The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Now Gideon, don't let our modern sensibilities and liberties color your view of history. Read Esther. To quote Ken Campbell, in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World, during ANE marriage arrangements, "There is no indication that the bride was in any way involved in the negotiations, nor that she was required to make a formal declaration consenting to the marriage"*. Even in Roman society, a bride's consent was "assumed unless she made it clear she did not agree, and it was only proper for her to disagree if her paterfamilias [the patriarch of the family] had chosen a man of bad character."** That began to change in the later Graeco-Roman era, when the consent of both families, as well as the bride and groom was usually required.

*Ken M. Campbell, Marriage and Family in the Biblical World 10.
** Ken M. Campbell, Marriage 151.

Amen!

Robert, my point was that any volitional act involves a choice. Even if one is not culturally or legally afforded a say, a person always has choices when it comes to what he or she will do in a given situation. The only question is whether one is willing to make certain choices and to bear the consequences. To illustrate, Christians in Muslim nations are not presently free to proselytize among Muslims. And Muslims are not free to convert to Christianity. But those cultural and legal straits do not negate the reality that both Christians and Muslims living in those environs can make choices contrary to what is "allowed."

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Man, Gideon! You need to stop taking words from my mouth (lol)! I was getting ready to say basically the same thing. We ALL have a choice. Look at Esther. Wasn't it against the law (or culture) to go into the king's chambers? But yet she did it. Let me go back and read the book of Esther so I don't get my lines crossed. Want to make sure I'm not sticking my foot in my mouth.

Edit: Yes, it is in Esther 4 .

_________________
Until He Returns (Rev. 2:17),
Travis

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ~George Orwell

I agree that volitional acts involve a choice. The problem is that we are assigning volition to all kinds of situations where there is none. I just cited an academic work arguing that in the ANE and early Roman world womens' "volition" (i.e., her will or desire) were not considered during marriage arrangements, and you still claim "a person always has a choice." Well, I suppose she could run away or kill herself, but for practical purposes, she was married off whether she was willing or not. Within the realm of marriage, if her family chose to marry her to a certain man, she could not refuse to marry him or marry someone else.

The issue, relating it back to the current discussion, is that our modern sensibilities like to give the power of unhindered volition to all activities, when very clearly, there are times when we have almost no volition - or none at all. For our purposes, that is one of the main differences between synergism and monergism* today. (Classic**) Arminians hold that all people have the volitional ability to freely choose belief (through the enabling of universal prevenient grace). Calvinists believe only the elect's wills are enabled (through regeneration) to choose. So, if Arminianism (synergism) is true, and all people have volitional ability, then it is each person's volition that is the determining factor in salvation. If Calvinism (monergism) is true, it is God's volition that is the determining factor in salvation. What we must do is decide which is biblically correct.

*While I have great affinity for Calvin, I would describe myself as a monergist, not a Calvinist, since I have some disagreements with Calvinism in general.
**Some claiming to be Arminians (and are not) hold the Pelagian view that Adam's sin did not result in total depravity and that all people naturally have the volitional ability to choose belief.

With tax season now (almost) over I thought I would crawl out from under my rock to recommend two books on this topic. "Why I Am Not a Calvinist" and "Why I Am Not an Arminian" (sorry, but i do not remember the authors' names, but both books are on Amazon) will give good arguments for each side. I found the logical arguments stronger in favor of the case made for Arminianism but the scriptural arguments stronger in favor of the case made for Calvinism.

Regards.

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.

I have also heard that Why I'm Not A Calvinist is very philosophical.

You summed it up quite well, psychobobicus. A similar division on this issue exists within the Roman Catholic Church with the Augustinian-Thomists on one hand and the Molinists on the other, although both parties would describe themselves as synergistic.



Could you kindly point out to me the areas in which you disagree with Calvinist doctrine?

_________________
"THE LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" (Psalm 27:1)

I am not a supporter of infant baptism or Covenant Theology, for two examples. By the way, I like your avatar. That's Edwards isn't it?

Yes, it's Jonathan Edwards indeed.

_________________
"THE LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" (Psalm 27:1)