Can the SBC Ever Recover from Its Downward “Trajectory”?

"For years, Baptist college and seminary professors taught ministers to maintain confidentiality at all costs…to maintain silence as much as possible."   -Jan Daehnert, director of minister/church relations, Baptist General Convention of Texas, 2002

 

 

 

Hear ye, hear ye! The 2011 Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention will now come to order…

 

Yes, the SBC’s two-day business meeting kicks off tomorrow, and it will be interesting to see how leaders address the declining numbers regarding conference attendance, baptisms, and membership, which clearly indicate the denomination is in BIG trouble. As happened last year, you can watch it live by going to this link.
 

 

How Low Can the Numbers Go?

 

As Southern Baptists gather in Phoenix to conduct business, a logical question would be – how many Southern Baptists will be there? Wade Burleson predicts that around 5,000 will attend. (link)  Burleson made the following statement in a recent blog post:

 

“Attendance at this year's Southern Baptist Convention will be the lowest in nearly five decades, struggling to reach 5,000 in attendance.”

 

Peter Lumpkins has also estimated attendance to be around 5,000 (link). That’s extremely poor representation for a denomination that claims to have more than 16 million on the membership roll. It’s long past time for these Christian leaders to come clean and start telling the truth!

When the SBC convened in Phoenix for the first time in 2003, there were 7,077 in attendance. Now eight years later, the numbers are going in reverse.

 

Where have all the Southern Baptists gone?

 

We wrote about this last year in a post entitled "Why are 5 to 8 million Southern Baptists MIA? The question still remains.

 

Peter Lumpkins included some statistics in his post, which are extremely revealing. Please go to the above link to check them out. Here’s what really caught my attention:

 

*  The last year attendance at the SBC’s Annual Meeting fell below 5,000 was 1944.

 

*  The 1920 Annual Meeting for the SBC (held in Washington, D.C.) attracted 8,359 messengers.

 

*  The largest number of messengers ever assembled at an annual meeting totaled 45,519. The year was 1985 and the location was Dallas.

 

*  The first time the “Southern” Baptist Convention met in Phoenix was in 2003. Perhaps Arizona is a less than desirable meeting location since it is so far away from where most Southern Baptist churches are located.

 

Declining Baptisms and Membership Numbers

 

The Biblical Recorder recently released vital statistics on the health of the SBC. The denomination is in a downward spiral from which it may never recover. The Biblical Recorder article states:

 

“The number of baptisms in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in 2010 fell by nearly 5 percent, according to the Annual Church Profile (ACP) compiled by LifeWay Christian Resources in cooperation with Baptist state conventions.

Southern Baptist churches reported 332,321 baptisms in 2010, down from 349,737 in 2009, a 4.98 percent decline. Total membership in 2010, reported at 16,136,044, represents a 0.15 percent decline from 2009 and is the fourth straight year of decline.

“I am saddened to see this report which seems to indicate a lack of passion for winning our world to the Lord,” said Frank Page, president of the SBC Executive Committee and a former convention president. “That will turn around when we repent of our sins and seek the power of our Lord in our evangelistic efforts.”

 

With so much emphasis on the Great Commission Resurgence during the last two SBC gatherings, it appears that there may be a glimmer of hope for this backsliding denomination because the Biblical Recorder article states:

 

“The report did, however, indicate a key positive change: The number of churches in the Southern Baptist Convention rose to 45,727, an increase of 1.59 percent from the 45,010 reported in 2009.”

 

Of course, church plants tend to be small and as with any new venture, a good number of them will not succeed long term.

 

For those of you who might be interested in a more moderate perspective, the Baptist Press will be covering the annual meeting in Phoenix.  Here’s what they had to say regarding their reporting:  

 

"Welcome to the SBC annual meeting blog. Beginning Tuesday, this blog will cover the annual meeting, from gavel to gavel. Are you on Twitter or Facebook? We'll post updates there, too. Check out our Twitter feed (http://www.Twitter.com/BaptistPress) and Facebook page (http://www.Facebook.com/BaptistPress).

The blog will post detailed information quite often, and the Twitter feed and Facebook page will be a source of breaking news and meeting highlights. Together, they will provide SBC annual meeting information you won't find anywhere else."

 

To access the Baptist Press reporting, go to this link.  

 

I plan to watch some of the live feed of the SBC Annual Meeting over the next two days and will have further commentary on Wednesday.  Looking forward to your comments.

 

Lydia’s Corner:  1 Samuel 15:1-16:23    John 8:1-20    Psalm 110:1-7    Proverbs 15:8-10

Comments

Can the SBC Ever Recover from Its Downward “Trajectory”? — 90 Comments

  1. Thanks for the update. Wades apprisal may be one of the best pieces I’ve ever read on the subject. The comment, “We need to repent as this shows a lack of passion.” disturbs me. At least the Calvinists cannot be blamed as thet comprise such a small group and may be exiting in the near future. I look forward to your further blogs on the Convention.

  2. “[How will] leaders address the declining numbers regarding conference attendance, baptisms, and membership”?

    Easy. Follow the lead of the Al Mohler, Jr. and hook up with the Calvinistas and their network of “tough guy” leaders.

  3. Kirby,

    Al Mohler is one of the leaders who drove me away from the SBC. I had been a loyal Southern Baptist for a decade before I discovered what Mohler stands for — patriarchy, ESS, young marriages, lots of children, and of course his narrow version of Calvinism. His close friendship C.J. Mahaney (who is looking more and more like a cult leader as SGMers boldly speak out about the abuses they have experienced) was the biggest red flag for me.

    Several years ago Mohler visited a church where I live and made the following pronouncement in a message to the congregation: “The singles ministry is an abomination”. That’s a direct quote! Who does he think he is to make such a sweeping statement about his brothers and sisters in Christ?

    I take comfort in knowing that Almighty God is watching…

  4. The SBC left me in the early 1980s, so that by the time we moved to Texas in the mid-80s, we knew what was coming. The final straw for me was the pastor of FBC Dallas calling “skunks” all who would not kowtow by using the term “inerrant” to describe the Bible, which was literally a shibboleth that, it turns out, has no meaning. (The definition is that the Bible was inerrant in its original writings, which no one has or has seen in centuries, so no one knows what parts of what we now have include changes of meaning during copying, translation, etc.).

    There were no “liberals” in SBC life in the 1980s or since, except perhaps those who were liberal with their resources and their lives to spread the gospel and to carry out the mandate in Matthew 25 as a means of reaching those who need the gospel. We have had people who have given their entire lives to the mission endeavor told they cannot continue unless they agree with, not A or B issues, but D, E or F issues.

    The handwriting has been on the wall for 30 years. The cabal has gone through several fratricidal purgings and more are coming. And the SBC will continue to narrow the acceptable theology and ecclesiology, continue to take punitive positions, and continue to misrepresent God as a hateful monster, until it becomes even more irrelevant.

    There is no need to attack the SBC. It is busily attacking itself.

    The SBC wants its seminaries to be indoctrination centers, not places of education.

  5. I agree with you Arce, especially this statement:

    “There is no need to attack the SBC. It is busily attacking itself.”

    Yes, the SBC is in self-destruct mode as the Calvinistas attempt to force Southern Baptists and others into their narrow view of Scripture, which they believe is a “high view” (the name of Mohler’s church).

    I believe God has removed His hand from the SBC and is allowing the law of sowing and reaping play out.

  6. “And the SBC will continue to narrow the acceptable theology and ecclesiology, continue to take punitive positions, and continue to misrepresent God as a hateful monster, until it becomes even more irrelevant.” – Arce

    Misrepresent God as a hateful monster? Can you elaborate on that thought?

  7. “Al Mohler is one of the leaders who drove me away from the SBC. I had been a loyal Southern Baptist for a decade before I discovered what Mohler stands for — patriarchy, ESS, young marriages, lots of children, and of course his narrow version of Calvinism.” Deb

    Deb, I have long admired the work you are doing on this website. I am a long time reader and infrequent commentor. I wish you were living close to Enid for we would love for you to help shepherd (pastor) our people in Enid.

