post is to put the ideas expressed in the 5 solas of the reformation in front of us in way of reminder of just how important these truths are. To read my introduction from last week click the link here.

Sola Scriptura

Scripture Alone is the sole standard for doctrine and the Christian life.

The primary text referred to on this point is 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof,
for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be
competent, equipped for every good work.

The most important thing to note here is that Scripture is “breathed out by God.” When you think of the inspiration of Scripture be careful not think of it as coming from men who were merely enlightened or motivated. Though the Bible certainly reflects the personality, writing style, and motives of the human author it is ultimately from the Holy Spirit. This should be all we need to know about Scripture to understand the concept of Sola Scriptura. Because God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and cannot lie (Titus 1:2) His word is trustworthy.

Of course we should note some things in way of qualification that many people don’t understand when it comes to the sufficiency, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture.

1. The Bible is sufficient in all that it teaches.
You will not find a direct answer to the question “Does my Islamic friend truly know God?” in the Bible. This is mostly due to the fact that Islam came about after the canon of Scripture was closed. But there are plenty of biblical principles to guide you answering important questions.

2. The Bible does not claim 100% scientific precision.
The Bible is written to communicate to people in the way that people communicate. So when you read about the Sun rising you don’t have to assume that God doesn’t understand that the Earth revolves around the Sun anymore than when your local weatherman talks about the Sun rising. This also means that biblical measurements will not give you the exact number for pi and that round numbers are often used. (Ever notice that Jesus never spoke to a crowd of 4,322 people?)

3. Claims of sufficiency, infallibility, and inerrancy are in specific reference to the original manuscripts of Scripture, not necessarily your version.
Whether or not we can trust that we posses an accurate witness to what was originally written is another subject (I believe we do). But we have to remember that behind the English words in your NIV, NASB, ESV, and even KJV are translators, textual critics, and scribes who have worked hard to make what you read the most accurate reflection of what was originally written. These are imperfect sciences helping you access a perfect document.

The good news about this text is that it doesn’t stop at telling us that Scripture is “breathed out by God.” It continues to help us understand that Scripture is for the full equipping of the saints. We read that Scripture does all of this “that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” When I played baseball I went to a Sport’s shop to get my glove and cleats, a uniform shop for my jersey, and my cap was special ordered somewhere. Not only that but I had coaches to help me play better and none of them were located at those places where I bought my equipment, I had to go to various fields to practice. The baseball player knows nothing of one stop shopping if they want to be both equipped and competent for their trade. The man of God is able to go to the word of God in order to be equipped.

The point might be made, however, that this point diminishes the role of the church in the life of the believer. Does this not contradict Hebrews 10:24-25 “And let us consider how to stir up one another love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another…”? Perhaps it would contradict the biblical role of the church in the life of the believer if Paul did not continue by showing the powerful role of the word in the church through preaching.

Just a few verses later in 4:2 Paul encourages Timothy, the pastor of the church at Ephesus, “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” So the word of God is sufficient to equip a person in their daily individual life as well as the life of the corporate assembly of believers.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

High Five!

In the Bible we find all kinds of special numbers. Jesus fasted for 40 days. The Israelites marched around Jericho for 7 days. Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for 3 days, prefiguring Jesus’ triumph over the grave after 3 days. Some of these translate to modern Christianity quite well. 40 is a good number if you’re looking for purpose (I hope I don’t have to pay Rick Warren for this post now). 7 is the number of boxes of doughnuts a person should bring to Sunday School. And nobody listens to a sermon once it gets past the 3^rd point.

All that to say, there was a time when another number was used to aid Christians in their walk. During the period of the reformation all good things came in fives. In fact, I believe Martin Luther was once quoted as saying, “if you do not pray 5 times a day I will write you a stern letter and nail it to your door” (paraphrase). As much as I would love to use my time discussing Jon Huss’ concept of the $5 foot long (which is still in use today) or even the famous Zwingly handshake I will focus my attention on the 5 “solas” of the reformation.

Even if you have never heard these 5 Latin phrases chances are your life has been affected by them. I want to use some posts putting the ideas that the reformers fought to reclaim in Christianity. Sometimes it is good for one to look at the foundation of their faith and ask “am I building on this correctly?”

As you will see it all starts with where we get our faith. The concept of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). The next three involve the essence of the gospel. Salvation is Sola Gratia (by grace alone), Justification is Sola Fide (by faith alone), and this is all Solus Christus (in Christ Alone). The final sola tells us for what purpose creation, salvation, $5 foot longs, and everything else is aimed. It is all Soli Deo Gloria (for the glory of God alone).

Why is it really important for us to consider these things? Because of the importance of preserving the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is what the reformers were seeking to do when they were considered accursed by the Roman Catholic Church. But the question we need to face ourselves with is whether we are willing to be cursed for the gospel or embrace a different gospel that will make us accursed?

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9)