No such thing as free will.

[elman]

no it isn't . what are you doing with scripture ? placing yourself and your deductions above it ?

1 Kings 22:22

New International Version (©1984)
"'By what means?' the LORD asked. "'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. "'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'

New Living Translation (©2007)

"'How will you do this?' the LORD asked. "And the spirit replied, 'I will go out and inspire all of Ahab's prophets to speak lies.' "'You will succeed,' said the LORD. 'Go ahead and do it.'


English Standard Version (©2001)
And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’



New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"The LORD said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.'


Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
The LORD asked him, 'How?'" He said, 'I will go and become a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.'" Then He said, 'You will certainly entice him and prevail. Go and do that.'"



International Standard Version (©2012)
"And the LORD asked him, 'How?' "'I will go,' he announced, 'and I will be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all of his prophets!' "So the LORD said, 'You're just the one to deceive him. You will be successful. Go and do it.'


King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.




quote where I have ever said God made you sin , you will not because you cannot .

permission is an act of the will .


2 Chronicles 18:22

King James Version (KJV)

22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil against thee.

There is no avoiding this so called scripture makes God a liar. If you are going to accept it as divine truth then the bible is wrong when it says God does not lie. You are placing yourself and your deductions above the bible if you conclude it is not divine truth that God does not lie. There is an inescapable truth here, namely the belief that the Bible does not contradict itself and the belief that the Bible is without error, is error. You must chose between God being a liar and not being a liar. Either way the bible is wrong in one of those positions. To me it is a greater dishonesty to deny the Bible says God is a liar and try to twist and turn it to avoid facing what it does say. There are many times the Bible is wrong. This is perhaps one of the most obvious. David was incorrect to think he was a sinner at conception and responsible for the sins of his parents. The Bible is literally not true when it says none have ever sought God at any time. There are many things in the bible that if true, indicate God is less than perfectly loving and kind and truthful--all of which are wrong because God is good all the time. The Bible does not have to be inerrant for Jesus to be true and for His word to be from God. There were Christians before the NT existed and for the first 1500 years following the life of Jesus, the great majority of Christians did not have access to a Bible and could not have read it if they had it. This worship of a book and calling it without error and dictated by God is a reasonably modern Christian position and not a good one.

 

[Skala]

Come on then Skala.

Infra/supra ? single/double. ? Hit it big time. Put us all right on this.





Please

Being a Calvinist you do understand all this. Right !

I stopped taking your post serious when you implied that infralapsarianism was invented, like an emergency back up plan, because supra was "too scary".

QUICK! THIS TRUTH IS TOO HARD! WE BETTER INVENT SOME MORE DOCTRINE TO COVER IT UP!!

That's how your presentation of the alleged "history" of the doctrines came across in your post. Like I said, a good chuckle.

 

[Skala]

There are many times the Bible is wrong. This is perhaps one of the most obvious. David was incorrect to think he was a sinner at conception and responsible for the sins of his parents.

Wow, one of the most honest things I've ever seen elman do: publicly and clearly deny the Bible.

In order to make an absolute statement like this, one has to measure it against some sort of absolute truth. So tell me elman, where does a person to go find out the information he/she needs in order to measure Bible passages against it in order to determine if those passages are actually true or not?

You said "David was wrong when he thought..." How do you know this? In order for David to have been wrong, that means we have to able to know what is right. How do we know what is right?

 

[guuila]

Wow, one of the most honest things I've ever seen elman do: publicly and clearly deny the Bible.

In order to make an absolute statement like this, one has to measure it against some sort of absolute truth. So tell me elman, where does a person to go find out the information he/she needs in order to measure Bible passages against it in order to determine if those passages are actually true or not?

You said "David was wrong when he thought..." How do you know this? In order for David to have been wrong, that means we have to able to know what is right. How do we know what is right?

Because God wrote on Elman's heart! How does Elman know this? Well, the Bible says this! God wrote on Elman's heart that the part of the Bible that says God writes on hearts is true, so we can just go ahead and trust Elman.

Unfortunately, God wrote on Elman's heart (much like Joseph Smith) that other parts of the Bible are false. So you can trust Elman, and be cultish and heretical like the Mormons, or you can be an orthodox Christian and believe the word of God in its entirety.