    I once wrote an article (1995) published in our state paper entitled “Please Don’t Call Me a Calvinist, But …” The point of my article was that I do not call myself a Calvinist because of much of the theological baggage associated with those who do call themselves Calvinists (i.e. Mohler and the variety of issues you mention above). However, the principles of grace and the attributes of God’s power, goodness, mercy, love and holiness in the New Covenant redemption of sinners are best seen, in my opinion, through the prism of God’s sovereign grace to rebels in need of deliverance. I believe the Bible teaches that God’s disposition is only and always kind and benevolent toward sinners, even every single one of His enemies (He takes no pleasure in the judgment of the wicked), but He does justly judge and rightfully condemn rebels–just not all rebels. He has provided a Savior for an innumerable company of sinners from every race, tribe kindred and family (i.e. “the world,” not just the Jews). This Savior, the only begotten Son of God, bore the condemnation and judgment of God due His people.

    The question becomes: Who are His people? (as in “You shall call His name Jesus for He shall save His people from their sins” Matthew 1:21). His people are believers in Him. The church of God. The bride of Christ. The elect of God. Whatever you wish to call Christians. In other words, His people do not encompass every single person who has ever lived, but all those who come to see the beauty and glory of the in the face of Jesus the Anointed One (Messiah).

    Having said the above (which would make most people call me a Calvinist), I quickly add these thoughts:

    Every child of God is a priest unto God, regardless of gender. Every child of God should treat every sinner in the same manner God treated us (He loved us while we were yet His enemies). Every child of God should be concerned that His life be lived consistent with His calling (i.e. “Graced people should live gracious lives” Eph. 4:1). Every child of God should recognize that NOTHING he does causes God to love him any more or less than God’s eternal love already displayed in the giving of His Son for His people.

    So, patriarchy, a ban on contraception, legalism, ESS, etc… are all INCONSISTENT with the teachings and doctrines of grace. Period.

    I felt compelled this morning to point out that sometimes “Calvinism” gets a bad name its professing adherents, and if at all possible, I would like one of my favorite blog writers to know that there are more than a few people out there who believe in God’s sovereign grace who are actually radically gracious to sinners and those who disagree.

    That’s the way it should be.

    Wade Burleson
    Emmanuel, Enid

  8. Wade,

    Thank you for your kind words. If I lived near your church, there is a high probability that you would be my pastor.

    Rest assured, I am NOT condemning all Calvinists. Dee and I have friends who are what we consider to be “normal” Calvinists. There was a time not too many years ago when I was leaning toward Calvinism myself. Shortly after that I began my research and discovered way too much about the agenda of Mohler & Co. We have labeled this crowd the “Calvinistas” to distinguish them from Calvinists such as yourself. I believe the Calvinistas are primarily concerned with notoriety and $$$ (books, conferences, etc.) They have created a marketing machine with themselves being the product. Sadly, it’s not God who gets the glory.

    Thanks for following TWW. Dee and I are indebted to you because you were the primary inspiration for what we do here. Blessings to you and your family Wade. I seem to recall that there is a wedding in the works. I’m sure it will be a wonderful occasion.

    If you are ever in the Triangle area (Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill), please let us know. Dee and I would love to treat you to lunch.

  9. Wade

    Greetings from Cape Cod where I am visiting family. Wade, one of my best buddies, who is probably reading this, is a 5 point Calvinist. I wanted to differentiate between Calvinists and this new breed of Calvinists who seem bent on hyper authoritarian behavior. Thus we came up with the term Calvinista.

    I can assure you that, were I in your neck of the woods, I would happily attend your church and enjoy your teaching. Frankly, the Calvinistas are not unlike the ” anointed” pastors of the SBC. It is all about power and money in those circles.

    As for me. I once thought I was leaning towards Calvinism. But I am now neither Calvinist or Arminians. I guess you could say that I am both or something else. Some might say that is refusing to take a stand but I like being on the edge.

    I love your blog and writings. It is pastors like you who give me great hope for the future of the church. Please tell your dad hi for me. We share a friend in Pete Briscoe who I think is much like you. That is the highest compliment that I could give.

    I am honored you would take the time to reply to the post.

  10. What does “ESS” stand for? Guess I haven’t lived in the south long enough. 🙂

    Dee–enjoy Cape Cod! What a beautiful place!

  11. Shato,

    Sorry about using the acronym ESS. Many do not know anything about the “Eternal Subordination of the Son (Jesus Christ) to the Father (1st person of the Trinity). I consider it HERESY.

    The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) website features a series of articles on ESS, and here’s a link to the first installment.

    http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Eternal-Subordination-of-the-Son-The-Basics-Part-I

    By the way, CBMW is a highly patriarchal organization and has earned a spot on my black list.

    Also, here’s the link to an article in Christianity Today to help get you started in understanding ESS.

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/octoberweb-only/141-53.0.html

  12. Deb and Dee,

    Ditto with the kind words. You both are top notch in my book. I think we may be far closer soteriologically and theologically than any of us three may suspect.

    Wade

  13. My problem with Calvinistas is that they make God sovereign over everything EXCEPT His own sovereignty. Thus whatever God wills happens, and if God did not will it, it did not happen. To me, that makes God a monster who causes little children to die horribly painful deaths and has chosen, since before creation, to create some people for the purpose of sending them to eternal torment.

    That puts me in the camp of those who really believe that God is sovereign over His own sovereignty and chooses not to exercise it over the human race to the point of lovingly allowing us to choose to love and serve Him.

    I further believe that, when Jesus said “No one comes to the Father except by me”, that that does not NECESSARILY mean that all who come have to walk the aisle in an evangelical church or revival service and proclaim that Jesus is Lord. I am reminded that Jesus said that not all who claim that He is Lord and claim to serve Him will be admitted to His kingdom. Our concept of eternity seems trapped into a two condition model, like people who say “whoever is not with us (1000%!) is against us”. At least one passage has Jesus saying the converse — “whoever is not against us is with us”. I am not convinced of “either/or”; my God is greater than that.

  14. Arce,
    I do not know if you are a believer as I have never met you. However, your statement that God is a monster to you borders on blasphemy. “Woe unto him whom calls evi good and to him who calls good evil.”
    “There is no injustice with God.” Romans 9.

  15. “I further believe that, when Jesus said “No one comes to the Father except by me”, that that does not NECESSARILY mean that all who come have to walk the aisle in an evangelical church or revival service and proclaim that Jesus is Lord.”

    no, they don’t have to walk an aisle but they WILL know it is Jesus WHO SAVES THEM.. Otherwise, what was the point of the Cross? Be very careful not to disparage the Cross of Jesus Christ and His SAcrifice or you are basically doing the same thing as the ESS folks who make Jesus less than He is.

    No one comes to the Father but by Me. They WILL know WHO Jesus is if they are saved. How that happens is another matter…we do not know all the ways it can happen. Some even find Him watching Star Trek. But they will know it is Jesus.

  16. John,

    I can assure you that Arce is a believer. Please don’t take his comment out of context. Arce said:

    “My problem with Calvinistas is that they make God sovereign over everything EXCEPT His own sovereignty. Thus whatever God wills happens, and if God did not will it, it did not happen. To me, that makes God a monster who causes little children to die horribly painful deaths and has chosen, since before creation, to create some people for the purpose of sending them to eternal torment.”

    He is not calling God a monster. Please read it again.

    Now let me get personal. When I was 12 years old, a friend invited me to go to Myrtle Beach with her and her parents for the weekend. We were traveling in a large GMC pick-up, with all four of us sitting up front on the same seat. I was sitting beside the passenger door. Several hours into the trip we were struck head-on by a drunk driver (both vehicles were traveling 55 mph, so the impact was tremendous). The year was 1972, and none of us were wearing seatbelts (it wasn’t a law back then). The truck only had lapbelts anyway. The car struck the truck in such a way that it pinned my friend and me inside. It took about 2-1/2 hours for the rescue workers to cut us out of the wreckage. Tragically, my friend’s parents were both thrown through the windshield and killed instantly. Had the car hit us head-on more toward the left of the vehicle, my friend’s parents would have been pinned inside, and I would have been the one thrown through the windshield and killed. Both parents were believers, so I plan to see them in heaven someday. I suffered a skull fracture, some broken bones, cuts above both of my eyes as well as on my body. When the radiator burst, it scalded patches of my skin. I spent six days in the hospital, while my friend who was severely injured spent approximately 2-1/2 months in the hospital.

