For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. -John 3:16

World is not merely nations in this text. Such a distinction, while required in order to prop up the doctrine of limited atonement, is simply not found in the text. What the text does say, however, is that God loves the whole world (without distinction so that we understand God to love all men, as is his revealed character throughout Scripture) in such a way as to give his only begotten son for the same (that is, all men without distinction, elect and non-elect, chosen and non-chosen) and that whosoever will may believe in Jesus and be saved (indicating how one may go from being one of the not-saved to one of the saved or non-elect to elect “in Christ”).

The glory of God here is that God is both willing (so loved) and able (that he sent) to save all men without distinction so that there is hope (whosoever will) for all men.

Curiously this verse does not say that God only loved the elect, only died for the elect, and that only the elect will (through irresistible and forceful changing of a person’s will against their desires/wishes/choice) be saved.

• Prov 1:22-26
• Hos 11:1-9
• Ps 78:10
• Ps 81:11-13
• Jer 32:33
• Acts 7:51
• Luke 7:30
• Acts 26:14
• Acts 9:17

Additionally, here are several passages indicating Jesus’s understanding of resistible grace:

• Matt 23:37
• Luke 18:18-23
• Matt 21:28-32
• Matt 21:42-44
• Matt 13:1-23 (also Mark 4:1-20 and Luke 8:1-5)

Where In the Bible…?
God’s “Design” for men and women. Where in the Bible can that word or even the concept be found? Can someone produce a scripture that specifically uses the words “God’s Design” in reference to men and women? And God blessed them and said unto them…have dominion.

On Father’s Day, the pastor preached about “roles” for men and women. Where in the Bible can the word “roles” be found? Can someone produce a single scripture containing that word?

He talked about the “authority” given to man over woman. What scripture says man was placed in authority over woman? You cannot serve two masters…We have one Lord even Christ….

He preached that man was woman’s protector. Where does the Bible say that? Scripture please!

The congregation was informed that woman needs protection for far more than just physical reasons. She needs protection emotionally, mentally and spiritually. How frail woman is! What specific verse of scripture says that man is woman’s protector? It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

Now I’ve been following this blog for quite some time in an attempt to somehow understand how feminists see the church but this post struck me as not only a stark display of Biblically illiteracy but also indicative of something that has been damaging our churches in America for quite some time. Specifically, the infiltration of the thoroughly pagan feminist movement in the church which often shows up as egalitarianism or a view that men and women are completely interchangeable. So here is my response to the above post even though I realize the initial post was largely rhetorical in nature:

Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers. -1 Peter 3:7

women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. -1 Corinthians 14:34

Those are two verses that come to mind.

Also, your exegesis of Gen 1:28 is a bit misleading and not a little misguided given the wider context. You see, while it is true that both were charged with the subduing of the earth they were not both held equally responsible. Specifically, even though we are told that the it was the woman who was deceived and ate of the fruit first the man, who was with her, was the first to be held accountable, “But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”” -Gen 3:9.

In fact, God’s attention does not turn to the woman until the man attempts to shift the blame onto her.

It is actually critical to note here that everything you railed against above is found in the first three chapters of Genesis.

I actually wonder why you bother going to church at all if your view of men and patriarchal authority is so low.

You do realize that God explicitly and exclusively defines himself in the masculine right? You do realize that Jesus came in the form of a man, right? You do realize that the helper He promised to send is exclusively defined in the masculine as well, right?

One of the responses I received included the statement:

Men like the poster above will never never never give up their perceived right to lord it over others!

To which I responded:

There is a vast difference between lording over someone and filling a role given by God Almighty.

I’m curious to know, however, why you automatically assume me to by misogynistic simply for answering the question above with clear biblical teaching.

If I didn’t know any better I would say that equality or truth are hardly what you are after here. Seems a lot like misandry to me.

To me:

Any condition placed upon a person solely on the basis of their intrinsic being– such as skin color or sex– is not a “role” to play but a statement of essence. Therefore, to say all women without exception must play a subservient role is a statement of inferiority of being.

That’s the logical refutation of the typical male supremacists argument. The theological one is that which has already been stated: that “not so among you” comes with no fine print exempting males; that “submit to one another” cannot be “doublespeak” for “some submit to others”; that Jesus came to free the oppressed– ALL of them–; that the Golden Rule cannot be negated by “pink and blue” hermeneutics.

Which all means that if you find a proof-text you can claim means males have privilege over females, you violate the over-arching teachings of Jesus and the apostle.

