Are we just trying to understand the inconceivable?

[Radagast]

Here's an interesting excerpt from IEP that is helpfully succinct:

And then it goes on to point out that Anselm was not a libertarian: "Anselm rejects the notion that one must be able to act in ways other than they do in order to be free."

 

[zippy2006]

And then it goes on to point out that Anselm was not a libertarian: "Anselm rejects the notion that one must be able to act in ways other than they do in order to be free."

Supposing Anselm is an exception, how would that affect the point I was making to redleg? Regardless, it is not clear that Anselm is an exception given his "two-wills" account of freedom, which strongly distinguishes him from Calvin even if it doesn't fully land him in modern libertarian waters.

 

[redleghunter]

Of course.

Now the other part. Did the Sanhedrin, high priest and Pilate choose to act the way they did?

 

[zippy2006]

Now the other part. Did the Sanhedrin, high priest and Pilate choose to act the way they did?

Lol, sure.

God is not an efficient-causal created reality... As an analogy, material beings cannot occupy the same space or occupy two discrete spaces at the same time, and yet God is omnipresent.

 

[redleghunter]

Lol, sure.

God is not an efficient-causal created reality... As an analogy, material beings cannot occupy the same space or occupy two discrete spaces at the same time, and yet God is omnipresent.

Indeed. Yet He is living and active in our very lives. Thanks be to God.

The libertarian view (not your view of course) evokes a deistic enlightenment understanding. That is what presents itself on many of these threads.

 

[Radagast]

Did the Sanhedrin, high priest and Pilate choose to act the way they did?

Libertarians are generally scared to answer that question.... because either Pilate etc. were predestined to do what they did, or else (the open theist answer) God wasn't quite sure whether it would all work out as planned.

Don't expect a straight answer.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Libertarians are generally scared to answer that question.... because either Pilate etc. were predestined to do what they did, or else (the open theist answer) God wasn't quite sure whether it would all work out as planned.

Don't expect a straight answer.

How about you answer my post no. 84?

And @redleghunter , or you, could reply to my no. 85.

Then I'll answer your question about Pilot, Mary, etc.

 

[redleghunter]

And @redleghunter , or you, could reply to my no. 85

I did several times. You just ignored the responses.

 

[Radagast]

How about you answer my post no. 84?

I did. Post #98.

 

[Tutorman]

Oh heavens no. I'm Reformed I would never throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't subscribe to "Solo Meo."

Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.

The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators.

There are other extremes against which the doctrine of sola Scriptura protects us. While we certainly want to avoid the individualistic and ahistorical posture of many churches today, sola Scriptura also protects us from overcorrecting and raising creeds and confessions or other human documents (or ideas) to the level of Scripture. We must always be on guard against making the same mistake as Rome and embracing what we might call “traditionalism,” which attempts to bind the consciences of Christians in areas that the Bible does not. In this sense, sola Scriptura is a guardian of Christian liberty. But the biggest danger we face when it comes to sola Scriptura is not misunderstanding it. The biggest danger is forgetting it. We are prone to think of this doctrine purely in terms of sixteenth-century debates—just a vestige of the age-old Catholic-Protestant battles and irrelevant for the modern day. But the Protestant church in the modern day needs this doctrine now more than ever. The lessons of the Reformation have been largely forgotten, and the church, once again, has begun to rely on ultimate authorities outside of Scripture.
Understanding Sola Scriptura​

Sola Scriptura makes one their own authority, their own pope

 

[redleghunter]

Sola Scriptura makes one their own authority, their own pope

What I quoted to you refutes this.

 

[Tutorman]

What I quoted to you refutes this.

Not really. Every man does what he will with the Bible who is Bible only. A quite silly doctrine

 

[redleghunter]

Not really. Every man does what he will with the Bible who is Bible only. A quite silly doctrine

That's not Sola Scriptura but your own straw man.

Of course we get the antics of Tetzel from Sola Ecclesia.

 

[Tutorman]

That's not Sola Scriptura but your own straw man.

Of course we get the antics of Tetzel from Sola Ecclesia.

I really don't care about Tetzel, I am not Catholic. Sola Scriptura is a straw man and I done talking about such a d\silly thing it is NWMTOE.

 

[redleghunter]

I really don't care about Tetzel, I am not Catholic. Sola Scriptura is a straw man and I done talking about such a d\silly thing it is NWMTOE.

Have a blessed Advent.

 

[Radagast]

Sola Scriptura makes one their own authority, their own pope

Well, no, actually.

And that's kind of funny coming from a non-Catholic.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Well, that shows a substantial lack of understanding of the issues.



Compatibilist free will says that you do the thing that you want to do. I'm having eggs for breakfast; that's what I want. To quote Thomas Hobbes, free will is finding "no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to doe."