    Here’s Arce’s question. Did God in His sovereignty will that tragedy to happen since before creation or did He just allow it to happen? There’s a huge difference.

  17. Deb,

    So what would you take be on Romans 9:21-23


    “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory”

  18. Arce,
    I understood the points you were expressing. I didn’t hear you make the statement”God is a monster”.
    Maybe John assumed that based on something else you’ve said that I missed.
    I’m so weary of all the extreme thinking and pointing fingers.

    Karlton, The comments I wrote in the other thread were the best I could do. I would never try to discuss stats, soteriologically,( NO idea what that is, copied from Wade’s comment:) or any other kind of “ology”. However, I did WANT to say more about the need to have some way of tracking “serial” sexual predators within the Baptist denomination. I’m glad Christa Brown left a comment on that thread that I would liked to .have articulated myself. She did a much better job!!

  19. It is INCREDIBLY hurtful to someone who has been sexually abused to be told by a well meaning (or not so well meaning??) person that it was God’s will for them to suffer that degradation. It is never God’s will for an innocent child to suffer at the hands of a sinful person. There are plenty of scriptures that confirm that as well.
    I find the Baptists who call themselves Calvinists to be so much more extreme in their thinking than my Presbyterian friends. (I don’t think I know any Calvanistas 🙂 Maybe b/c many Baptists think it’s their way or the highway… they seem to insist election is an “either/or”, black or white, “it can only be the way I can understand it in my little mind.”
    I actually went to the minister’s classes at a PCA Presbyterian church here. I LOVED the pastor’s explanation…way less complicated and argumentative than any way I’ve ever heard the Baptist calvins discuss it.
    I asked him if they called ” it” Calvinism, reformed theology, doctrines of grace, or election. He said, his only desire was to teach the Bible to the best of his ability. He was a follower of Jesus Christ and no other. He was comfortable there were some things we could not understand fully. He said that some of his brothers and sisters had different views but that it had never been a cause to not fellowship with them.

    It’s not about who is right on this point. It is much more important that our hearts are changed and we come to be more like Christ everyday. IMO

  20. “… continue to misrepresent God as a hateful monster, until it becomes even more irrelevant.” – Arce

    Yes, that has been my experience in the SBC. There were a lot of yelling, screaming pastors that would talk down to us, about how sinful we were, how were were not praying hard enough for revival, that our nation was falling apart because of us, etc. Everything was always “do this or else”. Kind of like those old reels of Hitler giving his speeches. God just seemed like a big bully.

    I was shocked when I read in the Bible one day John 3:17 “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” It hit me then that God was good and on our side, and I could obey because it was the right thing to do and grateful, not because I was constantly being threatened with hell by a big jerk. Too bad I had to discover this on my own.

  21. Valarie,

    No Calvinist who has thought seriously and properly about the issue of theodicy would make declarations about evil being the “will of GOD” without some careful biblical and philisophical qualifications. GOD, by very definition, can not have one single renegade or autonomous molecule in HIS universe. I know that if that were possible, then HIS designs for history and eternity could be thwarted. Read Isa. chps. 40-48.

    So, even though GOD’s declared will for men and women is that they not commit evil against HIM and their neighbor, and there are serious consequences for doing so–earthly and eternal……………yet in a real sense it must be acknowledged that evil exists because GOD has allowed it for purposes that we can not know because we are finite, but that will ultimately work out for the eternal good of HIS people and HIS glory.

    Even though the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ was carried out with the most evil and murderous intentions, yet it was not merely GOD’s design to somehow pick up the pieces, but rather He had ordained from all eternity that Christ would die for the sins of the world–through that obvious violation of conscience and the prescriptive will of GOD. Think about it…………, GOD had ordained to use the ultimate act of evil as a means to bring about untold good to the world that would ultimately and eternally redound to HIS glory. See Acts 4:23-31. The just judge of the earth will always do right. GOD is never limited by HIS creation in any sense, but always accomplishes HIS will. Read about Joseph and reflect on Genesis 50:20.

    Men do take issues like this too far (hyper-Calvinism; open Theism) but we must attempt to think honestly and biblical about these sensitive issues with the Holy Spirit’s enablement. We must not allow emotions to form our worldview. Just some thoughts.

  22. Valarie,

    you made a statement that “It is never God’s will for an innocent child to suffer at the hands of a sinful person”

    Please then, what is your explanation of I Samuel 15:3, where God is quoted in telling King Saul, “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

  23. Jonathan,

    Great comment. I was going to respond to Arce/Deb, but I’ll just point to your comment.

  24. Karlton,

    That’s the big question isn’t it? Obviously the answer varies based on what you mean by “free will.” But as you know, the bible simply states that God is completely sovereign…and that man is responsible for their own actions. I think the Bible, especially Romans 9, doesn’t leave much room for a free will in the sense that most people mean it.

  25. Karlton,

    If by “free will” you mean individual autonomy as such………… then my answer is that nowhere in the Bible is man ever potrayed as such. GOD is the only Being that autonomy is ascribed to. “But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased,” Psalm 115:3.

  26. Joey, Johnathan…

    Then are you making the case that, without effective free will, God is somehow justified in condemning people for actions they were ordained to to and could not have done differently even if they wanted to?

    It seems like we have created a dichotomy, either

    1. Mankind has no free will or ability to choose independently of God’s will and thus God becomes unjust for their condemnation.

    or

    2. Mankind does have free will and can choose independently of God’s will, in which case God becomes the puppet and all of His plans and divine will can be thwarted by mankind.

    Is there a third option?

  27. Karlton,

    Jonathan (since he is named after the guy who answered this question very well in my opinion) can try a more thorough answer since I don’t have time to do it justice. But the short answer is “yes” absolutely God can condemn people for actions they were ordained to do. I don’t think the determined nature of our wills in any way releases us from responsibility for them. When we praise firemen for rushing into the World Trade Centers because “that’s just who they were as a person, they couldn’t have done anything different” we are considering them heroes because their “will” was determined. We don’t say “well that’s not that impressive because it wasn’t a tough decision for them.” Similarly, we don’t withhold punishment of sociopath murderers because they can’t help who they are. We’re horrified by them. The determined nature of a will doesn’t release it from responsibility. It’s when a force outside of a will determines something AGAINST the will that it is released from responsibility.

    That’s my short answer…and why I think your dichotomy is false. And it is woefully insufficient because there are all sorts of other questions to be answered.

  28. Karlton,

    The Bible describes the whole human race as ruined by sin as a consequence of the Fall. This is the reality even if you refuse to affirm the Bible as the word of GOD.

    Humans are “free” in as much as they make decisions according to their natural desires and abilities. The problem is that GOD defines our decisions made without regard for HIM and HIS glory as sin (idolatry)……………..and man in his natural state (spiritually dead in sin) wants to live in a world in which your #2 choice is a reality–total anarchy and the fulfillment of the evil one’s rebellious desires. However, dualism is not compatible with a Biblical worldview, and the devil is a creature who is also subject to the sovereignty and supremacy of the Triune LORD of the Bible, and therefore, not autonomous either ……..but I digress.

    The problem is sin, Karlton. Most Christians do not even take the consequences of the Fall seriously. The Scriptures are clear about man being spiritually dead–not sick–but dead. It is not a situation where men are wanting to please GOD and HE is pushing them away. They are themselves running as far away from GOD as they can get. People, apart from Divine intervention, are enslaved to sin and captives of the god of this age. It is serious. GOD takes the iniative and sends Christ Jesus the SON in the flesh who is the only Savior for humanity and He alone can break the bonds of sin. Repentant faith in HIM is urged, yea commanded. Joey pointed out Romans 9. Men hate it, but that is futile posture to take. GOD is obligated to none, and men do exactly according to their sinful desires, but their desires are subject to an omnipotent GOD. See Psalm 2.