My final response:

When we talk about roles I think I would be helpful for us to keep in mind that these roles are only in reference to marriage.

My wife is not subject to any other man and even in our own relationship her free submission to me does not mean I am somehow better in essence than her.

Further, I find it remarkable that you believe your interpretation is right in the face of literally thousands of years of Christian and Jewish history where such interpretations you place on the texts such as the golden rule and “not so among you” would be (and are) seen as completely foreign. Are you really meaning to say that after nearly six thousand years of historical patriarchy you have been given special revelation to see the light?

You say that my interpretation violates the over-arching teachings of Jesus and the apostle (which one?) but looking back on a very long line of interpretational and anthropological history I am left scratching my head saying “huh?”

You see, I understand that you’ve apparently been infected with the same sort of militant feminism that has infected our culture. I get that. I also understand that you and others seem to think (again, along with out current culture) that men are somehow inherently evil.

As an aside I must point out that simple equality is hardly what you or others are advocating here and the evidence of that is how anyone like me who stands up for the biblical and traditional view of the roles of men and women is automatically labeled a misogynist (which itself smacks of misandry).

However what I fail to understand is how you can hold such thoroughly pagan views that have been blatantly borrowed from our current culture and with a straight face tell me that they are in the remotest sense Christian.

Like I said above, if you want to create your own religion that’s fine by me. However what you are doing is attempting to subvert biblical Christianity by importing concepts foreign to both Scripture and Church history.

In closing (and this will be my last comment on this thread) here are two lectures on the doctrine of biblical manhood and womanhood if anyone is interested in a serious study of the subject as opposed to baseless conjecture.

Chapter 21: Doctrine of Man – Manhood and Womanhood in Creation and Marriage (Pt. 1 of 2) – Dr. Wayne Grudem

Chapter 22: Doctrine of Man – Manhood and Womanhood in Creation and Marriage (Pt. 2 of 2) – Dr. Wayne Grudem

Two other helpful resources I forgot to mention above are my friend Wintry Knight’s blog and Dr Jennifer Roeback Morse’s blog. Both of these sites do a lot to uphold the traditional view of biblical manhood and womanhood and both of these blogs spend a great deal of time combating the societal disease known as the feminist movement.

Make no mistake about it, egalitarianism and the feminist movement are not about equality in any sense. They are about the wholesale destruction of the distinct and necessary roles of men and women. In this respect I view egalitarianism as an assault on Scripture and a noxious weed that needs to be stamped out with a vengeance wherever it is found.

BONUS: Here is an excellent article that answers the question “What is manliness?”

Greek

πᾶς

Transliteration/Pronunciation

pas/pä’s

Strong’s

G3956

Definition

The primary definition is:

each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

The secondary definition is:

some of all types

This word is hotly debated by the Reformed crowd when it comes to doctrines such as particular election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. The claim by most Reformed theologians is that pas does not mean all all the time. So, with that in mind, here are several verses where pas makes an appearance courtesy of Whosoever Will:

Where it’s found (as it pertains to salvation being made available to all men)

Matt 7:24, Luke 6:47, Matt 10:32-33, Luke 7:37, John 1:7, Matt 11:28, John 1:9, John 3:15-16, John 4:13-14, John 6:40, John 11:26, Acts 2:21, Acts 10:43, Rom 9:33, Rom 10:11, 1 John 2:23, 1 John 5:1, Eph 1:10, John 1:3, 2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 3:9, 1 Tim 2:4, 1 John 2:2, Matt 18:14, Matt 11:6, Luke 7:23, Matt 12:50, Matt 16:24-25, Mark 8:34-35, Luke 9:23-24, John 6:51, John 7:17, John 7:37, John 8:51, Acts 2:21, Acts 10:43, Rom 10:13, 1 John 4:15, Rev 3:20, Rev 22:17

“Now, I may be incorrectly understanding Craig’s explanation of how middle knowledge is supposed to have worked, but I believe he detailed a scenario in which God looked out before creation and saw an infinite host of “parallel universes” (my phrase) encompassing all possible individual choices of his creatures and “picked one.”"

There aren’t an infinite number of parallel universes. Middle Knowledge is of possible universes, the vast majority of which are not actualized. For example, one possible universe would be a universe with nothing in it except for empty space. Another possible universe might be one in which I married someone other than the woman I am currently married to. However there is no possible universe where 1+1 does not equal 2.

