Well, to clarify your objection and to make sure I’m understanding what you mean by manipulation, would you consider Pilate to have been “manipulated” by God in having Jesus crucified, since Pilate did what he did by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge - Pilate did what God’s power and will had decided beforehand should happen?
I’ll let @Bill_II provide his own response if he wishes, but from the perspective of Arminian Christians, God’s foreknowledge does not preclude one’s own (libertarian) free will. And from the perspective of Open Theist/Open Future Christians, God would not have “pre-planned” that Pilate in particular would have made the choice he did, i.e., if Pilate had not made his own free choice, God would have been able to still achieve his plan by other means
1 Like
True, but because it is so often misunderstood, I should clarify that from the perspective of Calvinist Christians, God’s predestination of whatsoever comes to pass similarly does not preclude one’s own free will.
If so, then I can state without hesitation that they are literally contradicting the Bible. That is their intellectual freedom to do so, of course. I’m not trying to be ungenerous, I generally like to let people state their own positions and avoid any potential error of creating a straw man… but I don’t see any other way to take that. If they are literally saying Pilate was not doing what God’s power and will had decided beforehand would happen, then they are quite directly contradicting what is explicitly stated, no?
1 Like
I think it’s more than splitting hairs. A common Islamic perspective holds that the Koran was dictated by God, proved by how the human writer was illiterate. That view is better called “dictation” than God choosing people to write who have been prepared to write the right words by their life’s path. Nobody holding to verbal plenary inspiration is trying to show that the human writers were illiterate so the words must have come from God.
B. B. Warfield, a pioneer of verbal plenary inspiration, saw God’s designs determining their natural fruition in all the ways God speaks. For Scripture, that would be how God arranged people’s lives so they were equipped to produce the right words at the right time. For nature, that was how God set up natural processes – including evolutionary processes – so our world was equipped to produce the right creatures at the right time. Warfield’s view of inspiration led him to embrace both fully human authors and fully natural biological processes. God was sovereign over both, and both would accomplish exactly what God intended. To claim that God had to poof creatures into being without ancestry was a failure to see God’s wise sovereignty, just like claiming God could only get the right words by dictating them to human scribes.
Well stated. This is indeed a more robust view of inspiration. One drawback, though, is that it cuts away one key argument for inerrancy. It’s often said that the Bible is God’s word, and God cannot lie (and knowing all, cannot be mistaken), so the Bible has no errors. This syllogism depends on the Bible actually being God’s words in a direct way so that what is true of God applies to those words. But God cannot sin any more than God can be mistaken. God is not going to actually confess sin: that would involve either having sinned or now sinning by lying about having sinned. God’s word, written by human authors, can include confession of sin. And by the same logic, there’s no reason it can’t contain mistakes. It isn’t God’s word so directly that God’s attributes apply to it. You’ve eloquently showed this through Psalm 51.
By faith we can affirm that the Bible only includes the human mistakes God intended to be included. My favourite is Paul’s mistake about whom he baptized in 1 Cor. 1:13–16. Yes, Paul quickly realizes he’s made an error and takes steps to correct it before giving up. But that’s not the point. What I love is what comes next. From 1:17 to the end of chapter 2 Paul writes a masterful defence of why God uses imperfect messengers to proclaim – imperfectly – the gospel. Rather than hiding his mistake by telling his scribe to grab a fresh sheet and start over, Paul admits that he’s not perfect, yet that perfectly equips him to be God’s messenger:
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power. … God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise … My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.
Paul’s flaws and flubs don’t empty the gospel of its power. They ensure that God’s power can’t be confused with human eloquence or brilliant rhetoric – or perfect recall of recent history.
After this long digression, Paul returns to his previous topic, though this time skipping over whom he baptized (compare 1:10–13 with 3:3–9). That means it’s likely we wouldn’t have the long passage between if not for Paul’s confused memory.
The passage contrasting God’s wisdom and human folly apparently wasn’t on his agenda, but by faith we can accept that it was on God’s. God ordained the circumstances, shaping Paul’s mind, planning even Paul’s own mistakes, so that Paul would pen these words from Paul’s own perspective, memory, frustration and shame … but all in such a way as was so ordained and worked by God so that the words are a perfect, God-inspired example of how even flawed people writing flawed words can point to God’s power and wisdom. And so, the words Paul wrote in error are the very words God wanted written, word-for-word.
4 Likes
MY view of God?
Um… I was kind of quoting the Bible…
Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you annointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. (Acts 4:27-28)
You didn’t seem to recognize that what I was referencing was word for word from the Bible, and thus you seem to think the Bible’s view of God is “low” and problematic. And I’m just sitting here literally quoting the Bible.
Just tossing it out there… Maybe I’m not the one that needs to re-examine my view of God? 
1 Like
This is because of an equivocation around the term “Free will”. Calvinists define free will differently, i.e., as “compatibalist” versus the Libertarian free will of Arminians and Open theists. Arminians and Open theists do not think that “compatibalist free will” is truly free. For those interested in a philosophical overview of the definitions and arguments of what constitutes “free will”, The Stanford Encyclopedia is useful:
https://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/win2013/entries/freewill/
You seem to base this on Acts 4:27-28 in your post to @RichardG above. But one can conclude from this verse only that God decided beforehand that Jesus had to die, not explicitly that Herod and Pilate had to be the exact individuals to achieve God’s plan. So, you are reading that degree of meticulous divine determination into the text, IMO.
