Has The Church'S View Of Grace/Works Changed?

[ERayR]

I do not think the Church has changed its teachings or its doctrine when it comes to Grace and works. The Evangelical position has never made sense to me. If works were not of value, what is the importance or need for the Judgment? Exactly what would be judged if it is not works?

There is truth and value to what Evangelicals teach, but it is incomplete. The pursuit of holiness is crucial to a life of discipleship; without such a pursuit there is no discipleship. Obedience to the laws of God are what guide the disciple to emulate our Master. If we have no master then works are meaningless, there is no discipleship, and there would be no judgment.

Catholicism comes close to proper teaching, but even they want to water it down. The only full, complete teaching of Grace/works is found within the Church; but even then we need to seek for it.

The problem I have is way too many LDS misunderstand works and its position. I have even heard it preached incorrectly in general conference. The most commonly misunderstood scripture quoted is 2 Nephi 25:23 ... for we know that it is by ^bgrace that we are saved, after all we can ^cdo.

[Calm]

I do not think the Church has changed its teachings or its doctrine when it comes to Grace and works. The Evangelical position has never made sense to me. If works were not of value, what is the importance or need for the Judgment? Exactly what would be judged if it is not works?.....The pursuit of holiness is crucial to a life of discipleship; without such a pursuit there is no discipleship.

My understanding is that works have value in the judgment as a measure of what one has made of one's sanctified life, God has purified one, saved one from one's sinful nature, but then one has the choice of what kind of disciple to be....kind of like the servants and the talents, what will you do with what God has given you.

But if my understanding is correct then it seems to me that one chooses what to do based on the nature that God has given you so you don't really deserve the rewards as anymore than a machine would deserve a pat on the back for doing the job it was created to do without error, rather it is the machinist who deserves it (and is glorified though the acts of his machine if they are good acts).

If the machinist has somehow programmed in independence of thought and choice, that thought and choice may occur without further involvement of the machinist, but unless there is a random element in the programming, the thoughts and choices are caused by the programming which is caused by the machinist and therefore is his responsibility.....and the random element removes accountability, not bestows it.

The idea that somehow man is free enough in his choices to be held accountable but is still a complete creation of God and therefore can do nothing that is truly good without God's interference is a premise that I cannot get my head around. I would have to accept it as a mystery if I were to become a Calvinist....at least at this point, perhaps there is someone out there who can make this make sense to me.

[Calm]

The problem I have is way too many LDS misunderstand works and its position. I have even heard it preached incorrectly in general conference. The most commonly misunderstood scripture quoted is 2 Nephi 25:23 ... for we know that it is by ^bgrace that we are saved, after all we can ^cdo.

It is easy, imo, to not be precise enough in language, especially when words have vague or multiple meanings. And this is one subject that suffers greatly from lack of precision, imo, leading people to fill in the gaps or unvague the vagueness on their own which too often leads to misunderstanding...and once that misunderstanding is establishing in their understanding, they then tend to interpret any further commentary, no matter how precise, through that misunderstanding. Correction that embedded misunderstanding can take the equivalent of an intellectual/emotional/spiritual two by four between the eyes.

[ERayR]

It is easy, imo, to not be precise enough in language, especially when words have vague or multiple meanings. And this is one subject that suffers greatly from lack of precision, imo, leading people to fill in the gaps or unvague the vagueness on their own which too often leads to misunderstanding...and once that misunderstanding is establishing in their understanding, they then tend to interpret any further commentary, no matter how precise, through that misunderstanding. Correction that embedded misunderstanding can take the equivalent of an intellectual/emotional/spiritual two by four between the eyes.

As far as LDS members are concerned I think a lot of it is a failure in scripture study and meditation. They read 2 Nephi 25:23 and say hmmm I see that I must do all I can then God will make up for my shortcomings so they begin counting their good works. What they fail to do is connect King Benjamin in Mosiah 2:20-21 that explains that no matter what we do, how many points we make, we must rely on grace. They fail to connect the concepts and then they hear someone in authority commit the same failure it become cemented and viewed as doctrine that grace applies to resurrection and works applies to exaltation. It is just a soft form of faith/works dichotomy where there should be none.

