|
Post by SlowBro on Jul 27, 2008 21:49:31 GMT -5
Jesse posed 1 Corinthians 10:13 to me two or three years ago as refuting moral inability, that is, the Calvinistic doctrine of a sinner's inability to make good moral choices. It was a good Scripture to use; I've been thinking about it ever since then. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. (ESV) It was not until this week that the light has broken through. This is for two reasons: On the one hand I'm not a very fast thinker, but on the other hand I had to humble myself and surrender to God in order to be able to see. I recorded this audio response (click here). (38 minutes, 40 seconds) Jesse, I didn't say this in the recording, but now Scriptures that I didn't quite understand are flooding wide open to me now. I am in debt to you for being used by God to help me see the Scripture with much more clarity.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jul 27, 2008 23:13:13 GMT -5
Hey Chris, can you answer the questions I asked you in this thread: CLICK HEREThanks brother...
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Jul 28, 2008 4:33:53 GMT -5
Hey Chris, can you answer the questions I asked you in this thread: CLICK HEREThanks brother... Yes of course, I promise I wasn't ignoring you, I just hadn't gotten around to reading your reply. So sorry, I've been experiencing some of the worst fatigue of my life and this response to Jesse was about all I could work on all week.
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Jul 28, 2008 4:45:45 GMT -5
Please pray for my fatigue, it's been difficult to get anything done. Bless God, my ability to think about heavy theological topics has not been hindered! But the time available to discuss these topics has been greatly diminished. So please pray for me right now, if you have a moment.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jul 29, 2008 8:47:25 GMT -5
Chris, It seems to me that you are assuming that Paul shared Edwards' philosophy of the will. I'm not sure you can read Jonathan Edwards' theories from the eighteenth century into Paul. How can you know that Paul had this distinction in mind when he wrote? Let me walk through a little of the context here with you and ask some questions. Remember that there weren't chapter breaks originally. Paul just said, "But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." (1 Co 9:27) Here Paul's emphasis is not on God's promise to preserve him but on his diligence to remain faithful to God. Here Paul definitely considers it possible that he could be rejected in the end. This is confirmed by the following illustration from Israel's history. He writes, "For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness." (1 Co 10:1-5) Paul's point? Just as they were finally rejected after having encountered so much of God so could Paul and the Corinthians be. This is made clear by what he says next. "Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. (1 Co 10:6-12) Here's what I wanted to point out to you Chris. Notice the phrase in v.6 "that we might not desire evil as they did". You have labeled "moral ability" as "desire". Paul here admonishes the Corinthians (and includes himself) not to desire evil. Isn't it implied that they could desire evil? Isn't it just as clearly implied that they could not desire evil? If this is the case then Edwards' philosophy on the will falls apart. If this is not the case then Paul's admonition falls apart. I would say that Paul viewed both he and the Corinthians as possessing the moral ability to desire evil or to refrain from desiring evil. This is unquestionably one of the strongest texts in the Scriptures on the real possibility of apostasy. Paul begins by speaking of his own diligence to remain faithful lest he be rejected. He then shows from the Old Testament that this is exactly what happened to most of those who were brought out of Egypt. He next applies this as an example to the believers in Corinth saying, "Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall." Then comes the verse in question, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." (1 Co 10:13) In context it is abundantly clear that Paul is telling them that their perseverance is synergistic. When the temptation to desire evil comes God will provide a way of escape. This does not gurantee that they will escape though. As the preceding discussion makes clear there is the very real possibility that they will not be diligent and will ultimately be rejected. If I understood your point about moral ability it appears that you would have to say that though Christians are naturally able to fall away they are not morally able. This completely mutilates Paul's entire point. By the way. I don't see the relevance of this text to whether a sinner can make good moral choices or not. It's written to Christians. Steve
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Jul 29, 2008 11:49:22 GMT -5
By the way. I don't see the relevance of this text to whether a sinner can make good moral choices or not. It's written to Christians. Jesse made this point and that was actually my original response. I'll have to review the rest of your reply when I get more time.