2 Likes
I do not think that you can make that claim. How can you possibly know what i do or do not consider?
Oh yes, I didn’t agree with you, that must be it.
Not in the least, Unless eery word came from God. Oh yes, you believe that as well
Never mind.
So tell me.
Is humanity flawed?
is humanity unable to operate without God’s direct assistance?
(We cant even write Scripture without his direct help)
If the answer to either of those is yes then my statement stands.
Perhaps I am not the one misunderstanding Scripture.
Not that i would claim you to be wrong. Heaven forbid
You do know the difference between foreknowledge and ordain?
I am not sure the Jews do (did)
Like i said, it is a matter of perspective. If you are going to go along with the Jewish view of God then there is no problem, but I am not a Jew.
Richard
God planned for David to sin? That’s vile.
So David becomes a puppet. Yay.
But your description above says that God totally manipulated David in order to get the words God wanted.
Nowhere is there any indication that God manipulated the circumstances of Pilate’s life. Indeed, it wouldn’t really matter who had ended up as procurator; the political situation would have been the same and the Sanhedrin would have manipulated it the same.
Where is it explicitly stated that Pilate was even to be involved? That was the point being made.
But that goes beyond what the scriptures claim for themselves.
And it’s plain from the multitude of textual variants that God isn’t particularly interested in the exact words. Exhibit B for this would be the different canons of different churches that were all considered orthodox right up until Chalcedon – that suggests that the boundary of the canon isn’t that big a deal in God’s eyes.
Which brings to mind, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good” – which suggests that even human error in writing the scriptures, indeed even human maliciousness, is not going to mess up the message.
Pilate did what God knew Pilate was going to do before Pilate was born. Did God set up the circumstances that would lead to Pilate’s choice? We aren’t told. Just like we aren’t told by Scripture how Scripture was actually written. You can start with VPI and argue that is what Scripture says just like you can start with another dogma and argue that is what Scripture says. Fundamental problem being Scripture doesn’t actually “say” anything.
2 Likes
True. And my point is always to not claim more than the text does.
If you don’t agree with the traditional Reformed or Calvinist view of such things, that is entirely your prerogative, you are welcome to do so. But keep in mind that personal dislike of a doctrine, especially one with obvious biblical warrant, is not logical proof against it.
I suppose it was equally vile that God intended what Joseph’s brothers did to him, or that God hardened Pharoah’s heart, or that God directs a King’s heart wherever he chooses, or that the sins against Christ were according to the purpose and foreknowledge of God, but like it or not, it is the language the Bible uses. You can disagree with us Reformed types and our plain reading of such texts, but do remember that personal distaste is not a basis for an argument.
Entirely a straw man argument, as Reformed Christians who affirm the predestination of everyon’s actions, including those surrounding inspiration, completely deny this. As I think you should well know, no?
But it is interesting that people’s objections to plenary verbal inspiration are essentially arguments against Calvinism/predestination in general. It seems that those who are able to understand the compatibilism that exists between God’s predestination and genunine free will, can understand how God in his providence, predestination, and Holy Spirit could indeed work in such a way that David’s freely chosen words are simultaneously the very words the Holy Spirit intended to communicate as his special revelation.
But if one can’t understand compatibilism, and insists (wrongly) that any predestination or predetermination by God of an event in any way whatsoever de facto means that one is a puppet, then of course, I can see how one could similarly not understand our contention that God could intend every word being written and yet simultaneously in no way interfere with the freely chosen words of the inspired writers.
Very interesting indeed, where this conversation went…
1 Like
Interesting argument, not sure it is as simple as I think you’re presenting it.
Firstly, we do indeed affirm that these are indeed God’s words. When I speak about a Psalm, that was indeed written by David, according to his own experience, passions, and personality, I can still simultaneously say that “The Holy Spirit spoke through David” or the like. So yes, we affirm the both/and, that they are indeed God’s words, spoken for revelation to his people.
Sure, God can’t actually confess sin, but if he is intending to give a template or example prayer for us through this revelation, we do indeed believe that he would make sure that it is correct, and does not contain words of repentance that are incorrect, misguided, erroneous, unhealthy, self-destructive, or the like.
Again, this depends on God’s purpose. If God’s intent was that such inspired psalms, including psalms of repentance (that would never come “directly” from God’s own lips) would be His perfect revelation to us about what a proper prayer of repentance would look like, then yes, it would indeed follow that God would necessarily ensure that David’s prayer of repentance in Psalm 51 contained no errors of doctrine, psychology, or the like. If God is intending every single word in the way I described above, for purposes of revelation (communication), why would that not follow, or be difficult for the Holy Spirit? What is the alternative? That Psalm 51 might contain elements of prayer, repentance, views about God, expression of emotion, that are incorrect? sinful? unhealthy? displeasing to God? self-destructive?