  29. J & J 🙂

    First, I’d like to comment on a statement by Jonathan which I think goes more toward “faith” than “reality”. You said that “The Bible describes the whole human race as ruined by sin as a consequence of the Fall. This is the reality even if you refuse to affirm the Bible as the word of GOD”

    I would maintain that the “reality” of the universe is independent of both my disbelief and equally of your faith. Neither denying the existence of sin nor believing in it in any way affects the objective reality. I think that may be a good topic for another time…so for now let’s assume the Bible is correct.

    I think then, that we need to come to an agreement on what constitutes “free will”. I would maintain that it is a two-state possibility, either you have truly free, independent will which is under your control or you don’t. I think trying to qualify free will by saying that you are free to choose any possibility as long at it comes from a particular group is in fact, not free will. You seem to want to restrict unsaved humans by saying that they can ONLY choose those things which are a part of their fallen nature, but this would seem to be incorrect from a pragmatic standpoint. “Sinners” can make moral choices, they can, it would seem, choose both good and bad, even when that choice is contrary to their nature…the ultimate example is the person “choosing” to accept Jesus…is that or is that not contrary to his fallen nature? On the other side of the same coin…both Adam and Eve chose to disobey God which, since they were not fallen at the time of the choice, was also contrary to their nature.

  30. Karlton,

    Remember I stated that “free will,” as far as human beings are concerned, is never understood as individual autonomy. That is the only accurate definition of “free will,” and that is the attribute of GOD alone. The common understanding of man somehow making the ultimate determination for his life, existence, and eternity is directly compatible with his sinful nature as it is entrenched deep in man’s fallen DNA. Man, apart from regeneration, abhors the responsibility that he owes his Creator, rejects salvation by Christ alone, and wants to be his own saviour and god as the multitude of false religious systems can testify to. All humans are slaves, Karlton–slaves of sin and the devil or slaves of Christ and righteousness. Most are clueless.

    I agree that sinful people make “moral” choices on a routine basis. The Fall did not eradicate the image of GOD. Man is spiritually dead, out of fellowship with GOD, can not please HIM and does not seek HIM (Romans 3:10-18) ; but the communicable attributes of GOD, ie., compassion, love, logic, etc. are still displayed toward one’s fellow man although from selfish motives, and never, never, from a true desire to glorify GOD. Sin perverts these characteristics in man which is why you can have an astronomer look at the universe and deny and supress the truth about GOD. Men have conscience, but they supress all that is manifestly obvious leading to GOD abandoning them to go further in their sin. See Romans 1:18-32. GOD sees the heart, Karlton, and where we as people are duped by outward actions, HE knows what is in man (John 2:23-25). Thank GOD that it is true that a vestige of the image of GOD remains and the Holy Spirit restrains men or we would be living in situation akin to a perpetual French Revolution.

    What I meant by the ruin of the human race being a reality…………..I just meant that it only takes objective and honest analysis, something people are capable of because of the image of GOD, to look at the 20th Century and know that humanism and the Enlightenment were abysmal flops in understanding the human condition. Again, because of sin, man will lie about the obvious ramifications of it all.

    Adam and Eve are by definition different, and it is not necessary or wise to go off into speculation concerning things the Bible is largely silent on.

  31. “Then are you making the case that, without effective free will, God is somehow justified in condemning people for actions they were ordained to to and could not have done differently even if they wanted to?”

    This is the problem with Calvinism. And no matter how many complicated answers Jonathan gives (could a peasant understand this Gospel?) we come back to the above statement.

    Jonathon is saying that in Calvinism one has free will to sin willfully but not to seek Christ. I am wondering if the elect Calvinist has free will to still sin willfully?

  32. Jonathan,

    Good sir, I must take issue with your statement that the Enlightenment and the humanist thinkers who brought it about were dismal failures.

    If not for Jefferson (mainly), Adams, and Madison, we’d still be flogging, burning and hanging religious dissenters and those who choose no religion at all.

  33. Anonymous,

    I am not saying that people are not free to “seek” Christ, but the Bible states that “no one seeks GOD” Romans 3:10-18. That is precisely the indictment of the human race that
    Paul lays out in Rom 1:18-32……people should seek GOD, have plenty of evidence, but they do not, supress the Truth, and are without excuse. Now the Gospel is a staightforward declaration (1 Cor 15:1-4), (Romans 10-:9-13), and I am only concerned with proclamating the message and telling people of GOD’s command to repent and believe, but based on the testimony of the Scriptures, who will praytell? Men do not, apart from being born from above, desire in their heart to truly please GOD. Also, in view of the preceding statements, what of the mass of humanity that has perished apart from the message of the Gospel. They never even had the facts to make an informed “choice.” What about the “nations” that GOD abandoned to go their own way prior to the Cross, and when he was working exclusively through “Israel, mine elect.” See most Christians do not think through their theology at all. The problem is also that you fail to grasp the testimony of Scripture concerning post-Fall mankind. See Jer 17:4…..the heart is deceitful, who can know it? Man, read John 6, and stay in the context of that chp. because the words of Jesus are clear and the implications are powerful.

    As far as the “complicated” answers, they were originally pertaining to questions concerning evil. I am not gonna go out reason with the “peasant” about things that are of no concern to him/her. The lost world needs to only obey GOD by believing the Gospel of Christ.

  34. Anonymous,

    I’ve given a brief answer to Karlton’s question that you have cited. How would you answer Karlton’s question regarding your position:

    “Mankind does have free will and can choose independently of God’s will, in which case God becomes the puppet and all of His plans and divine will or can be thwarted by mankind.”

  35. Muff Potter,

    I did not mean that nobody was ever consistent with the tenets of the Enlightenment, and therefore not sucessful in living it out and propagating it to subsequent generations. Again, the doctrine of imago dei is crucial in understanding humankind’s advancement in the world…………..but sin perverts and the motives for many were never grounded in a desire for GOD’s glory…………. and anything not built on the foundation of Christ is sinking sand.

  36. J,

    You made a statement that “Men do not, apart from being born from above, desire in their heart to truly please GOD.”

    This is a problem…

    1. Premise: No honest person desires to please God
    2. Counter: I am an honest person and I am trying to please God.
    3. Response: No truly honest person desires to please God.

    You are eliminating the possibility of a person being “honest” by simply defining the possibility out of existence. You dismiss all people who say they are truly seeking God, by assuming ‘a priori’ that no such person can exist.

    Secondly, why are Adam and Eve different, the Bible makes it clear that sin did not enter the world until they transgressed and it is a reasonable assumption that God cannot create anything “flawed”, therefore…the original question is valid. You cannot dismiss them simply because it is difficult to provide a good answer.

  37. J and J are making the argument that is the foundation for my comment that Calvinists believe that God is sovereign over everything, except His own sovereignty. That is what causes the problem for many people who study Calvinists in depth. Yes God is sovereign, even over His own sovereignty, so that He can choose to not exercise His sovereignty and allow mankind free will to choose to love Him and serve Him directly and by serving the least among His children, or to choose otherwise. God will then exercise His sovereignty over the consequences of those actions in eternity, and not necessarily in the day to day living of life on this planet.

    As a parent, I had a large measure of sovereignty over my children. I could have made life a straightjacket for them and prescribed everything for and to them. What I did instead was to withhold that sovereignty so that they would learn from an early age how to choose wisely, to choose the good over the evil. When they did something that the should not, from about age 30 months or so, we asked them why, and as they grew, to explain what their choices were and what the consequence of those choices would be. Before age 4, my son said, “Daddy, why don’t you just spank me like other Daddys do? Please don’t make me explain choices and consequences.” Of course, I did not do what he asked, and he had to explain, and then take the time out that was prescribed.

    Before they were 12, both of my children knew how to make good choices, how to weigh the risks of a situation and to understand the possible consequences. And by 18, you could have placed a fortune in their hands and it would have been managed responsibly.