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Jul 31, 2008 6:24:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Aug 3, 2008 7:35:25 GMT -5
It seems to me that you are assuming that Paul shared Edwards' philosophy of the will. I'm not sure you can read Jonathan Edwards' theories from the eighteenth century into Paul. How can you know that Paul had this distinction in mind when he wrote? Did Columbus invent America or Franklin invent electricity? I'm arguing that Edwards discovered Paul's thoughts, eighteen centuries later. Let me walk through a little of the context here with you and ask some questions. Remember that there weren't chapter breaks originally. Paul just said, "But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." (1 Co 9:27) Bravo, you discovered more context that I hadn't considered. Good call. Here Paul's emphasis is not on God's promise to preserve him but on his diligence to remain faithful to God. I agree, and I don't think this contradicts Edwards, either. I spoke about verse 13 being a promise of perseverance. I could argue this from the texts you've shown here, but I won't, because perseverance is not the main point, so I'm going to pass on that for now. Here Paul definitely considers it possible that he could be rejected in the end. This is confirmed by the following illustration from Israel's history. He writes, "For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness." (1 Co 10:1-5) Paul's point? Just as they were finally rejected after having encountered so much of God so could Paul and the Corinthians be. This is made clear by what he says next. "Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. (1 Co 10:6-12) Here's what I wanted to point out to you Chris. Notice the phrase in v.6 "that we might not desire evil as they did". You have labeled "moral ability" as "desire". OK let me pause here. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but what I wanted to explain that Edwards seemed to be saying this: One's nature drives will through the desires that are derived from one's nature. I didn't intend to equate moral ability with desire. That may be what you heard, but it wasn't my intention. Paul here admonishes the Corinthians (and includes himself) not to desire evil. Isn't it implied that they could desire evil? Yes. They are "naturally" able to desire evil. Isn't it just as clearly implied that they could not desire evil? If this is the case then Edwards' philosophy on the will falls apart. If this is not the case then Paul's admonition falls apart. If Edwards were saying that moral ability equals desire then you would have a case, but see above. I would say that Paul viewed both he and the Corinthians as possessing the moral ability to desire evil or to refrain from desiring evil. I think Edwards might say it was possible in a natural sense but not in a moral sense. Due to their new nature they are repelled away from it, they LOATHE it, through the new desires in Jeremiah and Ezekiel and especially the God-given warnings and examples listed in verses 1-12. These things would have produced a fear in the new heart, consistent with Jeremiah 32:40 "...I will put the fear of me in their hearts..." This is unquestionably one of the strongest texts in the Scriptures on the real possibility of apostasy. Paul begins by speaking of his own diligence to remain faithful lest he be rejected. And I think Edwards would ask, what drives him to be dilligent? He then shows from the Old Testament that this is exactly what happened to most of those who were brought out of Egypt. He next applies this as an example to the believers in Corinth saying, "Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall." Then comes the verse in question, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." (1 Co 10:13) In context it is abundantly clear that Paul is telling them that their perseverance is synergistic. I think Edwards and I would agree with you here. When the temptation to desire evil comes God will provide a way of escape. This does not gurantee that they will escape though. No, this verse does not guarantee that, you are right. But it doesn't have to. As the preceding discussion makes clear there is the very real possibility that they will not be diligent and will ultimately be rejected. If I understood your point about moral ability it appears that you would have to say that though Christians are naturally able to fall away they are not morally able. This completely mutilates Paul's entire point. I think perhaps if I were trying to equate desire with moral ability then you may have a case. As I said above, that wasn't my intention. But someone whose nature has radically changed has, out of that new nature, new desires. Those new desires are to obey God's Law, given through the New Covenant promises of the Old Testament (Jeremiah 32:40, Ezekiel 36:26,27, etc.), fulfilled in the New Testament, bought by Jesus' blood (Matthew 26:28). Those new desires are so strong, that though rebelling may be a possibility, the newly born-again Christian, with the promise here of a way of escape, will glady choose the way of escape because He loves and fears the Lord. I'm still thinking these things through to conviction; that's why I keep saying "Edwards might say this and that." In a way I am asking for help, because if you as a non-Edwards fan can cross-examine his claims and give me a good reason why it's false then I'll listen. Unfortunately I don't think you've quite clearly understood Edwards' claims and it might help you to do some more studying; start by going to the Boice lecture and fast-forward to about 14 minutes, the relevant part is only about 5 minutes long. Jesse, Finney attacked this book of Edwards, you might look up what he said. Piper concluded after reading Finney's attack that it didn't hold up, but he never told us why. I may read Finney's attack to get some balance. I want you guys to know I am trying to be honest here, for if I were not being honest I wouldn't have given you resources to the contrary of Edwards' position. I am in a way appealing for help here. Give me something good and I'll chew on it.
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Aug 3, 2008 7:47:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Aug 3, 2008 7:54:54 GMT -5
I am very excited when I consider what Edwards is saying, for as you can tell by my signature I have a passion to see Calvinists and non-Calvinists work together in love. From what I can tell, this doctrine will allow us to come together, shake hands and say, "you were right about some things and I was right about some things" as we no doubt will do in heaven. I think Edwards' doctrine tidies up the loose ends of the Calvinism I once knew; things I'd always accepted to be true because the Bible is so clear, even if I didn't quite understand the apparent paradox.
So this thrills me: We might be on a breakthrough!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 3, 2008 16:10:15 GMT -5
My understanding is that Edwards taught that the will was necessitated by the strongest motive. But this is the exact opposite of 1 Cor. 10:13 which says no temptation is strong enough to necessitate sinning. So it seems that what Edwards taught, and what 1 Cor. 10:13 teaches, are polar opposites. If you want to read Finney's critique of Edwards on the will, I highly recommend it. You can find it here: www.pinpointevangelism.com/libraryoftheologycom/writings/freewill/Freedom_Of_The_Will_Charles_Finney.pdfAlso keep in mind, that Finney sided with the Early Church on this issue, but Edwards sided with the Gnostic's. The Early Church were libertarians, but the Gnostic's were necessitarians.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Aug 3, 2008 19:12:10 GMT -5
Chris,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. It seems I don't have a good grasp of what Edward's is saying at this time. I probably won't read up on it right now but I'm sure I will in the future. If God wills!
Steve
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Aug 3, 2008 19:26:02 GMT -5
Steve, Love that humble response. It is entirely possible that I don't quite have a grasp on what Edwards was thinking.
And you were right to talk about perseverance, for I had forgotten that I made a point of it in a few places. But I want to make that a secondary point and talk mainly about free will.
|
|
|
Post by SlowBro on Aug 3, 2008 19:30:50 GMT -5
My understanding is that Edwards taught that the will was necessitated by the strongest motive. But this is the exact opposite of 1 Cor. 10:13 which says no temptation is strong enough to necessitate sinning. So it seems that what Edwards taught, and what 1 Cor. 10:13 teaches, are polar opposites. It is entirely possible that I don't quite have a grasp on what Edwards was thinking. I think 1 Corinthians 10:13 just says that if someone puts a gun to your head they can't make you rebel because God will provide a means of escape. If you have a listen to my original recording I tried to make this as clear as I could. If someone really wants to obey, this Scripture is excellent news! Now that's what I think it's saying, let me read Finney later and get some balance.
|
|