 

[JackSparrow]

.....


Like I said, a good chuckle.

I'm kind of glad about that. I was beginning to believe it was because you do not really know.

Any one who is confused by this, here is an unbiased web site.

Logical order of God's decree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Particularly good with history: Who said what where and when e.g

"The first to articulate the supralapsarian view were Theodore Beza..."

and this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism)


A good read. But then so is the book of Genesis.

 

[Skala]

I'm kind of glad about that. I was beginning to believe it was because you do not really know.

Any one who is confused by this, here is an unbiased web site.

Logical order of God's decree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Particularly good with history: Who said what where and when e.g

"The first to articulate the supralapsarian view were Theodore Beza..."

and this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism)


A good read. But then so is the book of Genesis.

So which are you? What do you think is the logical order of God's decrees?

Does God even decree anything in your view? @_@

 

[JackSparrow]

Any one who is confused by this, here is an unbiased web site.

Logical order of God's decree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Particularly good with history: Who said what where and when e.g

"The first to articulate the supralapsarian view were Theodore Beza..."

and this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism)

So which are you? What do you think is the logical order of God's decrees?

Does God even decree anything in your view? @_@

I am not the Calvinist here. Arcoe asked about lapsarianism. You ridiculed my description and so I have posted external unbiased references.

You are the Calvinist here Skala. It is your shout as to which is the correct ones: infra vs supra - single vs double. You are the expert.

 

[Skala]

I am not the Calvinist here. Arcoe asked about lapsarianism. You ridiculed my description and so I have posted external unbiased references.

You are the Calvinist here Skala. It is your shout as to which is the correct ones: infra vs supra - single vs double. You are the expert.

You dont have to be a Calvinist in order to believe God has a logical order of decrees.

That's why I asked you. Why hold only Calvinists over the flames here and make only them answer the difficult questions? Can you answer the question that was asked you? What, in your view, is God's logical order of decrees? Has God actually decreed anything in your view?

 

[JackSparrow]

You dont have to be a Calvinist in order to believe God has a logical order of decrees.

That's why I asked you. Why hold only Calvinists over the flames here and make only them answer the difficult questions? Can you answer the question that was asked you? What, in your view, is God's logical order of decrees? Has God actually decreed anything in your view?

I asked first Skala. Now I am thinking again you do not know. Sorry, as I said I asked first.

Have a good chuckle if you want. What I wrote in answer is backed by the web references I gave. Says the same on the Calvinistic web site CARM. So I do not see why you are having issues.

 

[Skala]

I asked first Skala. Now I am thinking again you do not know. Sorry, as I said I asked first.

Have a good chuckle if you want. What I wrote in answer is backed by the web references I gave. Says the same on the Calvinistic web site CARM. So I do not see why you are having issues.

Why I am having issues is your pejorative and seemingly skewed explanation of the history of the doctrines, as if one was "invented" to "Get God off the hook" and because supra was "too scary".

You claim to have used sources, but I see nothing in those sources about "infra being invented because supra was too scary".

You also forgot to mention that many Calvinists reject both views, thinking it is impossible to figure out and understand.

Further, you implied by your post that infra was "invented" so that Adam and eve could have "Free will", as if any Calvinist anywhere has rejected free will. What they reject is Libertarian Free Will, not free will altogether.

overall your post was missing much information, and only presented biased information, seemingly to cast Calvinism in a bad light.

 

[JackSparrow]

Why I am having issues is your pejorative and seemingly skewed explanation of the history of the doctrines, as if one was "invented" to "Get God off the hook" and because supra was "too scary".

You claim to have used sources,

( Skala thinks - lets split hairs to get out of this mess)

but I see nothing in those sources about "infra being invented because supra was too scary".

I do not just 'claim', Skala. Click on the links and you will verify for yourself they actually exist. There any MANY more sources on the internet. Calvinists sources. Publicly available for any one to see. Baffling why you fight this. Unless you do not know as much about Calvinism as you claim. It is often said "you do not understand Calvinism ". Yet the amount of straw man posts against non calvinists has often demonstrated many non Calvinists know a far lot more about Calvinism than there detractors.