Libertarian free will says that you could have done something else. I'm having eggs for breakfast, but I might have chosen oatmeal.

Libertarian free will is, of course, incompatible both with predestination and with the foreknowledge of God (because if God foresaw that I would have eggs, it would be impossible for me to have oatmeal).

This was to Zippy.
I don't read whole threads.

You've explained libertarian free will correctly. I have THE CHOICE to have either oatmeal or eggs for breakfast. MY choice. God has nothing to do with it but He knew in advance what I was going to choose.
His knowing in advance does not affect my choice.

Compatiblist free will was not explained correctly by you. This states that God determines WHAT you will have for breakfast and then HE MAKES YOU want that choice. He changes your mind to make it be in tune with HIS, or COMPATIBLE with His.

We should at least be honest when explaining a theological understanding -- unless, of course, even you don't understand it. Which you should.

It may be objected, that these are special examples which cannot be regarded as a general rule. They are sufficient, at all events, to prove the point for which I contend, viz., that whenever God is pleased to make way for his providence, he even in external matters so turns and bends the wills of men, that whatever the freedom of their choice may be, it is still subject to the disposal of God. That your mind depends more on the agency of God than the freedom of your own choice, daily experience teaches.

source: The Institutes of Calvin

 

[GodsGrace101]

He told us in Luke 8:10

So some can hear and some not.

Again Jesus tells us in Luke 8:10


None of which address many are called few are chosen.

You're just repeating the question which I've already answered. We were speaking about Luke 8:10.
Read my reply in no. 85 again and MAYBE answer it?
Why do YOU think God spoke in parables? Because He doesn't desire all men to be saved...as you believe?

No. There are too many verses against this idea...
John 3:16
John 12:32

Where did they get the approved garment? How did they merit the garment?

They merit the garment by accepting God's condition: Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. Acts 16:31

Indeed. I guess God is just waiting for people to accept Jesus to Predestinate them.

God does not predestinate anyone to salvation and thus to hell. He offers each person the possibility to be saved. Foreknowing something does not cause it to happen.

Of course. The many were called and the few were chosen. You seem to think somehow the people at the banquet merited the garment that was acceptable.

Absolutely. This is what the bible teaches from Genesis on.

Why was the person not dressed properly thrown out of the Wedding Banquet? Because he was not dressed properly...NOT because God just felt like throwing him out for no reason at all, which is what calvinists believe. Incorrectly, of course.

Yes the Gospel is a command to all. God saves some of us but not all. We are all condemned and God in His Mercy and Grace saves some.

God in His mercy saves some???
No.
God in His mercy saves ALL who DESIRE to be saved.
Praise God I serve a God that is a loving, merciful and just God.

You, OTOH, serve a whimsical God, or might I say, you server a person named Calvin, that changed the nature of the one true and Almighty and Sovereign God.

To whom calvinists give very little respect in changing His nature after 1,500 years of Christian theology.

So our efforts to understand God’s parables in some way merits us to be chosen by Him?

Don't know where you got this idea.

 

[Radagast]

You've explained libertarian free will correctly. I have THE CHOICE to have either oatmeal or eggs for breakfast. MY choice. God has nothing to do with it but He knew in advance what I was going to choose.
His knowing in advance does not affect my choice.

Well, the difficulty with that, and the driving force behind the growth of open theism among Arminians, is that you can only take the action that God foresaw. If God foresees the future, then the future must happen as foreseen.

Compatiblist free will was not explained correctly by you. This states that God determines WHAT you will have for breakfast and then HE MAKES YOU want that choice. He changes your mind to make it be in tune with HIS, or COMPATIBLE with His.

The "compatible" in "compatibilism" refers to "compatible with determinism," not "compatible with God." See: Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And, "Calvinism" does not mean "following Calvin" (which is why I would personally prefer the labels "Reformed" or "Monergist"). I do agree with the Calvin quote you posted, though: it's entirely Biblical.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Well, the difficulty with that, and the driving force behind the growth of open theism among Arminians, is that you can only take the action that God foresaw. If God foresees the future, then the future must happen as foreseen.

Knowing the future does not cause it to happen.
You don't believe this,,,fine. You're an intelligent person, I won't waste time with examples.

The "compatible" in "compatibilism" refers to "compatible with determinism," not "compatible with God." See: Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And, "Calvinism" does not mean "following Calvin" (which is why I would personally prefer the labels "Reformed" or "Monergist"). I do agree with the Calvin quote you posted, though: it's entirely Biblical.

you're right because it is a philosophical in nature and beginnings,,,,but the reformed religion teaches that God makes your hearts desire compatible with His by changing what you desire.

Would you agree that the reformed Church follows the teachings of the Institutes of Calvin?