[DBMormon]

I feel like I am often misunderstood. Many of you addressing my OP think I feel obedience is neither part of the equation nor required.

Obedience is absolutely required and nessacary. I just don't see a required level of obedience as nessacary. In other words I want to prevent the notion that some Latter-Day Saints belive, namely that I must do this list of good works and when I complete the list, then I can access Grace and be saved in the Kingdom of God.

I want people to understand that obedience is about progression, becoming better, and submitting our will to the will of the Father and the Son. I want them to see that obedience is our measuring stick for where our Faith is.

When people see a line or a list of to do's they will always fall short and become discouraged. Once we show them there is no line, they usually progress further and more rapidly then had there been a line there.

Robert Millet in his talk "What We Believe" said this in answering the following question.

3. Do the Latter-day Saints believe that salvation comes through their own works rather than by the grace of Christ? Are they "saved" Christians?

The theological debate over whether we are saved by grace or by works is a fruitless argument that is much "like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary" (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 129). Latter-day Saints have often been critical of those who stress salvation by grace alone, and we have often been criticized for a type of works-

righteousness. The gospel is in fact a gospel covenant—a two-way promise. The Lord agrees to do for us what we could never do for ourselves—to forgive our sins, to lift our burdens, to renew our souls and re-create our nature, to raise us from the dead and qualify us for glory hereafter. At the same time, we promise to do what we can do—receive the ordinances of salvation, love and serve one another (see Mosiah 18:8–10), and do all in our power to put off the natural man and deny ourselves of ungodliness (see Mosiah 3:19, Moroni 10:32).

We believe that more is required of men and women than a verbal expression of faith in the Lord, more than a confession with the lips that we have received Christ into our hearts. The scriptures of the Restoration add perspective and balance to the majestic teachings of the apostle Paul on the matter of salvation by grace. We know, without question, that the power to save us, to change us, to renew our souls, is in Christ. True faith, however, always manifests itself in faithfulness. Good works evidence our faith and our desire to remain in covenant with Christ, but they are notsufficient. (See Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–73], 2:499–500; and Dallin H. Oaks, CR, October 1988, p. 78). The real question is not whether I am saved by grace or by works but rather, In whom do I trust? On whom do I rely? (See 1 Nephi 10:6; 2 Nephi 2:8, 31:19; Moroni 6:4.)

Too often we are prone to view grace as that increment of goodness, that final gift of God that will make up the difference and thereby boost us into the celestial kingdom, "after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23). To be sure, we will need a full measure of divine assistance to become celestial material. But the grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord, is available to us every hour of every day of our lives. "True grace," as one non-LDS writer has suggested, "is more than just a giant freebie, opening the door to heaven in the sweet by and by, but leaving us to wallow in sin in the bitter here and now. Grace is God presently at work in our lives" (John F. MacArthur, Jr., Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles [Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993], p. 32). The grace of God is a precious gift, an enabling power to face life with quiet courage, to do things we could never do on our own. The Great Physician does more than forgive sins. He ministers relief to the disconsolate, comfort to the bereaved, confidence to those who wrestle with infirmities and feelings of inadequacy, and strength and peace to those who have been battered and scarred by the ironies of this life (see Isaiah 61:1–2, Alma 7:11–13).

Few things would be more serious than encouraging lip service to God but discouraging obedience and faithful discipleship. On the other hand, surely nothing could be more offensive to God than a smug self-assurance that comes from trusting in one's own works or relying upon one's own strength. Understanding this sacred principle—the relationship between the grace of an infinite Being and the works of finite man—is not easy, but it is immensely rewarding. The more we learn to trust the Lord and rely upon his merits and mercy, the less anxious we become about life here and hereafter. "Thus if you have really handed yourself over to Him," C. S. Lewis wisely remarked, "it must follow that you are trying to obey Him. But trying in a new way, a less worried way" (Lewis,Mere Christianity, p. 129).