    I think that I have been a good parent. But God is a far greater parent than I ever could hope to be. Yes God is sovereign, and God is love. I believe that being obeyed because He is loved is far more to His glory than being obeyed because He is sovereign. Tyrants are obeyed because of sovereignty.

    One can believe that God is sovereign AND believe that He responds to the prayers of those who seek Him and love Him, and that the short term future, our future on this planet, is not determined, but the eternal future for those who love Him is determined. To me that is the Gospel — that if we seek Him and love and serve Him, we have eternal life. See John 3:17.

  38. Arce,

    First of all, you had very bright kids…holy cow.

    I think I somewhat understand where you are coming from…I also think God teaches us through allowing us make our own decisions. I don’t think God’s sovereignty is incompatible with the sort of teaching that you are talking about. I also don’t think it makes our love and obedience robotic.

    I think my position has the problem of trying to explain how two biblical concepts, sovereignty and responsibility, work together. I think your position has the problem of having to explain how it is at all compatible with Scripture itself, which clearly teaches that God is not only sovereign, but that he excersises that sovereignty. I could list a litany of verses (Romans 9, Is 40-48, Ephesians 1-2 etc) to demonstrate this.

  39. Karlton,

    My presupposition is based on a Biblical worldview concerning the condition of man and his disposition toward GOD before being made a new creation in Christ.

    Now, if someone tells me they are seeking GOD I am not ruling that out as something that is never honest or true. I am saying that men in themselves, and by themselves, never seek for GOD. I am honestly seeking Christ. I would not be typing this stuff out if I truly did not desire to honor the Master. However, and believe me when I say, it is only because HE sought me first. GOD effectually draws people to Himself for salvation. The majority that claim to be seeking GOD prove by their “works” to be false as their denial of the biblical Jesus and unsanctified lives show.

    Eve was deceived and Adam willfully rebelled, and as the Federal head of the race, Adam’s sin plunged everybody into ruin. No, GOD did not create sin, but on the origin of it as such, the bible tells us nothing……….only that it was found in the cherub that became the devil. GOD by HIS very definition decreed that it would be so, and to say that he was impotent in the matter would strip HIM of deity.

  40. I do not deny that God exercises His sovereignty. But only that He also chooses to withhold it, to some extant and in some times, to allow us to choose to love him. There are times and circumstances in which it is clear that God has exercised His sovereignty. And I am sure, there are many times when humans attribute things to God’s sovereignty that are not. Part of His sovereignty is that He created the natural order, including a world that renews itself through vulcanism which also results in earthquakes and tsunamis, that waters itself through evaporation and rain which also results in tornadoes and hurricanes and floods, and that holds itself together through gravity which also results in landslides and avalanches, etc., etc., etc. I think His creation of the sky, sunlight, and chemistry results in the most beautiful sunsets when the sulfur content of the upper atmosphere is high!

    But we need not over interpret and over attribute with respect to His sovereignty. Keep in mind that all English translations owe a great deal to the “divine right of kings” oriented King James Bible, which plays up the sovereignty issue.

  41. Arce,

    Sovereignty/Supremacy do not exclusively define GOD’s posture toward His creatures. All of His divine attributes compliment Him will be emanating his perfections for all eternity. Love moved Him to come in the person of His Son. Holiness moves Him to abhor sin. It all serves to glorify GOD. However, if GOD were to in His pure essence and Being (not talking about Christ’s condescension here) divest Himself in any way of such perogatives, He would strip Himself of deity. GOD can not be both sovereign and not sovereign at the same time and still be GOD as He can’t contradict Himself.

    Also, the Bible states that man is dead in sin, therefore the notion of someone freely choosing to love and serve GOD is a non sequitur.

  42. Arce,

    This was sort of a misnomer on my part, “GOD can not be both sovereign and not sovereign at the same time” as time has no application to GOD as such. I needed to correct that but the logic still stands.

  43. Closer to the subject of the actual blogpost …………..I recently left my SBC church. I had approached the “leadership” about issues of legalism, and what came out of that meeting was absolutely shameful. I was accused, had the “old man” brought up, had the “pastor’s credentials leveraged against me, and was generally treated with contempt and anger. I was shocked and after 3 weeks confronted the man about his violations of the qualifications of an overseer against me, and he admitted his sin in a private correspondence, but extended no offer for reconciliation. I had been greatly discouraged and bogged down there, and in all likelihood would not have went back anyway. However, it is telling as I have been, even after the “repentance,” marginalized and minimized, and except for a couple of brothers in the LORD, wrongly judged as some kinda troublemaker and abandoned….. all because I sought to hold the “leadership” accountable for what they teach. These institutional churches can be very dangerous as there is next to no accountability, especially for the “ordained” authorities.

    I really appreciate what the ladies stand for here, and even though there are some theological differences, I appreciate the wisdom and grace they manifest in doing what they do. Spiritual abuse is rampant as unqualified and unsanctified men function in positions they ought not. Christ did not grace them and give them as gifts to HIS church, and the proof is in the pain produced from their “ministries.”

  44. You are again making my point that Calvinists believe that God is not sovereign over His own sovereignty. I believe that He is, and that being sovereign over His own sovereignty means that He has the ability to sovereignly choose to allow events to occur without imposing His will upon them, other than His imposition of allowing them to occur in accord with His created order.

  45. J, J and Arce…

    As I mentioned in a previous post, the argument of God being sovereign over His own sovereignty is akin to the old puzzle of whether God can create a rock so big that He cannot move it. The answer being, that no, He cannot create a rock so big that He cannot move it, because to be omnipotent, He cannot do anything which is contrary to His nature, in this case His omnipotence. (I hate the circles of words these things create), but basically we are saying the God cannot do anything which would violate the nature of His own omnipotence.

    I wonder if this isn’t the same for sovereignty in that He cannot exercise control over His own absolute control, it would violate the very nature of being sovereign. In other words, if sovereignty, by definition, means being in control of everything, then by it’s very definition you cannot have sovereignty over your sovereignty, anymore than omnipotence means you can create something beyond the control of your omnipotence.

    Just a thought.

  46. But sovereignty does not mean that you HAVE control over everything, but that you have the ABILITY, if you choose, to control whatever you choose to control. Otherwise God becomes like Midas, trapped by His own will. There is always discretion on the part of a sovereign, whether to be like Assad in Syria or more benevolent in ones approach to using the power one has.

  47. Arce

    I am trying to follow this conversation from long distance. I think a bit more like you.

    Why do we think in binary fashion? We look at God as being sovereign in a limited fashion. For example, we wonder if we should take a job in North Carolina or in California. We pray for God’s will. But, what if God’s will was either of those choices? Or perhaps it could be a number of choices spanning the globe from Africa to Hawaii to Singapore.

    I attended a talk by Hugh Ross. Although I am limited in my understanding of physics, etc, I found what he was saying fascinating. He says there are many dimensions- 12 or 13, I think. We only perceive things based on 3 dimensions. God exists in all. So, a 2 dimensional being only sees things as having height and width but not depth. Such a being would not be able to perceive a 3 dimensional world.But God sees all 12 or 13 or even more.

    If God is so much bigger, why couldn’t many options be a possibility? Why couldn’t any and all of those options be part of His divine will? We, as 3 dimensional humans, cannot perceive such flexibility, since it is beyond our reality. But the God who created all the dimensions and exists in all could be able to see it all working together for His glory and good.

    Somehow, simple Calvinism and simple Arminianism seem limited in some respects.

    Your question is interesting. Is God sovereign over His sovereignty? I think God is sovereign over everything and that all decisions made by man could conceivably be part of a larger template that is beyond our ability to perceive or conceive. The maker of the universe may well be beyond the ability of man to fully understand.

  48. Arce,

    I am not certain I agree with you. I think you are looking at Sovereignty in the same way that it would apply to a human leader or King, a right of power to be used when desired. I think when you speak of God, it would be more correct to say that Sovereignty, like omnipotence, omniscience, holiness, love, perfection and omnipresence are a part of His nature…I don’t mean “inclinations” by nature, but rather that they are, in sum and substance, the very essence of what makes God…God.

