No such thing as free will.

[FredVB]

Either the Cross was plan A (God would, by necessity need man to sin so that He could be must glorified on the Cross), or plan B (God would hope that man would sin).

There is no need for such reductionism. With Yahweh truly knowing all things, neither plan is taking that into account, his love and plan for glorifying himself was taking into account our fall. To obey is better than sacrifice, if humanity were to have never fallen to sin, he would prefer it, we neglect how great a cost to him redemption for us was, but for his love and his glorification he still began creation that included us, anyway.

 

[JackSparrow]

Hi Fred

I am immensely glad you posted what you did. Especially the bit hi lighted.

On the calvin/arminian divide I am stuck somewhere in the middle. Calvinists here on CF seriously depress me. I am not saying Arminians have it all correct by any means. Also I have many friends who are Calvinists.

The 'arguments' put up on the soteriology board leave me stone cold. Thinking well mabe chuck it all in. What will be will be and if I turn out not saved, to bad, there is nothing I can do about it anyway.

Your reminder about both reductionism and more so the cost to God is a timely reminder for me.


Thankyou

There is no need for such reductionism. With Yahweh truly knowing all things, neither plan is taking that into account, his love and plan for glorifying himself was taking into account our fall. To obey is better than sacrifice, if humanity were to have never fallen to sin, he would prefer it, we neglect how great a cost to him redemption for us was, but for his love and his glorification he still began creation that included us, anyway.

 

[Hammster]

There is no need for such reductionism. With Yahweh truly knowing all things, neither plan is taking that into account, his love and plan for glorifying himself was taking into account our fall. To obey is better than sacrifice, if humanity were to have never fallen to sin, he would prefer it, we neglect how great a cost to him redemption for us was, but for his love and his glorification he still began creation that included us, anyway.

So did He see the fall and then plan the Cross (before creation)? Did He have to "look down the corridors of time" and learn what man would do?

 

[Arcoe]

So did He see the fall and then plan the Cross (before creation)? Did He have to "look down the corridors of time" and learn what man would do?

Such questions severely limit the omniscience of God. He gets no glory from such questions.

 

[Skala]

alvinists here on CF seriously depress me. I am not saying Arminians have it all correct by any means. Also I have many friends who are Calvinists.

The 'arguments' put up on the soteriology board leave me stone cold. Thinking well mabe chuck it all in. What will be will be and if I turn out not saved, to bad, there is nothing I can do about it anyway.

What does this have to do with Calvinism?

In Calvinism, the way one is saved is the same as in Arminianism: belief in Jesus Christ

I don't understand these "In Calvinism, you might not be saved!!" arguments. How will you not be saved? by unbelief? How does that differ from any other soteriology but universalism?

And what do you mean "There's nothing you can do about it"? Yes there is. You can repent and believe the gospel, and if you do, per the Bible's promise, you will find Christ to be a perfect savior.

 

[Keachian]

Such questions severely limit the omniscience of God. He gets no glory from such questions.

No they don't especially as we're not making a case for open theism, are you?

 

[Hammster]

Such questions severely limit the omniscience of God. He gets no glory from such questions.

It doesn't limit God's omniscience. It brings into focus the problem of saying "God knew man would sin so He provided the Cross". It asks the question of whether the cross was primary or secondary.

Responses such as yours show me that you see the weakness in the synergist argument.

 

[Shulamite]

It doesn't limit God's omniscience. It brings into focus the problem of saying "God knew man would sin so He provided the Cross". It asks the question of whether the cross was primary or secondary.

Responses such as yours shoe me that you see the weakness in the synergist argument.

 

[FredVB]

I am immensely glad you posted what you did. Especially the bit hi lighted.

On the calvin/arminian divide I am stuck somewhere in the middle. Calvinists here on CF seriously depress me. I am not saying Arminians have it all correct by any means. Also I have many friends who are Calvinists.

The 'arguments' put up on the soteriology board leave me stone cold. Thinking well mabe chuck it all in. What will be will be and if I turn out not saved, to bad, there is nothing I can do about it anyway.

Your reminder about both reductionism and more so the cost to God is a timely reminder for me.