As for the choices entailed in each logically possible world, you also have to keep in mind that God’s own actions (or possible actions) are also contained within the mind (through divine omniscience) of God. I am confident that once you dwell on that for a little while you’re mind will be as blown as mine was when I first began to plumb the depths of what it means to say that our God is “the only wise God” (Romans 16:27).

The possible worlds God possesses foreknowledge of, and what primarily constitutes what we call the middle knowledge of God is the knowledge of counterfactuals. These are facts or truthful statements of “what might-have-been”. They are not a part of God’s free knowledge

“That in some sense (and this is where my understanding may be flawed) human free will is pre-existent to the Creative Decree”

This is actually a variant on what is formally known as “the grounding objection”. The short answer to this apparently problem is that God’s foreknowledge of future free events is not based on the agents themselves but on God’s knowledge of himself (specifically his omniscience or knowledge of all things). His foreknowledge couldn’t be predicated on the agents whose choices are foreknown since the agents that are foreknown did not exist at some point in time (which would mean that God’s knowledge would be limited and finite). Rather, such future free actions of causal agents (which includes angels along with humans at the least) are whats known as “brute facts” which are logically along the lines of facts such as mathematics like the concept of 1+1=2.

So when God laments in Genesis 6:6 he is not lamenting the actualizing of a world wherein free creatures would rebel in stunning (though not surprising) ways. But God’s lament is expressed within space and time (which is another rich topic) over the actualization of sin and rebellion. In short, just like Lazarus’s death was foreknown and even foreordained, Jesus still weeps in John 11:35 not because of a lack of knowledge in the formal sense (that is, being aware of facts) but because of a lack of experience (that is, the actualized event that was previously foreknown).

Wes

Pardon the unsolicited message–and I see that with your 3K+ friends, your ability to reply may be limited–but I’m a long-suffering “anti-Calvinist” who’s only now beginning to study Molinism.

I noticed through Facebook’s VERY unprivate data search mechanisms that you are a fairly outspoken Molinist of sorts and some random comments I’ve read of yours lead me to believe you might be prepared to shed some light on a couple of things for me.

Previously, I’d developed a general aversion to any system of theology simply because I saw all “sides” of this or that debate simply bypassing a reconciliation effort in favor of a “these verses mean what they say, those don’t” approach. Now that I’ve dipped my toes in Molinism (via WLC’s defense of it in the book I’ve linked to), I’m at least hopeful. Now, I’m still trying to wrap my mind around some of the hermeneutic’s particulars, but there are two verses, one a proof text for the reformed crowd and one for the openness crowd, that I’m wondering how Molinism addresses.

Reformed: Eph. 1:11

Openness: Gen. 6:6

Whenever you could get back to me, that would be super. Thanks in advance for whatever time you can dedicate to it.

Sincerely
Josh Lowery

Since I love the doctrine of Molinism/Middle Knowledge I decided to try and give Josh as much information on the subject as I could in a single Facebook message. What follows, then, is sort-of the fire-hose method of discussing an otherwise deep and rich subject in a relatively short amount of time.

Hey Josh,

Thanks for the message, unsolicited or not

I am indeed a huge fan of Molinism. As Thomas P. Flint mentions in his excellent work “Divine Providence: The Molinist Account”, Molinism’s twin pillars are God’s sovereignty and mankind’s limited free agency.

As to the specific verses you mentioned. I would argue that Eph 1:11 is primarily referring to Christ and how our redemption is worked out ahead of time in him. Thus the “all things” are directly referring to the salvation brought about in Christ. Calvinists often point to this verse by way of saying that God causes all things. However the idea of causal determinism has some very serious flaws.

The most significant of which is that it ends up making God culpable for all sin, evil, and suffering in the world. You can study more on this vein of thought through Alvin Plantinga’s Free Will Theodicy, (my favorite) Bruce Little’s Creation Order Theodicy, and (ok, another favorite) Udo Middleman’s Innocence of God.

I must admit I haven’t encountered Genesis 6:6 used in the open theistic sense but having read a lot of Boyd I can certainly see how it could be portrayed that way.

Basically open theism is, in my estimation, the perfect opposite of the Calvinistic view. However the reason for this is that they both have a wrong understanding of what free will is. Both systems have a view that if God contains foreknowledge of future-free events then that somehow means that men are not free. WLC has an excellent book on this very subject entitled “Only Wise God” wherein he refutes this flawed understanding of free agency in connection with supreme sovereignty and by destroying the linkage of premises in the argument (that is, that 1. God’s foreknowledge inevitably means that 2. men cannot have free causal agency) he, in my estimation anyway, manages to utterly demolish both erroneous views while upholding what a plain reading of the text seems to indicate (that is, that God is sovereign and men’s choices are their own).