    And therefore, those attributes or qualities cannot be turned on or off, or you change the very nature of what God is.

  49. Karlton,

    That is good use of logic and reason, and similar to what I was trying to point out to Arce. GOD can’t limit His sovereignty and still be sovereign………… as it would violate the law of non-contradiction. He would no longer be GOD. Arce, also, you are employing a category error fallacy by stating GOD can be sovereign over his sovereignty as that is a contradictory usage of terms and therefore is actually a meaningless statement. It just fails on several levels, and I don’t mean that in a smug way at all so please don’t read it like that. I can understand the struggle as you want to make sense of it all. I certainly don’t have all the answers. I am just seeking to bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.

  50. Arce,

    GOD is not only sovereign over all of creation, but in the exercise of His supremacy does employ His divine perogatives as Creator to ordain and work all things according to the good pleasure of His will (Eph 1:11).

  51. Karlton G. Kemerait says:
    Is there a third option?

    I think Dee touched on a “third option” in her remarks about multiple dimensions. My answer would be Schrödinger’s cat.

  52. Junkster

    Awesome! You got me thinking about this a long time ago when you and Zeta pointed out the creationism could be both young and old depending on how one viewed dimensions. I think I heard Zeta and another friend mention this cat thing before. I didn’t understand it then so I just did some reading whilst watching the Boston Bruins play Vancouver. I am still on the Cape on vacation.

    here is a link for the readers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger%27s_cat After reading it a few times, I finally am getting it. It’s kind of like listening to Hugh Ross and others. I take much on faith in better minds than my own. But, somehow, deep down, it makes some sense to this dense brain.

    I think of things like string theory, black holes, multi-dimensions and become less and less sure of understanding this God of complexity. Is the cat dead or alive or both?

  53. Karl

    Sorry, I did not get up near you. We stayed down on the Cape. One day, we shall meet, face to face.

  54. Johnathan,

    Thanks, but reason and logic are a two-edged sword and I think this is what Arce was getting at. Once you agree with my stated premise that God is always in control of every aspect of existence throughout all eternity, and if His sovereignty cannot be willingly set aside, then there truly is, not only no such thing as free will, but God becomes, inexorably the author of evil.

    Evil then cannot exist but by His will and if he cannot relinquish control over His sovereignty and He is all powerful and perfect, then you are left with contradictions that simply cannot be resolved by any logical or reasonable means….your only recourse is to claim “it’s beyond understanding” and turn a deaf ear to your own reasoning ability, or you can, as many have done, come to the realization that no such contradiction could possibly exist and that, while my human reason is all that I have, it must be sufficient and abandon contradictions imposed by religion and faith and become an atheist. 🙂

  55. A god that is not sovereign over his own sovereignty is a very small god. My God is a very large God, Infinitely so. God is not a Midas-like being, such that what He would prefer to happen must happen. That makes God the author of all that is evil, because it would not happen contrary to his will. If God is trapped in his sovereignty, all that he wills happens and all that happens happens because he willed it. It becomes impossible for anything to happen against his will. Humans are mere robots playing out their pre-written roles, doomed to hell before birth or destined to heaven, by the will of God who created them for that destiny. To me, that makes God a monster I will not and cannot worship.

    The God I know and worship is a God of love, one who loves enough to come and live with us and die for us. Yes He has sovereignty, but He controls that sovereignty so as not to be some despot, but a loving father. Jesus said we should call him “abba”, which is an infants’ first word for their father, akin to “da-da” or “ma-ma” more than akin to “daddy” and “mommy” which come later. A infant knows nothing but love for their parent.

    The God I know and worship is deserving of that kind of love, not because He is all powerful, but because He is all loving and giving. But for the grace of God we would not even have breath. His gifts to us include our ability to eat and enjoy the taste of the food he has given us the grace to grow, harvest, cook, and make interesting; our ability to love another human and to share our bodies together in joy; our ability to procreate; our ability to mourn.

    The God I know and worship is bigger than his sovereignty — He either willed the fall or he sovereignly withheld his power and allowed Adam and Eve the choice to obey or disobey. You cannot have it both ways.

    That is why I think strong Calvinism is blasphemy — it denigrates God — and is therefore a heresy. I think Calvinism is an insult to the good name of God.

  56. Arce,

    And can He also cease to be loving? Can He choose to be unjust? Can He set aside His omnipresence, Can He choose to not know something? If the answer to all these is “no”, then why should sovereignty be any different. It seems to me that you are creating God in your own image, you cannot reconcile the contradictions that would arise in a universe in which He does not have control over His own sovereignty, so you simply make Him what you would like Him to be. But wishing it so, does not make it true. The same way that a young child may believe that His father is only good and wonderful and kind, does not make the reality that his father might really be a corrupt, power hungry gold monger, any different.

    The Biblical evidence seems to support the Calvinistic idea of election and God’s sovereignty, while the Arminian ideas of free will seems to have support only in the minds of those who can’t deal with the Biblical description of God as it exists and so, look for an implied middle ground. Unfortunately it seems to be “implied”, not by scripture, but rather by the contradictions that arise from a Calvinist view and a person’s inability to accept those contradictions.

  57. Jonathan,

    I’m glad you are encouraged here at TWW. I have enjoyed your comments very much. I would never expect our readers to agree with everything we believe. How boring would that be?

    When we began blogging, I had been personally hurt by some things that happened in my church experiences. That was several years ago, and I’m moving on past any bitterness.

    Now I write posts out of compassion for others who have been hurt in some way and don’t have a voice. I pray that we are ministering to those who should have been protected, not abused, by their spiritual leaders.

    Blessings to you!

  58. These conversations always remind me of when I read Dostoevsky for the first time in college. I had heard variations of the Problem of Evil plenty of times but there is a chapter in The Brothers Karamazov where the problem is stated in the most powerful way I have ever read. When folks like Karlton (or Arce, though in a different way) bring this issue up I always go in my mind to Dostoevsky. I am going to post a section of it here. It is long, a blog post in itself…so feel free to skip (and dee or deb you can take it down if you feel its too long obviously…I won’t be offended 🙂

    This passage challenged my belief in God more than anything else in my entire life. The problem of evil is, in my opinion, the biggest challenge, philosophically, for Christians. Here you go, keeping in mind it isn’t the whole chapter:

    “”This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated parents. They beat her, thrashed her, kicked her for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater refinements of cruelty — shut her up all night in the cold and frost in a privy, and because she didn’t ask to be taken up at night (as though a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the poor child’s groans! Can you understand why a little creature, who can’t even understand what’s done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child’s prayer to dear, kind God’! I say nothing of the sufferings of grown-up people, they have eaten the apple, damn them, and the devil take them all! But these little ones! I am making you suffer, Alyosha, you are not yourself. I’ll leave off if you like.”

    “Nevermind. I want to suffer too,” muttered Alyosha.

    “One picture, only one more, because it’s so curious, so characteristic, and I have only just read it in some collection of Russian antiquities. I’ve forgotten the name. I must look it up. It was in the darkest days of serfdom at the beginning of the century, and long live the Liberator of the People! There was in those days a general of aristocratic connections, the owner of great estates, one of those men — somewhat exceptional, I believe, even then — who, retiring from the service into a life of leisure, are convinced that they’ve earned absolute power over the lives of their subjects. There were such men then. So our general, settled on his property of two thousand souls, lives in pomp, and domineers over his poor neighbours as though they were dependents and buffoons. He has kennels of hundreds of hounds and nearly a hundred dog-boys — all mounted, and in uniform. One day a serf-boy, a little child of eight, threw a stone in play and hurt the paw of the general’s favourite hound. ‘Why is my favourite dog lame?’ He is told that the boy threw a stone that hurt the dog’s paw. ‘So you did it.’ The general looked the child up and down. ‘Take him.’ He was taken — taken from his mother and kept shut up all night. Early that morning the general comes out on horseback, with the hounds, his dependents, dog-boys, and huntsmen, all mounted around him in full hunting parade. The servants are summoned for their edification, and in front of them all stands the mother of the child. The child is brought from the lock-up. It’s a gloomy, cold, foggy, autumn day, a capital day for hunting. The general orders the child to be undressed; the child is stripped naked. He shivers, numb with terror, not daring to cry…. ‘Make him run,’ commands the general. ‘Run! run!’ shout the dog-boys. The boy runs…. ‘At him!’ yells the general, and he sets the whole pack of hounds on the child. The hounds catch him, and tear him to pieces before his mother’s eyes!… I believe the general was afterwards declared incapable of administering his estates. Well — what did he deserve? To be shot? To be shot for the satisfaction of our moral feelings? Speak, Alyosha!

