Defining terms shortens debate: Free Will

[Jesus is YHWH]

If you wish to sail into the never-neverland of such speculations you do so at the cost of reason and consistency. Agreed that God is the creator of, rather than subject to, reason, logic and "the way of things". Nevertheless, these issue forth from him and according to his very personality, or nature, and they rule his creation. We may not depart from them without departing from good sense. God doesn't both subject everything to cause and effect, and yet not this, as if to create an envelope where reason does not rule.

I grant Open Theism has at least consistency on its side. The problem it has is that its god is not omnipotent, but subject to his (apparently his --I don't know --to me they may as well start claiming there are other gods) creation.

Sorry, but God makes sense. To say that some of his creation is, because of his power, able to restrict his actions and decisions according to its decisions, relegating his knowledge to foresight (or in the case of Open Theism, to experience) is to make him less than omnipotent. That isn't God.

It makes just as much sense to say that First Cause need not be God, or that Infinite r-Regression of causes may be God. We do not operate as though Open Theism was fact. We operate as though God's love compels us.

Yes the god of open theism is not Sovereign, Omnipotent, Omniscient nor Omnipresent. A false god made after mans image and likeness.

 

[renniks]

Sorry, but God makes sense. To say that some of his creation is, because of his power, able to restrict his actions and decisions according to its decisions, relegating his knowledge to foresight (or in the case of Open Theism, to experience) is to make him less than omnipotent. That isn't God.

Hmm. I could argue otherwise, but I'm not an open theist. We do however, live as if our decisions change the future.
I'm more along the lines of armininan.

 

[renniks]

Yes the god of open theism is not Sovereign, Omnipotent, Omniscient nor Omnipresent. A false god made after mans image and likeness.

Actually not true. No open theist I've read would deny any of God's attributes.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The element of Calvinism that rubs many the wrong way... Is that God forces (drags along) those whom He elected to be made to be saved. That man's will is not the deciding factor.

Then? We are left with a capricious God who saves at whim, because all men are equally depraved.

Agreed God does not choose according to level of depravity nor anything else inherent in a person, goodness nor need for goodness. We are all equally at enmity to God, and unable to seek him, apart from his work in us, but that by no means implies capriciousness. First Cause (God) has no purpose in creating, if capriciousness has any part in it.

Both the notion of "forcing" and of capriciousness on God's part are fictions of man's self-importance. None of us is more than what God has intended for each, or what he uses each for. From the foundation of the earth, Christ was slain and the Bride of Christ created, yet both will only happen (by our timeline and experience) according to their place in history, the one 2000 years ago, the other at the end of time. He has planned each particular member of the church. Those he has not planned for are not there as plan B, just in case plan A fails. Plan A will not fail. Everything we do, both obedience and disobedience, and including the Devil's rebellion, Adam's sin, the hypocrisy and murderous pride of religious leaders 2000 years ago, was all the plan from the beginning.

Scripture has a way of rubbing any falsehood the wrong way. Calvinism makes no apologies in trying to point out what Arminianism gets wrong, as the very nature of the Gospel and the attributes of God are being distorted in people's minds by Arminianism. God is not operating at a whim. If the scripture says he chooses, and that his choosing is according to his own counsel and for his own purposes, there is no implication of forcing nor capriciousness except to the minds of those who want to control their own destinies.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Hmm. I could argue otherwise, but I'm not an open theist. We do however, live as if our decisions change the future.
I'm more along the lines of armininan.

Calvinism does not deny that our decisions do affect the future, even with eternal results. Where have I, or Calvinism, or Reformed Doctrine said otherwise?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Actually not true. No open theist I've read would deny any of God's attributes.

They happily redefine such ideas as reality, so that what has not yet happened is not real, therefore God cannot know it. Yes, that is denying God's omniscience and omnipotence.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Actually not true. No open theist I've read would deny any of God's attributes.

OT's god learns as things develop on earth and reacts to man.


" Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future. "

 

[renniks]

Calvinism does not deny that our decisions do affect the future, even with eternal results. Where have I, or Calvinism, or Reformed Doctrine said otherwise?

Calvinism is deterministic. Your decisions are already determined for you. They affect the future but they aren't really your decisions.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Calvinism is deterministic. Your decisions are already determined for you. They affect the future but they aren't really your decisions.

That's lousy logic. If my decisions are already determined for me, what does that say about my decision but that it has to be made? We do indeed decide, and that, according to what and how, and as a result of what, God has determined. Make no mistake, we are certainly deciding.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It is true that Calvinism teaches man cannot make a free will decision to choose Christ on his own power and ability (I assume the caps, "His" in "choose Jesus Christ on His own power or ability", is a typo). They also teach that in any kind of decision or thinking of the unsaved, "free will" is bound by the sin nature. Any that has any degree of truly free will is the regenerated. Yet even that is bound within God's grace --we are slaves of Christ. I.e. they don't at all believe in just any old definition of "free will".