So yes, God can lament over the choices of men in Genesis 6:6 and Exodus 32:1-14, as well as change the course of events in 2 Kings 20 in response to prayer all without sacrificing God’s foreknowledge, omnipotence, or without damaging God’s predestined plan for the universe.

How can this be? I believe you’ve rightly discerned what many people have believed intrinsically, even without knowing the formal theological system cobbled together initially by a Jesuit priest. That is the doctrine of Molinism or Middle Knowledge (as many prefer to call it now).

Unfortunately there has not been very much work done on the doctrine on Molinism/Middle Knowledge until recently. Now, however, there has been quite a flurry of work done from a very diverse theological crowd including some staunch Calvinists (like Alvin Plantinga!). In fact, one of the reasons I hold to the system of Molinism is because it has been such a unifying force along such a diverse group of orthodox Christians. I am forced to conclude that, like the extra-Biblical doctrine of the trinity, Molinism is a solid Biblical framework for understanding the interplay of God’s sovereignty and Mankind (and Angelic kind)’s limited free agency.

At any rate, here is a link to the best resources I’ve found on the subject of Molinism/Middle Knowledge.

Also, here is a brief outline I wrote on the doctrine of Molinism a while back. And here is a post I wrote on the biggest objection to Molinism (the grounding objection).

I hope that at least helps point you in the right direction. Let me know if you have any additional questions/thoughts/concerns. Even with 3k friends on Facebook I can always find time to talk about this topic (and many more).

Blessings,
Wes

If I am unable I cannot be unwilling because my inability precludes my willingness either way. I know you tire of hearing it, but it’s an apt description. If I am unable then I am no better off than a robot preprogrammed to run a certain course and as such I cannot rightly be held accountable for that which I have no control over.

On the other hand, if I am unwilling then I logically have the ability to act in a manner other than that which I choose. That my actions are foreknown is not the same as saying that my actions or choices are less free. In fact, you could even say that my actions are predetermined so long as you account for my freedom to choose at some point (aka, in eternity past as part of God’s omniscience as a brute fact per Molinism).

You see, either I am truly free to choose to sin or not to sin (as the Bible teaches) or else I am unable to choose not to sin (a concept foreign to Scripture).

If I am unable to not sin then I cannot logically be held accountable or responsible for choices that are, by definition, beyond my control.

If I am unwilling to not sin then I am not only responsible for my choice but, in light of the holy standard of God, I am unable to bridge the gap I freely created.

I realize that inability and unwillingness have been tossed around the Reformed world as if they were somehow comparable but the truth is that they aren’t.

The bottom line is that we are either free and responsible or else we are not free and therefore not responsible.

Only one leaves God unstained by the sin and evil that exists in the universe since only one allows for other causal agents who had the ability to freely create and choose to sin against the will of God.

God does not create states of affairs and thus such we are under no compulsion to claim such states of affairs as having to have some sort of “greater good”.

I think the greatest difference here is in how we view the will and sovereignty of God. You see, evil does exist but the person who holds to a “greater good theodicy” often does so out of a misunderstanding of God’s sovereignty wherein God MUST be the cause and initiator of all events that take place. Which, consequently, must be either directly or indirectly willed by such a sovereign God since, as this definition of sovereignty goes, God always gets his way and is always glorified in all that comes to pass).

Under this view of God’s sovereignty it is actually impossible to call anything evil since, if all is both willed by a God who is the definition of good and if all is for the glory of this God who is the definition of good, then it logically follows that nothing is really effectively evil. In this case we manage to not only destroy the language of good and evil but we end up rendering large swaths of Scripture completely incomprehensible as well.

Therefore, the reason I would side with Dr Little’s assessment that a greater good need not automatically and inextricably flow from every evil is because I believe evil actually does exist and is in no way compatible with a holy, just, and good God.

This does not negate God’s ability to use evil, but it does decouple good from evil and thus destroy the dangerous duality setup by adherents to the greater good theodicy wherein evil is rendered necessary (implicitly or explicitly) for the ultimate attainment of good.