You also forgot to mention that many Calvinists reject both views, thinking it is impossible to figure out and understand.

No i did not forget.

Which version of Calvinist reject both views. 4 pointers, high, a n other ?

Do they really exist or are you just putting up a smoke screen ?

Is it both supra vs infra they reject ? If so when was God doing his predestining ?

Is it both single vs double they reject ? if so what other kind of predestination is there.

If you know Skala, If you are being truthful then PLEASE help us all out with your knowledge. Post a reference would help as long as it is not a deflection.

...... as if any Calvinist anywhere has rejected free will. What they reject is Libertarian Free Will, not free will altogether.

Ooooo. naughty, naughty.
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I POSTED on limited free will, finite free will, supporting Calvinist deacon dean's notion of a limited menu ? LOADS. A complete thread on it. EVERY time I get it in the neck and shot down by e.g you or of late cx1. This has happened so many times in the last few weeks.
DOUBLE standard Skala.

overall your post was missing much information, and only presented biased information, seemingly to cast Calvinism in a bad light.

Overall it was a very short post covering two large subjects. It was a summary in answer to a question. The UNBIASED LINKS provide a wealth of information. As for bad light Skala, yes you have.

Oh yes, and your other smoke screen ( post 246 and 248) , nearly forgot. You asked me what I, a non calvinist believe pertaining to God's decrees, the order and so forth. Listen Skala. I will repost the same as I have done many times ( before you start slating it, it is a from a refored institute - http://www.genevaninstitute.org/syllabus/unit-two-theology-proper/lesson-4-the-decrees-of-god/).

"Ultimately we cannot truly solve the problem of sin’s permission since God has not revealed the details explaining what he says he has done.

There is no question concerning the fact of its permission since that is directly revealed.

The problem we face has to do with God’s employment of the evil deeds of creatures as a part of his certain plan. Even the Arminian concedes that God foreknows all things, including the advent of sin and its consequences.

A.A. Hodge explains, “He (the Arminian) is unable as the Calvinist is to explain why God, notwithstanding that certain knowledge, did not change those conditions.” (Confession of Faith pg. 68)"


The bottom line is that God has not revealed theses secret things to finite man. Man should not lust limit infinite God to just two options.

 

[JackSparrow]

This book will help a lot of people who are struggling.

Mystery of God, The: Theology for Knowing the Unknowable [Paperback]
Christopher A. Hall (Author), Steven D. Boyer (Author)

It is not biased propaganda by some one with an axe to grind.

 

[Keachian]

No i did not forget.

Which version of Calvinist reject both views. 4 pointers, high, a n other ?

a progmonk one!

Do they really exist or are you just putting up a smoke screen ?

Last time I checked I exist

Is it both supra vs infra they reject ?

Yes of course, all the points of lapsarianism are in my opinion too interconnected that to have one preceeding another is wrong.

If so when was God doing his predestining ?

Lapsarianism while touching on predestination isn't actually a discussion of the decree of predestination itself but rather a futile discussion as to in what order the decrees to create, permit the fall, elect and save happen. I take the view that those points are too interconnected and so believe that it is one decree. This may just be one view in non-lapsarianism, dunno.

Is it both single vs double they reject ? if so what other kind of predestination is there.

I personally believe in double, but there are likely other non-lapsarians who hold to single.

 

[JackSparrow]

Thanks for being straight Progmonk

I was refereeing to the web articles. They are not 'claims' (Skala), they actually exist.

It would help enormously if you would list out your 'lapsarianism'. E.g here are the ones you reject ( incidentally we are in agreement!).

Supralapsarianism

Save some and condemn others
Create the elect and the reprobate
Authorize the Fall
Provide salvation only for the elect

Infralapsarianism

Create human beings
Authorize the Fall
Save some and condemn others
Provide salvation only for the elect


AS for double predestination, How does this not make God the author of sin ? Or do you not hold to that.

However Progmonk. Thanks for being clear and to the point.