No, we would assert that David’s prayer of repentance contained no errors of such type, because God’s purpose of David praying the Psalm is still revelation and communication from God.
But the larger problem I have with this idea in general, is that “by the same logic”, there’s no reason that the Scripture can’t contain mistakes about salvation, or eternal life, prayer, who God is, or about what does or doesn’t please God, etc. Is it the case that every time we trust in a Bible doctrine and live our lives by it, we’re just taking a gamble that said doctrine isn’t one of those places where the author erred?
1 Like
That assumes the psalm is indeed that kind of template. It certainly isn’t explicit like the Lord’s prayer.
What if the psalm is an example but not a template? What if it’s like Psalm 137 which gives an example of a bitter lament over Jerusalem’s fall? I can view it as revelation without thinking that “Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock” must be a healthy attitute. In context of the horror they experienced, it’s understandable – it shows the human condition – but I wouldn’t call it psychologically perfect.
But again, God didn’t need perfect people writing perfectly to provide us with revelation. As Paul said, if God did that, we’d be liable to worship the message or the messenger rather than the God they’re pointing to (1 Cor. 1:17–2:5).
No more than the fact that we only have errant copies of Scripture mean that we can never trust it. Or that we know only errant people means that God’s Spirit can never speak through them. Or that we can only see a creation tinged with the effects of sin means that it can never testify to God’s eternal power and divine nature.
If we’ll only allow a perfect source to teach us, we have the perfect excuse to never learn.
3 Likes
One can have a full understanding of compatabilism and still insist it is self contradictory.
3 Likes
Err no, that is not Reformed, it is purely Calvinist and rejected by all other Denominations.
Predestination is rejected as being too manipulative and denying ant sort of personal choice let alone freedom. If everything is predestined we are no better than the Matrix. There is no reason for life and Eccl 3 becomes true, rather than an inaccurate complaint. If you really think that humans have no effect on things then Global warming becomes ordained!
Richard
Edit
compatibilism is just a device to persuade people that that having no choice is still freedom because we think it is a choice. Brilliant. But a con. It is the same as claiming a Battery Hen knows no difference so would choose that life.
1 Like
@Daniel_Fisher, I also am curious about your reaction to Marshall’s point on the Pauline passage, and I quoted it above so it won’t get lost.
And I’ll add to it yet one more reaction - Aren’t we right to observe how Jesus did (and didn’t) use the scriptures (Law and Prophets) of his own day? To help drive home Marshall’s point, we never see Jesus drawing on or teaching scriptures that might seem to [explicitly do, actually, if one is going to go full-throated inerrantism about it] endorse or at least acknowledge human vengeance - while he does echo and pray some of the more anguished Psalms …“My God, My God, why …?” he never selects one like the “happy are those who dash your infants…” as something for us to emulate, much less to attribute to God. But would I be correct to think that none of those considerations fit within any inerrantist or Calvinist paradigm?
BTW - I see some rather lengthy entries on “compatibilism” vs. “incompatibilism” in the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy. I started in on that a bit, but given constraints of time to devote to this, could you give me any few summary sentences (if such a thing is possible) of what compatibilism is (or the version of it you see as co-existing nicely with Calvinism?)
1 Like
That’s the thing that leads to this:
[Inflammatory photos removed by moderator … Photos of Westboro protest signs celebrating God’s hatred of certain groups, of America, and of soldiers.]
In short, it tells people that God is the author of evil.
Nope – that would go against the concept of “word” in the scriptures, which doesn’t refer to individual phonemes but to the concepts conveyed. This is why the “Ten Commandments” is a term that came only once the scriptures were rendered into Greek: the Bible calls them “ten words”, which indicates the meaning of “word” as the message, not the individual nouns and verbs and such.
This fails to recognize that the Bible is ancient human literature, written often in literary types alien to us – it treats the entire Bible as one literary type.
I knew someone would bring that up! It’s a tough one no matter which way we jump, unless the response is “God wanted us to understand that human emotion” – but then we have to ask if the statement, “Yahweh is a man of war” is just to let us understand that human emotion, or even if with “His steadfast love endures forever” just shows us human emotion . . . to apply the above reasoning.
Right. If it was even imperfect people writing perfectly, then what do we do with the commands to put children to death – is that what God is like? how does that point to Jesus?
Yeah, the whole thing about the original manuscripts being inerrant is meaningless, as Bart Ehrman noticed (and then made a bad choice). The question isn’t “How could God leave us with uncertainty?” and then lose trust in God, the question that faith asks is “Why did God do it that way?”
Faith that a priori demands a perfect scripture isn’t faith in God, it’s faith in a rational proposition. If Job could say, “Though He slay me, yet shall I praise Him”, we can certainly say, “Though the scripture is not inerrant, yet shall I trust Him”.
Good point – made me think of the day in chemistry class when I blurted out, “You guys trust the text?!?” (referencing the “Answers to Exercises” in the back of the book). The thing is, my point was that if you had learned what the chapter in question said, you wouldn’t be trusting the answers in the back when they contradicted what the chapter said.
1 Like
And concentration camps, and gulags, and genocide.
2 Likes