Finally, I would reject entirely the notion that Ephesians 1:11 has as it’s focal point all events that have occurred throughout human history (including and especially all of the sinful ones). While God does account for and work into his plan the sinful actions and choices of men, to charge God as the initial or causal agent behind such sinful choices and actions is to do violence to God’s holiness.

Further, no amount of equivocating on the word “good” will allow you to escape the plain and simple fact that either 1. God caused sin/evil/death/unrighteousness and is therefore culpable and marred by it or 2. God created a world in which he allows other causal agents limited freedom in choosing either according to or contrary to his will thus rendering God blameless for the freely chosen sinful acts of his creation.

In Matthew 25 what separated the virgins into two groups, what separated those who received talents, and the sheep and goats?

I would have to say that it was the virgins that separated themselves. I imagine God foreknew and we could even consider the ones who were wedded (virgins), faithful (talents), and sheep to be elect but that election would have to be grounded in the free decision of the individuals to choose to accept the finished work God offered (as initiated via the bridegroom, master, and shepherd).

However we must also note that traditional Calvinism with T and I firmly in place has no notion of the potter or “dead man” making any decision whatsoever (so much so that the reprobate can’t even cry out in regards to his station among the damned).

The ten virgins were  all expected to attend the wedding and it was their freely chosen actions that led to their exclusion.

All the virgins were to attend the wedding, but that some were foolish and were not prepared as a result (of their foolishness).

So if they had not been foolish, then they all would have been welcomed at the wedding?

Presumably, they would have all had enough oil to last until the bridegroom arrived if they had been wise (which we are commanded to be throughout Scripture) enough to bring extra oil. Actually it reminds me of the same lack of foresight that Esau showed when he despised his birthright. Or the odd man found in the wedding banquet who didn’t dress in proper wedding clothes.

Jared, your view of man’s depravity seems to be rather chaotic and confused. Much like Luther and Calvin’s views on the matter were. Especially Calvin.

I remember reading in the Institutes on several occasions where Calvin would say in one chapter that Man was unwilling to submit to Christ while in the next he would go on about how man was unable to submit to Christ. Which is it? It seems fashionable in Reformed doctrine to attempt to have both. To have your epistemic cake and eat it too. However this is not merely a mystery (the favored escape hatch of Calvinists when faced with the logical and philosophical paradoxes elicited by the conclusions of their theological system). Rather, such notions of man’s inability to do good is antithetical, or logically opposed to the notion that man is unwilling to do good.

And therein may lie another difficulty for us. For the good I speak of is good meritorious unto salvation. In that respect we can certainly make a case that no man seeks after God of their own accord. However we’ve thankfully also been shown that God, through the Holy Spirit, is at work in the world drawing all men unto Christ. So in the end, the Calvinist notion of no man seeking is only half true. The rest of the truth is that man has been given all he needs in order to “seek and ye shall find”. As such I completely reject the notion that I Corinthians 2:14 is a normative prescriptive statement regarding man’s noetic capabilities such that, apart from Christ, a man is wholly ignorant of all spiritual truths.

Regarding Matthew 7:11, the focus of the passage is on the father who gives the ultimately good gift of his son. The focus is on the giver, not the gift. This ought to be pretty plain since gifts cannot, in and of themselves, be either good or bad. It is the giver and their intentions in making the gift that determine the goodness or not of the gift. I would say that I am surprised that you attempted to avoid this relatively straightforward and simple teaching of Jesus but I must admit that I have come to expect theological contortions like this when one holds to a man-made theological system first and foremost as opposed to simply taking the text at it’s plain meaning.

What is a text’s plain meaning? I would argue that it is what someone, saved or not, would understand the author to have meant.

But therein probably lies another great gulf between us for I do not think one can make the honest case (without severe epistemic ramifications) that apart from Christ dwelling within us we can not know or be certain of our knowledge regarding any truths whatsoever.

Oh, and regarding the LBC, WMC, etc. I hate to tell you but none of them are Scripture. Further I would argue that they all suffer from the same philosophical short-sightedness in that they somehow manage to miss the glaring problem with evil, sin, and suffering they create by their view of God’s sovereignty and how all things that come to pass (including sin) were somehow ordained by God. You can cling to the notion of a greater good if you wish, but I would argue that the scores of people whose faith has been wrecked and destroyed by such a heinous view of God ought to be a clear warning that such a notion is not only logically and morally untenable, but that in practice the fruit it yields is far from serene comfort.

The fact is that God is not in league with what he claims to be waging war against (name sin, death, and hell).