Thankyou

There is plenty of middle ground for biblically correct Christianity. Calvinists do not have it all right. Arminians do not have it all right. Salvation, which should be desired, is available if it is, it is through Jesus Christ, as Lord and savior, through his perfect life and his suffering and death on the cross, followed by his resurrection from the tomb, according to our true faith in him. Pertaining to those arguments on the extreme sides, Yahweh God is not willing that any should perish, there is grace from him for all, but not all respond as they should to his grace and come to this salvation through Christ. He would have us who are believers making the gospel of salvation more available, giving more opportunity for many to respond to his grace. Those who are saved have eternal life. Because it is all God's work, it is not lost on the part of any of us and he gives us his assurances. Making it something of our works would be associated with having another gospel. But rather than fretting about how it is exactly that our salvation works, we should just trust Christ, in his perfection he told us how we can have life forever in coming to him with believing in him, with assurances given to us.

So did He see the fall and then plan the Cross (before creation)? Did He have to "look down the corridors of time" and learn what man would do?

Yahweh God is eternal and beyond space and time in which we exist. He knows all things always. He did not have to come to learning anything. He knew of what would have been perfection without any sin and disobedience ever. He knew with his creation that it would not happen that way, all that he would do for the redemption and restoration for creation, and had his creation started anyway. So the plan always included the Cross. There was no learning of it or surprise for God. He would have glory for himself from it, and it was great love, for such a great cost to himself.

 

[Hammster]

.

Yahweh God is eternal and beyond space and time in which we exist. He knows all things always. He did not have to come to learning anything. He knew of what would have been perfection without any sin and disobedience ever. He knew with his creation that it would not happen that way, all that he would do for the redemption and restoration for creation, and had his creation started anyway. So the plan always included the Cross. There was no learning of it or surprise for God. He would have glory for himself from it, and it was great love, for such a great cost to himself.

But the question is, in a logical viewpoint, did the idea of the Cross come before or after He "knew" man would fall?

 

[FredVB]

Yahweh God is eternal and beyond space and time in which we exist. He knows all things always. He did not have to come to learning anything. He knew of what would have been perfection without any sin and disobedience ever. He knew with his creation that it would not happen that way, all that he would do for the redemption and restoration for creation, and had his creation started anyway. So the plan always included the Cross. There was no learning of it or surprise for God. He would have glory for himself from it, and it was great love, for such a great cost to himself.

But the question is, in a logical viewpoint, did the idea of the Cross come before or after He "knew" man would fall?

??????????? If he always knew everything, how could knowledge of one thing come before knowledge of another thing? Such an approach is only from our limitations, being finite. Yet he knew of the perfection of the creation he wanted, even though always knowing, though it was preferred, it was not the creation that would be, with the best that he has planned. Looking for anything more out of that is straining for very peripheral things that deal with what is outside of our limited thinking, not needful for our knowledge.

 

[Hammster]

??????????? If he always knew everything, how could knowledge of one thing come before knowledge of another thing? Such an approach is only from our limitations, being finite. Yet he knew of the perfection of the creation he wanted, even though always knowing, though it was preferred, it was not the creation that would be, with the best that he has planned. Looking for anything more out of that is straining for very peripheral things that deal with what is outside of our limited thinking, not needful for our knowledge.

Okay, using your own statement, why did God have plan anything if He already knew what would happen?

 

[jasonsloss]

I consider real freedom to be free from sin so that sin is an impossibility.

But some on these forums beleive true freedom is defined as the possibility to sin

Therefore, according to their definition, only sinful, non-glorified humans are truly free. Even God himself, nor the saints in heaven are free, according to their definition.

I think some mistake the free will that is with in the sinful nature as freedom... the free will that you have in this nature is to only continue in sin, the nature controls ones decisions... read Paul's teachings on this in Romans chapter 5 and 6

true freedom only comes from above and is given to us by the Son...
John 8:36 NKJV
Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

 

[jasonsloss]

Hi Fred

I am immensely glad you posted what you did. Especially the bit hi lighted.

On the calvin/arminian divide I am stuck somewhere in the middle. Calvinists here on CF seriously depress me. I am not saying Arminians have it all correct by any means. Also I have many friends who are Calvinists.

The 'arguments' put up on the soteriology board leave me stone cold. Thinking well mabe chuck it all in. What will be will be and if I turn out not saved, to bad, there is nothing I can do about it anyway.

Your reminder about both reductionism and more so the cost to God is a timely reminder for me.


Thankyou

let me share this with you and give me your honest Godly opinion...
Question: "Calvinism vs. Arminianism - which view is correct?"

Answer: Calvinism and Arminianism are two systems of theology that attempt to explain the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility in the matter of salvation. Calvinism is named for John Calvin, a French theologian who lived from 1509-1564. Arminianism is named for Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian who lived from 1560-1609.