Are we then "saved Christians"? Whereas the ultimate blessings of salvation do not come until the next life, there is a sense in which people in this life may enjoy the assurance of salvation and the peace that accompanies that knowledge (see D&C 59:23). True faith in Christ produces hope in Christ—not worldly wishing but expectation, anticipation, assurance. As the apostle Paul wrote, the Holy Spirit provides the "earnest of our inheritance," the promise or evidence that we are on course, in covenant, and thus in line for full salvation in the world to come (Ephesians 1:13–14; see 2 Corinthians 1:21–22, 5:5). That is, the Spirit of God operating in our lives is like the Lord's "earnest money" on us—his sweet certification that he seriously intends to save us with an everlasting salvation. Thus, if we are striving to cultivate the gift of the Holy Ghost, we are living in what might be called a "saved" condition.

One of the most respected Evangelical theologians, John Stott, has written:

Salvation is a big and comprehensive word. It embraces the totality of God's saving work, from beginning to end. In fact salvation has three tenses, past, present and future. . . . "I have been saved (in the past) from the penalty of sin by a crucified Saviour. I am being saved (in the present) from the power of sin by a living Saviour. And I shall be saved (in the future) from the very presence of sin by a coming Saviour" . . .

If therefore you were to ask me, "Are you saved?" there is only one correct biblical answer which I could give you: "yes and no." Yes, in the sense that by the sheer grace and mercy of God through the death of Jesus Christ my Saviour he has forgiven my sins, justified me and reconciled me to himself. But no, in the sense that I still have a fallen nature and live in a fallen world and have a corruptible body, and I am longing for my salvation to be brought to its triumphant completion. [Authentic Christianity from the Writings of John Stott, ed. Timothy Dudley-Smith (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995), p. 168]

President David O. McKay taught that

the gospel of Jesus Christ, as revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, is in very deed, in every way, the power of God unto salvation. It is salvation here—here and now. It gives to every man the perfect life, here and now, as well as hereafter. [GI, p. 6; emphasis in original. See also Brigham Young, JD 6:276 and 8:124–25.]

Too many of us wrestle with feelings of inadequacy, struggle with hopelessness, and in general are much too anxious about our standing before God. It is important to keep the ultimate goal of exaltation ever before us, but it seems so much more profitable to focus on fundamentals and on the here and now—staying in covenant, being dependable and true to our promises, cultivating the gift of the Holy Ghost. President Brigham Young taught:

Our work is a work of the present. The salvation we are seeking is for the present, and, sought correctly, it can be obtained, and be continually enjoyed. If it continues to-day, it is upon the same principle that it will continue to-morrow, the next day, the next week, or the next year, and, we might say, the next eternity. [JD1:131]

In short, salvation is in Christ, and our covenant with Christ, our trust in his power to redeem us, should be demonstrated in how we live. The influence of the Holy Ghost in our lives is a sign to us that we are on course, "in Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:17), and thus in line for salvation.

[CASteinman]

Not so because while it is God that is the one that causes belief, he may use whatever method he desires to do so and one of those methods may be by hearing someone preaching the word of God. (at least this is how I understand it as explained to me by a good friend, dj or another Calvinist can correct me if I am wrong please)

In Calvinism you would only preach because you are predetermined to do so and they will only listen because they are predetermined to do so. You cannot preach out of an expectation that you are actually accomplishing anything in this that is not predetermined to happen. You and your listener are not able to actually exercise any "free" will on the matter, no matter how much you are predetermined to have the false belief that you have free will.

[ERayR]

In Calvinism you would only preach because you are predetermined to do so and they will only listen because they are predetermined to do so. You cannot preach out of an expectation that you are actually accomplishing anything in this that is not predetermined to happen. You and your listener are not able to actually exercise any "free" will on the matter, no matter how much you are predetermined to have the false belief that you have free will.

Very fatalistic

[CASteinman]

Very fatalistic

I noticed the same exact thinking among some of the Islamic Arabs that I got to know. There is a common expression: "Insha'Allah" which is something like our phrase "God Willing" but, in my opinion, with a greater expectation and emphasis on the conditional aspect of God's will. Rather than merely a throw away phrase like we might use, I sense that they really do believe that nothing will happen unless God wills it to happen.