    “To be shot,” murmured Alyosha, lifting his eyes to Ivan with a pale, twisted smile.

    “Bravo!” cried Ivan delighted. “If even you say so… You’re a pretty monk! So there is a little devil sitting in your heart, Alyosha Karamazov!”

    “What I said was absurd, but-”

    “That’s just the point, that ‘but’!” cried Ivan. “Let me tell you, novice, that the absurd is only too necessary on earth. The world stands on absurdities, and perhaps nothing would have come to pass in it without them. We know what we know!”

    “What do you know?”

    “I understand nothing,” Ivan went on, as though in delirium. “I don’t want to understand anything now. I want to stick to the fact. I made up my mind long ago not to understand. If I try to understand anything, I shall be false to the fact, and I have determined to stick to the fact.”

    “Why are you trying me?” Alyosha cried, with sudden distress. “Will you say what you mean at last?”

    “Of course, I will; that’s what I’ve been leading up to. You are dear to me, I don’t want to let you go, and I won’t give you up to your Zossima.”

    Ivan for a minute was silent, his face became all at once very sad.

    “Listen! I took the case of children only to make my case clearer. Of the other tears of humanity with which the earth is soaked from its crust to its centre, I will say nothing. I have narrowed my subject on purpose. I am a bug, and I recognise in all humility that I cannot understand why the world is arranged as it is. Men are themselves to blame, I suppose; they were given paradise, they wanted freedom, and stole fire from heaven, though they knew they would become unhappy, so there is no need to pity them. With my pitiful, earthly, Euclidian understanding, all I know is that there is suffering and that there are none guilty; that cause follows effect, simply and directly; that everything flows and finds its level — but that’s only Euclidian nonsense, I know that, and I can’t consent to live by it! What comfort is it to me that there are none guilty and that cause follows effect simply and directly, and that I know it? — I must have justice, or I will destroy myself. And not justice in some remote infinite time and space, but here on earth, and that I could see myself. I have believed in it. I want to see it, and if I am dead by then, let me rise again, for if it all happens without me, it will be too unfair. Surely I haven’t suffered simply that I, my crimes and my sufferings, may manure the soil of the future harmony for somebody else. I want to see with my own eyes the hind lie down with the lion and the victim rise up and embrace his murderer. I want to be there when everyone suddenly understands what it has all been for. All the religions of the world are built on this longing, and I am a believer. But then there are the children, and what am I to do about them? That’s a question I can’t answer. For the hundredth time I repeat, there are numbers of questions, but I’ve only taken the children, because in their case what I mean is so unanswerably clear. Listen! If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children to do with it, tell me, please? It’s beyond all comprehension why they should suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony. Why should they, too, furnish material to enrich the soil for the harmony of the future? I understand solidarity in sin among men. I understand solidarity in retribution, too; but there can be no such solidarity with children. And if it is really true that they must share responsibility for all their fathers’ crimes, such a truth is not of this world and is beyond my comprehension. Some jester will say, perhaps, that the child would have grown up and have sinned, but you see he didn’t grow up, he was torn to pieces by the dogs, at eight years old. Oh, Alyosha, I am not blaspheming! I understand, of course, what an upheaval of the universe it will be when everything in heaven and earth blends in one hymn of praise and everything that lives and has lived cries aloud: ‘Thou art just, O Lord, for Thy ways are revealed.’ When the mother embraces the fiend who threw her child to the dogs, and all three cry aloud with tears, ‘Thou art just, O Lord!’ then, of course, the crown of knowledge will be reached and all will be made clear. But what pulls me up here is that I can’t accept that harmony. And while I am on earth, I make haste to take my own measures. You see, Alyosha, perhaps it really may happen that if I live to that moment, or rise again to see it, I, too, perhaps, may cry aloud with the rest, looking at the mother embracing the child’s torturer, ‘Thou art just, O Lord!’ but I don’t want to cry aloud then. While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself, and so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It’s not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to ‘dear, kind God’! It’s not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible? By their being avenged? But what do I care for avenging them? What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price. I don’t want the mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him for herself, if she will, let her forgive the torturer for the immeasurable suffering of her mother’s heart. But the sufferings of her tortured child she has no right to forgive; she dare not forgive the torturer, even if the child were to forgive him! And if that is so, if they dare not forgive, what becomes of harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? I don’t want harmony. From love for humanity I don’t want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it’s beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket.”

    “That’s rebellion,” murmered Alyosha, looking down.

    “Rebellion? I am sorry you call it that,” said Ivan earnestly. “One can hardly live in rebellion, and I want to live. Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature — that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance — and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth.”

    “No, I wouldn’t consent,” said Alyosha softly.””

  59. And answering this problem is not just a Calvinist problem, but a problem for any Christian who believes God is all powerful, and good.

  60. AS to the SBC some thoughts:

    A few men launched this huge CR battle to take over the SBC and with lots of political strategy they won. Now, these same men who banded together are fighting each other (not in public) and they are left with a dyingl convention to fight over.

    What you saw at this convention with it’s unity document (after sealing the GCR committee minutes for 15 years and rebuking bloggers) , electing a black VP, etc., are strategies not repentance.

    After all, they passed a resolution against the new NIV 2011! Why? Because it uses brothers and sisters instead of ‘brothers”.

  61. Anonymous,

    You reap what you sow, and we are now seeing the blighted harvest of those so-called men of God who took over the SBC.

    It is so obvious that God has removed his hand of blessing from the Southern Baptist Convention. It took them 150 years to finally apologize for their sinful position on slavery. How long will it take for them to realize their sin in marginalizing godly women who desire to serve God with their gifts?

    How low can the numbers go? I don’t think the SBC has hit rock bottom yet…

  62. Deb,

    Thank you for the words of kindness.

    I, like you, am moving on past any bitterness. I am looking to Christ alone, for truly, “vain is the help of man” (Psalm108).

  63. Karlton, et al.

    No God cannot cease to be loving, nor can He be unjust. Which is why the concept of some being created by God and destined inevitably by Him for hell is anathema. Because that would be both unloving and unjust. But God, by being sovereign, can allow us a freedom of conscience, and therefore, to choose whether to love Him or not.

  64. Arce,

    So then, once again, are you saying that sovereignty is NOT part of the nature of God like love and omnipotence? I think that would be a difficult position to maintain. Why is sovereignty not part of the nature of God while other attributes are part of His eternal nature? You seem to return to the same shelter each time, i.e. I cannot conceive how God could be loving and just and at the same time be sovereign over all things at all times, so He must be what I can understand Him to be.

  65. I believe that God has exact knowledge of everything that He can be known at any point in time. As to foreknowledge, I believe that He knows his creatures well enough to know their proclivities and the probabilities of their behavior. I believe that God knows an infinite number of futures, exhaustively, all based on the choices we may make and the outcomes of each, such that He has perfect foreknowledge in that He knows all that can happen and the probability associated with each. Of course, the most massive computer systems in the world are of insufficient capacity to hold that knowledge.

  66. Karlton,

    God is always sovereign. Sometimes He does not act on his sovereignty, but allows humans to make their own choices. Otherwise, to punish a sinner would be unjust if God were the one who decided that that person would commit that sin.

  67. Arce,

    What do you do with the clear witness of Scripture concerning passages such as this……..

    Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
    Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

    The Bible just does not support your heretofore conclusions on this blog’s current exchanges concerning the Being and attributes of GOD. Have you been reading into open theism?