Both systems can be summarized with five points. Calvinism holds to the total depravity of man while Arminianism holds to partial depravity. Total depravity states that every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin; therefore, human beings are unable to come to God on their own accord. Partial depravity states that every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that human beings are unable to place faith in God of their own accord. Note - classical Arminianism rejects "partial depravity" and holds a view very close to Calvinistic "total depravity."

Calvinism includes the belief that election is unconditional, while Arminianism believes in conditional election. Unconditional election is the view that God elects individuals to salvation based entirely on His will, not on anything inherently worthy in the individual. Conditional election states that God elects individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ unto salvation, thereby on the condition that the individual chooses God.

Calvinism sees the atonement as limited, while Arminianism sees it as unlimited. This is the most controversial of the five points. Limited atonement is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect. Unlimited atonement is the belief that Jesus died for all, but that His death is not effectual until a person receives Him by faith.

Calvinism includes the belief that God’s grace is irresistible, while Arminianism says that an individual can resist the grace of God. Irresistible grace argues that when God calls a person to salvation, that person will inevitably come to salvation. Resistible grace states that God calls all to salvation, but that many people resist and reject this call.

Calvinism holds to perseverance of the saints while Arminianism holds to conditional salvation. Perseverance of the saints refers to the concept that a person who is elected by God will persevere in faith and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from Him. Conditional salvation is the view that a believer in Christ can, of his/her own free will, turn away from Christ and thereby lose salvation. Note - many Arminians deny "conditional salvation" and instead hold to "eternal security."

So, in the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, who is correct? It is interesting to note that in the diversity of the body of Christ, there are all sorts of mixtures of Calvinism and Arminianism. There are five-point Calvinists and five-point Arminians, and at the same time three-point Calvinists and two-point Arminians. Many believers arrive at some sort of mixture of the two views. Ultimately, it is our view that both systems fail in that they attempt to explain the unexplainable. Human beings are incapable of fully grasping a concept such as this. Yes, God is absolutely sovereign and knows all. Yes, human beings are called to make a genuine decision to place faith in Christ unto salvation. These two facts seem contradictory to us, but in the mind of God they make perfect sense.

 

[FredVB]

Okay, using your own statement, why did God have veto plan anything if He already knew what would happen?

You would have to explain what you have in mind, that you think he would need a veto for what he planned. It is not what I spoke of happening, with God having a preference, which does not happen with our failings.

 

[Arcoe]

It doesn't limit God's omniscience. It brings into focus the problem of saying "God knew man would sin so He provided the Cross". It asks the question of whether the cross was primary or secondary.

Responses such as yours show me that you see the weakness in the synergist argument.

If God knew everything that has already happened in the future, why did He have to decree it to happen? Was His omniscience lacking? Was He unsure of His omniscience?

There is no primary or secondary when one lifts his mind above time and space. Everything is present before God. As long as man keeps his mind within time and space, he will never understand God's omniscience. He thinks God decrees in time and space, operates in time and space. Since there is no beginning with God, He cannot decree before the foundation of the world, for there is no 'before' with Him.

 

[Arcoe]

But the question is, in a logical viewpoint, did the idea of the Cross come before or after He "knew" man would fall?

Remove the understanding of your mind from time and space, and you will see your question has no foundation.

 

[Keachian]

If God knew everything that has already happened in the future, why did He have to decree it to happen?

He didn't have to, but scripture attests that he did, can we move away from hypotheticals and deal with what Scripture actually says;

How about we try this one
Rev 13:8 talking about those who will worship the beast:
and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

This tells us a few things, the book was written from before creation and so those who worship the beast cannot not worship it otherwise their names would be in the book of life and the converse is true as well. I would also hold that this verse is a good place to bring out the idea of the predetermined slaying of the Lamb for those with their names in the book from before creation, however that's a bit of a harder thing to argue for.

 

[Arcoe]

He didn't have to, but scripture attests that he did, can we move away from hypotheticals and deal with what Scripture actually says;

What's hypothetical about God's omniscience? As long as you are bound by time and space, you will never understand God, but only surmise He decreed all things which shall happen.

 

[Hammster]

You would have to explain what you have in mind, that you think he would need a veto for what he planned. It is not what I spoke of happening, with God having a preference, which does not happen with our failings.

Let me try this again without my weird iPhone typo.

Okay, using your own statement, why did God have to plan anything if He already knew what would happen?