This is of course ironic (as all such beliefs really are) because they do strive so much sometimes!

[djholmess]

I was talking to an Evangelical friend of mine on this topic and he brought up the ol' Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast." And he assured me in order to be a Christian you have to believe you are saved by grace through faith alone. However, does anyone really know if in verse 9 it is saying "You're not saved by works" or is it saying "You're saved by grace through faith with no works"?

Obviously, James 2 comes in handy. In verse 17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." It would be contradictory to take the latter interpretation above "You're saved by grace through faith with no works" because faith is nothing without works.

I see James quoted a lot as if in some way it negates an intrepretation of Paul that 'a person is justified before God by faith without works.'

Yet is this really what James is saying?

James 2:17-18

¹⁷ Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

¹⁸ Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Firstly notice one thing; James is talking about showing your faith to another person not to God. Paul is talking about being justified in Gods sight. With two different contexts being talked about care must be taken when comparing what James says with what Paul says.

Now as to what James actually says; faith without works is dead.

So we could conclude that in James mind there are two types of faith.

1) Dead faith that produces no works

2) Living faith that produces works

Ok, so how does this some contradict the evangelical interpretation of Paul in Romans 3&4?

The message of Paul is that a person is justified before God’ by faith apart from works.’ However nowhere does Paul try to claim that this faith would not be accompanied by works. All he is saying is that works themselves have nothing to do with Gods declaration of a person being righteous.

Abraham was counted righteous because of his faith, not because of any righteousness he had himself.

Now the usage of James to contradict the evangelical position would work if we claimed that justification was a future event. However, Paul makes it clear that for a believer justification is a past event; an event that takes place at a single point in time.

Romans 4:10-11

¹⁰ How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

¹¹ And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:

Abraham had been counted righteous before he was circumcised, it had already happened to him.

Romans 5:1

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ

The act of justification has already happened in the past and results in now having peace with God.

So James and Paul fit together perfectly:

Before God a man is justified by living faith apart from works. Once justified a person with living faith will inevitable do good works because works are the fruit of living faith. Before another man the only way to tell if his claim to having living faith is genuine is by seeing his works.

There is no contradiction; James cannot be used to nullify the clear dichotomy that Paul intentionally creates in Romans 3&4

[djholmess]

In Calvinism you would only preach because you are predetermined to do so and they will only listen because they are predetermined to do so. You cannot preach out of an expectation that you are actually accomplishing anything in this that is not predetermined to happen. You and your listener are not able to actually exercise any "free" will on the matter, no matter how much you are predetermined to have the false belief that you have free will.

Not so because while it is God that is the one that causes belief, he may use whatever method he desires to do so and one of those methods may be by hearing someone preaching the word of God. (at least this is how I understand it as explained to me by a good friend, dj or another Calvinist can correct me if I am wrong please)

Calmoriah has got is right. Just as we believe God has predestined the outcome of events we also believe God uses means to bring about his desires.

So why do we preach and evangelise? Why do I post on this board? Because God has made it clear that He causes the New Birth through the proclamation of His word.

For anyone’s conversion to Christianity God has predetermined both the event and the means which caused the event. So God has predetermined both that I preach to a specific person and also that that person respond in faith.

CASteinman contrary to what you like to say this in fact empowers evangelism it doesn’t negate it. If you want to see this look up people like William Carrey (first ‘Modern missionary’)and John G Patton. They all spent their lives in distant lands that were unreached by the gospel and where their very lives were at risk every time they opened their mouths to proclaim Christ. Why did they risk all for this – because they knew that God was the one who causes conversion, who gives faith. This gave them the confidence to walk into the most closed and dangerous places for the gospel and proclaim Christ.

CASteinman again you seem to either misunderstand Calvinism or intentionally misrepresent it. Calvinists are Compatibilists; they believe that creaturely choice and God’s sovereign control over everything do not contradict each other.