  68. Many thanks go to Joey for the Dostoevsky passages!!! More than one writer has said that nobody can write about the soul of pathos better than a Russian. And you’re right Joey, it’s good that faith is challenged, because without reasonable doubt, faith becomes nothing more than unquestioned dogma told to you by others.

    Dee @ Wed, Jun 15 2011 at 08:45 pm:
    [“…If God is so much bigger, why couldn’t many options be a possibility? Why couldn’t any and all of those options be part of His divine will? We, as 3 dimensional humans, cannot perceive such flexibility, since it is beyond our reality. But the God who created all the dimensions and exists in all could be able to see it all working together for His glory and good…”]
    Dee, you just might be an open theist and not know it yet. => (smiley face emoticon here)

    Karlton @ [“…The Biblical evidence seems to support the Calvinistic idea of election and God’s sovereignty, while the Arminian ideas of free will seems to have support only in the minds of those who can’t deal with the Biblical description of God as it exists and so, look for an implied middle ground…”]

    Much of Reformed thought (Calvinism) depends largely upon a particular view of various and vaunted “proof texts” supporting it. Take the citations out of the Psalms for instance, which alledgedly prove that humans are hopelessy depraved. Alter the viewing angle slightly to where they become hyperbolic metaphors, and the doctrine of total depravity evaporates like an ice cube on a hot August sidewalk.

  69. No, but I consider Roger Olson a personal friend and I see him frequently. However, the Bible does support my position at least as well as it supports strong 5-point Calvinism, and Calvinism without all five points in their most rigid form is not the logical system that people think it can be.

    You have a choice — Believe your five point Calvinism and you must believe that God is unjust, willfully creating people for the purpose of sending them to Hell, and that He gives them no choice in the matter. As far as I am concerned you blaspheme the name of God, and any theology that leads you to blaspheme the name of God cannot be anything but a heresy. Your choice. OH SORRY, YOU REALLY HAVE NO CHOICE — YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A ROBOT PLAYING OUT YOUR INSTRUCTIONS. YOUR ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR SIN AND GOD IS GOING TO GET YOU FOR IT ANYWAY. OR DO YOU ASSUME YOU ARE AMONG THE ELECT?

  70. “Open Theism” is a term developed by a Calvinist as a put-down to those who believe that we have choice and that praying is efficacious. But the Calvinists put a lot more into it that few people really believe.

  71. Arce,

    You stated………….. “I believe that God has exact knowledge of everything that He can be known at any point in time. As to foreknowledge, I believe that He knows his creatures well enough to know their proclivities and the probabilities of their behavior. I believe that God knows an infinite number of futures, exhaustively, all based on the choices we may make and the outcomes of each, such that He has perfect foreknowledge in that He knows all that can happen and the probability associated with each. Of course, the most massive computer systems in the world are of insufficient capacity to hold that knowledge.”

    Again, how does the above statement line up with the 2 verses from Isa. posted above?

  72. Arce,

    What about Isa 10? The LORD uses Assyria as an instrument of judgement against Israel. They were completely clueless and were acting in accordance with their own evil hearts. After GOD used them HE said………….

    ” Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks.
    Isa 10:13 For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom; for I am prudent: and I have removed the bounds of the people, and have robbed their treasures, and I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man:
    Isa 10:14 And my hand hath found as a nest the riches of the people: and as one gathereth eggs that are left, have I gathered all the earth; and there was none that moved the wing, or opened the mouth, or peeped.
    Isa 10:15 Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood.
    Isa 10:16 Therefore shall the Lord, the Lord of hosts, send among his fat ones leanness; and under his glory he shall kindle a burning like the burning of a fire.”

    Here the decree of GOD is going to be carried out in time, and man is still held accountable for his own sinful desires and actions in the process–unwittingly, fulfilling the designs of the Almighty. There is no other possible scenario because GOD declares it. Call it determinism or whatever, but there are no problems associated with it. I am satisfied to rest in the assurance that the LORD GOD is perfect in all His ways (that reasoning does not come from me, but in the objective testimony of Scripture) and can do no wrong. This should strike awe and fear in our hearts!

  73. NO, not at all like fatalism. It is basically that our response to events is determined probabilistically, that is, our prior experiences, genetics, etc., set up a range of responses with probabilities attached to each. Our response becomes a event which generate responses in others according to their own probability distribution for that particular type of event and time. So that history becomes determined by the prior events and the genetics of each person at that point in time, which then becomes an event for subsequent responses. The number of paths becomes infinitely large in a very short time for even a single actor, with many actors, it is almost instantaneously infinite. And it gives the appearance of free will, even if determined by prior events and genetics, since it is not determined to a specific response, but to a probability distribution of responses.

    Some reference:

    http://futuretarheelmd.blogspot.com/2007/05/quantum-indeterminacy-argument-for-free.html

  74. As I said, the God you describe cannot be loving, just, and before creation consign some people to hell. Therefore, you have to give up something out of that list. Otherwise your god is a monster.

  75. Arce,

    I will look into the reference, and thank you for answering my question.

    It is clear that you have dismissed eveything that I have put forward in this forum. You have not even attempted to deal with the Biblical text…………….passages that clearly present a problem in your understanding of the nature of GOD. I must ask…..are you saying that the GOD of Isa.10 is a “monster?” He declared before hand what was to happen, including all of the relevant factors, such as the heart motives of the Assyrians, and that was going to lead to His righteous judgement, but they were only instruments in His hands for His purposes. I did not make those verses up ya know.

    Do you believe in Scripture alone or are you working on the assumption that there is another authority to appeal to?

  76. Arce,

    But that probability curve is no more than a substitute for not having complete knowledge of a system, there is actually no doubt as to how a person will respond, it is based simply on the electro-chemical state of the brain at time of response. The probability curve is a poor man’s substitute for lack of information..no more.

    For example .. I look out into my backyard and there are five trees of varying height…during a thunderstorm there is a probability curve that I can use to predict which tree will be hit by lightning…but which tree is actually hit is strictly deterministic and not tied to a probability curve. The probability curve arises from my perspective simply because I do not have all the necessary information to know which tree will actually be hit.

    Even if you grant quantum fluctuations within the synapses of the brain to permit varying responses to the same stimuli, it is still not free-will, because all of our thoughts, ideas, dreams, impulse, intuitions and instincts are the RESULT of the electrical responses in our brains not the cause. The idea that we reason or think…is simply an illusion, because the very thoughts which we posses are the result of events beyond our control … the thought occurs AFTER the electrical stimulus not the other way around.

  77. Jonathan

    The subject of Calvinism versus free will is a debate which is an “in house” debate. There is little probability that it can be solved in this forum or others. I believe, in heaven, God will lovingly reveal the complexities of this subject. I believe we will all be startled. Until then, I hope we can all gather around the table and enjoy each other.

  78. dee,

    Indeed, I concur. Although, I do have major concerns about the “open” view of GOD. That is why I pointed out that Arce was not dealing with the text of Scripture.

    However, it is definitely my desire to be charitable to all men in striving for unity in the Faith.

  79. Karlton,

    If one is talking about discrete events, say 3 or 4 possibilities, then knowing the probabilities means you know a great deal. Human behavior can often be characterized as discrete, mutually exclusive events. If you know all of the probabilities and all of the initial conditions, you can create a diagram with all of the branches and all of the possible end states and the probabilities of each intermediate event and the end states. That is possible on a small scale with modern computer technology.

    Jonathan,

    The case you site is a very easy one. I worked in a conflict cooperation research group beginning in 1969. That research group predicted the next Arab-Israeli war within a couple of months, over a year in advance, right down to the stimulus event and the characterization of the conflict by the parties on both sides.

    I believe the Bible. I also know its history, and most of the prophesies were written down first following the events.
    I do not take the Bible literally, to do so is to demean it, as in to strip it of important meanings. The truths about God and about humans are more important than whether an event was recorded exactly as it happened. Even the inerrantists say that only the “original autographs” were inerrant, and no one has seen those in over 1,000 years.