 

[cygnusx1]

I do not just 'claim', Skala. Click on the links and you will verify for yourself they actually exist. There any MANY more sources on the internet. Calvinists sources. Publicly available for any one to see. Baffling why you fight this. Unless you do not know as much about Calvinism as you claim. It is often said "you do not understand Calvinism ". Yet the amount of straw man posts against non calvinists has often demonstrated many non Calvinists know a far lot more about Calvinism than there detractors.



No i did not forget.

Which version of Calvinist reject both views. 4 pointers, high, a n other ?

Do they really exist or are you just putting up a smoke screen ?

Is it both supra vs infra they reject ? If so when was God doing his predestining ?

Is it both single vs double they reject ? if so what other kind of predestination is there.

If you know Skala, If you are being truthful then PLEASE help us all out with your knowledge. Post a reference would help as long as it is not a deflection.



Ooooo. naughty, naughty.
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I POSTED on limited free will, finite free will, supporting Calvinist deacon dean's notion of a limited menu ? LOADS. A complete thread on it. EVERY time I get it in the neck and shot down by e.g you or of late cx1. This has happened so many times in the last few weeks.
DOUBLE standard Skala.


Overall it was a very short post covering two large subjects. It was a summary in answer to a question. The UNBIASED LINKS provide a wealth of information. As for bad light Skala, yes you have.

Oh yes, and your other smoke screen ( post 246 and 248) , nearly forgot. You asked me what I, a non calvinist believe pertaining to God's decrees, the order and so forth. Listen Skala. I will repost the same as I have done many times ( before you start slating it, it is a from a refored institute - Lesson 4 – The Decrees of God).

"Ultimately we cannot truly solve the problem of sin’s permission since God has not revealed the details explaining what he says he has done.

There is no question concerning the fact of its permission since that is directly revealed.

The problem we face has to do with God’s employment of the evil deeds of creatures as a part of his certain plan. Even the Arminian concedes that God foreknows all things, including the advent of sin and its consequences.

A.A. Hodge explains, “He (the Arminian) is unable as the Calvinist is to explain why God, notwithstanding that certain knowledge, did not change those conditions.” (Confession of Faith pg. 68)"


The bottom line is that God has not revealed theses secret things to finite man. Man should not lust limit infinite God to just two options.

So now you concede sin is decreed , why dance around it ?

 

[Keachian]

I thought I was clear on what I believe:

In the one explicit decree of creation there is either implicitly or explicitly all the points of lapsarianism as well as some other decrees.

On double predestination I view it as an implicit decree of God.

On the question of evil as I keep on saying the answer is the Cross, it is both the question and the answer, it is a God decreed event and is both the most evil and most good event in all of history. And so you need to address all other questions from that standpoint, the testimony of scripture is clear that while God decreed that the Cross should happen he is not the author of Sin because of it, rather the blame rests upon all of humanity for the evil that comes out of it and the blame as it were for the good that comes from that event lands on God.

 

[JackSparrow]

So now you concede sin is decreed , why dance around it ?

I have not changed my position at all. To say I have not posted what I have in fact posted over and over is baiting. Anyone can use the search function to verify.

 

[cygnusx1]

I have not changed my position at all. To say I have not posted what I have in fact posted over and over is baiting. Anyone can use the search function to verify.

So you admit sin is decreed , about time

 

[FredVB]

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?

We are limited, and are not like God, any explaining is going to do little to give what is proper for understanding, for what truly involves what is beyond us, with unlimited perspective. To think otherwise would be arrogance. But I will try to say this limited bit for it. Yahweh is supreme designer as well as supreme commander and supreme mover. He had all the design for creation, as well as for us. But plans from him did not or do not determine all which we do. We do make our own choices for some things, and we are responsible in those. That he knows what we do throughout all time does not mean at all that he determines it. He does not do so, but that what is not according to his perfect will he still with his great power and knowledge will have good coming out from such. And the repentant who come to him through redemption through his grace he brings to restoration in renewed creation that will not ever have rebellion to his will and so no evil ever to come. This he knew he would do, with his perfect will, even though all along perfect obedience was preferred over sacrifice for it. Why? Yahweh is beyond us, but in all that he loves us, and has us here to be in fellowship with him, and it coming to that is to his glory.

 

[elman]

So you admit sin is decreed , about time

Man sins--God does not.