In plain terms people do make real free choices that they are morally responsible for. Yet God is still in complete control of every free choice made by man.

One of the clear examples of this is in Genesis 50:20 where Joseph is talking to his brothers about their selling him into slavery.

²⁰ But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

Josephs brothers thought and meant evil against Joseph yet God meant it for good. So in one single event, the selling of Joseph into slavery, his brothers meant it for one purpose yet God meant it for another purpose.

You seem to be using the term ‘free will’ in a way that precludes God having control over the choices of man; as if man has ultimate self determination – yet this concept is never fond anywhere in the Bible it is a presupposition you are reading into the Bible.

Calmoriah has got is right. Just as we believe God has predestined the outcome of events we also believe God uses means to bring about his desires.

[Calm]

So God has predetermined both that I preach to a specific person and also that that person respond in faith.

Is everything in life predetermined according to Calvinism or just that certain people will be saved and the event causing that salvation?

[CASteinman]

Calmoriah has got is right. Just as we believe God has predestined the outcome of events we also believe God uses means to bring about his desires.

Explain then to me the limitations on the Sovereignty of God. Do Calvinists believe that this Sovereignty does not extend to each instant of time and over every single thing that exists in each moment of time, including the hearts, minds, souls and wills of men?

Are there any events, whatsoever that are not completely governed by God?

Is there anything, anything at all that is left to either chance or human free will?

Or do Calvinists accept that God's powers in this regard are limited? Do they acknowledge that man is also Sovereign as well and has power over his acts?

(Incidentally, I specifically use the word Calvinists and Calvinism rather than "the Reform Church" or the "Reform Movement" because I realize that many of the Reform movement do not really believe in the more extreme bits of Calvinism -- and I say "Bully for them! Now get rid of the rest of the bogus philosophy")

Edited July 22, 2012 by CASteinman

[djholmess]

Is everything in life predetermined according to Calvinism or just that certain people will be saved and the event causing that salvation?

I hesitate to speak for every Calvinist as there may be some difference (but I haven’t come across any). In short the answer is that everything is predetermined in the sense that God has a plan to which he is working all things according to.

So nothing happens outside His direct control meaning that ultimately God is the primary actor in everything that happens. By primary actor we recognise that individuals do make real choices and are the cause of things happening but only as secondary actors or secondary causes if you like.

Biblically speaking

Ephesians 1:11-12

¹¹In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

¹² That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

God has a purpose to which he is working all things

Romans 11:34

³⁴ For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

³⁵ Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?

³⁶ For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

All things are not only of/from God as the creator they also come through Him; every single occurrence in existence comes through God. And there is an ultimate purpose – it is all to Him, to His glory.

Practically we can see this for example in Matthew 10:29

²⁹ Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

Even a seemingly inconsequential event like the death of a sparrow does not happen apart from God.

Or one of my favourite verses is from Job 1

²¹ And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.

²² In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.

Just prior to his re read how God gave Satan permission to attack Job’s family and livestock. Satan does and he destroys everything Job has (apart from his health and wife). What does Job do? He attributes the ultimate cause of the events to God. And the inspired authors comments are that “In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.”

I am convinced that the Biblical message regarding the sovereign control of God over His creation is that He ultimately control everything – and that it is not sinful to attribute such control to God.

[Calm]

By primary actor we recognise that individuals do make real choices and are the cause of things happening but only as secondary actors or secondary causes if you like.

Then how are they real choices?

[CASteinman]

I hesitate to speak for every Calvinist as there may be some difference (but I haven’t come across any). In short the answer is that everything is predetermined in the sense that God has a plan to which he is working all things according to.

So nothing happens outside His direct control meaning that ultimately God is the primary actor in everything that happens. By primary actor we recognise that individuals do make real choices and are the cause of things happening but only as secondary actors or secondary causes if you like.

So God is not perfectly Sovereign and there are things that may happen without His governance -- things that may happen by the Sovereign will of Man or by chance?

[djholmess]

Then how are they real choices?

They are 'real' choices because God doesn't force anyone to do anything against their own will.

Below is a link to an article that I think would very clearly explain what believe with regard to choices

http://www.noble-minded.org/calvinism.html

[Calm]

They are 'real' choices because God doesn't force anyone to do anything against their own will.

But if God is the one who gives them that will, then it is God's choice for them, not their own.

In other words, if some person chooses A instead of B, it was ultimately God’s decision that he would make that choice, and yet the choice was still free because the person made it willingly, not being coerced against his will.

God made Him willing to make that choice.

How is this different than someone programming a machine and then letting it run without interference to make choices based on its programming? Would you claim the machine had free will (compatibilistic free will)? Edited July 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[djholmess]

So God is not perfectly Sovereign and there are things that may happen without His governance -- things that may happen by the Sovereign will of Man or by chance?

What part of 'nothing happens outside His direct control' do you then take to mean God is not perfectly Sovereign? God is the primary cause of all things but that doesn't negate the possibility of there being secondary causes (humans).

It seems like you are either unwilling to see what Calvinists are actually saying or else your LDS concepts are making you unable to grasp it.

Genesis 50:22 demonstrates this very clearly

¹⁹ But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? ²⁰ As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people^[b] should be kept alive, as they are today.

God is sovereign over everything - even the evil actions of Joseph's brothers, He meant their actions for good. But unlike what you seem to be saying this does not negate mans causality as Moses said the brothers really did mean the evil that they did.

Check out the article I just linked to above, you should find it helpful.

[Calm]

this does not negate mans causality as Moses said the brothers really did mean the evil that they did.

But according to compatibilistic free will, God made them mean the evil they did, it didn't just occur to them on their own. It is equivalent to God telling them to do the evil and them obeying without have the choice to not obey in my view.

Another example: a man trains a dog to attack and try to kill anyone that enters his yard. He then leaves the yard and goes inside leaving the dog on his own. The mailman comes to deliver a package to the door and the dog attacks him. Is the owner considered legally responsible for the actions of the dog? Of course, because not only is he the owner of the dog but he train/made the dog the way it is and could with reasonable foresight know what the dog would do. Is he morally responsible? I definitely think so.

If God made man so that he has a nature to commit evil, has total control over man, knows he will commit evil and does nothing to stop him while there is nothing stopping God from stopping him but God's own Will, just like the dog's owner is morally responsible, so is God.

Edited July 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[djholmess]

But if God is the one who gives them that will, then it is God's choice for them, not their own.

How is this different than someone programming a machine and then letting it run without interference to make choices based on its programming? Would you claim the machine had free will (compatibilistic free will)?

Your machine analogy is too simple. If a human made a machine similar to its maker in that it had personhood, desires, plans and a soul and then commanded it to do something then we may have something similar to reality with which to compare.

Either way I am very happy to admit that I don’t come close to fully understanding how God can be totally sovereign and yet how man is a ‘secondary causer’ being held responsible for his actions.

My beliefs aren’t based on my understanding how things work but on the teachings of the Bible.

I don’t understand how Jesus was conceived in and born of a virgin yet I believe in the virgin birth.

Similarly I don’t understand exactly how Gods sovereignty and man’s creaturely choice work but I believe that he Bible is clear that

1) God is sovereign over all things

2) Man is held accountable for the desires he has and the choices he makes

[Calm]

I am perfectly okay with someone saying "Man has free will because God says he has free will"....but from what I've seen God's definition of "free will" is different from how man would define free will in his every day interaction with each other, how it is demonstrated in most legal systems I am aware of. I think it is essential to state we are not talking about the same thing. The rules are different when they are applied to a sovereign, infinite being it would seem.

Edited July 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[djholmess]

But according to compatibilistic free will, God made them mean the evil they did, it didn't just occur to them on their own. It is equivalent to God telling them to do the evil and them obeying without have the choice to not obey in my view.

Another example: a man trains a dog to attack and try to kill anyone that enters his yard. He then leaves the yard and goes inside leaving the dog on his own. The mailman comes to deliver a package to the door and the dog attacks him. Is the owner considered legally responsible for the actions of the dog? Of course, because not only is he the owner of the dog but he train/made the dog the way it is and could with reasonable foresight know what the dog would do. Is he morally responsible? I definitely think so.

If God made man so that he has a nature to commit evil, has total control over man, knows he will commit evil and does nothing to stop him while there is nothing stopping God from stopping him but God's own Will, just like the dog's owner is morally responsible, so is God.

I have never said that God made them mean their evil intentions my whole point has been that they meant their evil intentions hence why they are morally responsible before God. God meant their actions for good.

How then do you intrepret Genesis 50:20? How would you say that God meant their actions for good and yet at the same time the brothers also meant their actions for evil?

[Calm]

God meant their actions for good.

But He made their intentions evil, did He not? Since He made their evil natures and did nothing to correct them?

[cdowis]

So James and Paul fit together perfectly:

Before God a man is justified by living faith apart from works. Once justified a person with living faith will inevitable do good works because works are the fruit of living faith. Before another man the only way to tell if his claim to having living faith is genuine is by seeing his works.

There is no contradiction; James cannot be used to nullify the clear dichotomy that Paul intentionally creates in Romans 3&4

Paul was not saying what you think he was saying. May I suggest that you carefully read what Peter said.

1Pe 3:

"Our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

He also gave additional cousel in the same epistle:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

The historical Christian church has replaced the prophets with theologians and scholars, such as yourself. You are not authoried to speak for the Lord, to give your private interpretation, wresting the scriptures, but the Lord gave us apostles and prophets in our day as the foundation of the church.

They have received authority to receive revelation and to interpret the scriptures.

[CASteinman]

What part of 'nothing happens outside His direct control' do you then take to mean God is not perfectly Sovereign?

I don't. My question came out of this statement which is a direct quote, though contradictory to your above quote:

individuals do make real choices and are the cause of things happening

I could understand that individuals might be the "cause" of things happening and yet be under the direct control of God. This would be like a hammer that I use being the cause of a broken mirror, for example. Sure the hammer did it, but then, I was controlling the hammer.

However, once you say that the hammer actually made a "real choice", this does not work any longer. If I may attempt to swing a hammer but the hammer has a choice about whether it will then allow itself to be swung, or if it has an ability to choose not to hit the mirror despite my vigorous efforts to do so, then I cannot see how this makes me in any way master of things.

God is the primary cause of all things but that doesn't negate the possibility of there being secondary causes (humans).

Well, you claim it does not negate it. But how does it not negate it if God is Sovereign over every thing and over every particle of time? Sure you can assert something like this but can you explain it? In a consistent, logical non-paradoxical manner?

It seems like you are either unwilling to see what Calvinists are actually saying

It may seem like that but if you like, I could actually quote Calvin. However, I am entirely willing to accept what you are saying. Will you please say it? Or is it different? Is it that when you say something and then negate that thing and then claim you did not negate that thing, I should accept all three contradictory statements without any critical review? Just accept them? Blindly? Is that what you are requesting?

If you want me to understand your point, then please answer the questions more directly. If you can.

God is sovereign over everything - even the evil actions of Joseph's brothers, He meant their actions for good. But unlike what you seem to be saying this does not negate mans causality as Moses said the brothers really did mean the evil that they did.

You say that this does not negate mans' causality.

How does it not negate it if God is Sovereign and in control? Exactly how does that work? You can declare out of whole cloth that it is not negated, even while it is being negated. This is like looking at a red dog and saying "recognizing that this dog is red does not negate that it is green tree".

Yes it does. Duh!

Check out the article I just linked to above, you should find it helpful.

I am aware of how reformers have worked hard to redefine Sovereignty away from what Calvin taught.

Shall I rephrase my questions to you from the perspective of the Fruit of the Evil tree of Calvinism -- namely TULIP? Would that make you feel that I had accepted what you said more fully? Or is there a specific strain of the many TULIP teaching branches that I should focus on as the TRUE Calvinism and recognize the others as false?

Do you want me to accept this article as your set of beliefs and should my critiques stem from it rather than the teachings of Calvin?