Yes, it was a typo. They can happen to the best of us.

Anyways, I cannot take Calvinism seriously or those who adhere to it because of the many obvious and clear verses that refute it. Take for example 2 Thessalonians 2:10. It says that the reason why those who perish is because they received not the love of the truth that they MIGHT be saved.

“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10).​

Two things that demolish Calvinism here in this verse.

#1. The reason why those who perish is because they received not the love of the truth.
#2. Those who perish have the capacity to receive the love of the truth that they MIGHT be saved. Note: In Calvinism, there is no such thing as “MIGHT be saved.”

 

[renniks]

That's lousy logic. If my decisions are already determined for me, what does that say about my decision but that it has to be made? We do indeed decide, and that, according to what and how, and as a result of what, God has determined. Make no mistake, we are certainly deciding.

Has to be indeed. If it has to be made, it's determined before hand. If it's determined before hand, it's fate, not a choice.

 

[GenemZ]

From the foundation of the earth, Christ was slain and the Bride of Christ created, yet both will only happen (by our timeline and experience) according to their place in history, the one 2000 years ago, the other at the end of time. He has planned each particular member of the church.

For thousands of years before the Church age began.. Many millions of souls believed in the Lord God of Israel. These souls God knew would believe. But, they were not chosen IN Christ before the foundations of the earth. For,as Eve was in Adam before she was revealed? We, as the "bride of Christ" are now in Him, awaiting to be revealed in the resurrection of the Church!

That is what we were predestined for. Not to believe. But, because God chose us out of all He knows would believe to be the Bride of His beloved Son.

Its nothing to be ashamed of. For the likes of Moses and Isaiah will be filled with unspeakable joy with the type of Resurrection body they will receive. Their bodies will not be just like the body the Lord now is manifesting the fullness of God with. We who were chosen IN Him? We alone will have such a glorious body....

 

[GenemZ]

You replied to my post with the video. But did you watch the whole video?

Proverbs 18:13 says,
“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”

I did not have over a half hour of time available to listen to it. Do you realize how long is is? And, was not informative to me for what I wished to endure.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here is another verse that demolishes the silliness of Calvinism.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God’s messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn’t let me.” (Matthew 23:37) (NLT).

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matthew 23:37) (KJV).

Okay, so Jesus is saying to those individuals in Jerusalem that He desires to gather them like a hen gathers its chicks beneath its wings but the Jerusalem people would not allow the Lord to do so. Jesus is obviously referring to the Israelites in Jerusalem and their salvation. For to follow Jesus is to save one's soul. For he that shall lose his life shall save it, and he that shall save his life shall lose it. Calvinism is refuted in this verse because the will of God in desiring to gather the Jerusalem people for their salvation is being stopped by their own willingness and choice.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I did not have over a half hour of time available to listen to it. Do you realize how long is is? And, was not informative to me for what I wished to endure.

The Word of God is offensive. That is why I believe you did not make the time to watch the whole thing. He is preaching the plainness of God's Word and not ear tickling messages that most churches teach these days. For what on Earth does fight the good fight of faith in 1 Timothy 6:12 even mean to you? What does picking up your cross and denying yourself even mean to you? Why would God make His Word only available to understand in the original languages only? That would mean that no English Bible is trust worthy and you have to figure out what God's Word says instead of just simpy obeying His Word. In other words, what you propose is complicated.

 

[GenemZ]

The Word of God is offensive. That is why I believe you did not make the time to watch the whole thing. He is preaching the plainness of God's Word and not ear tickling messages that most churches teach these days. For what on Earth does fight the good fight of faith (1 Timothy 6:12) even mean to you? What does picking up your cross and denying yourself even mean to you? Why would God make His Word only available to understand in the original languages only? That would mean that no English Bible is trust worthy and you have to figure out what God's Word says instead of just simpy obeying His Word.

I have time.. I am listening right now.

When he mentions 1 Peter 1:9? "Salvation of the soul." He speaks of faith without defining faith.. And, fails to describe what the salvation of the soul produces in a believer... Its not substantial teaching. Its spoken by him as if everyone is assumed to know what he means. He does not teach in a manner to explain a point at a time, so one can know what a word means to at least himself. He allows everyone to assume...

Its the kind of teaching that I may have liked as a new Christian and was just wanting to learn anything. But, he does not define to instruct. He just quotes a passage without any explaining the meaning and intent, and moves on.

And, he has already made too many assumptions for me to follow him without enduring painfully. Its a teaching for those who wish to assume along with him...And, most likely end up in different places in their own way of thinking.

But? I will endure to the end.

To each his own.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have time.. I am listening right now. I will let you know after I finish.

Okay. Fair enough. Hopefully you will just simply heed what the Word says plainly and not try to re-write God's Word (in some dead language nobody knows) because you and others don't like it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why do you insist in saying God did not create man in His own image?

God is absolute sovereignty. Man created in His image has been created with a domain for sovereignty. So much so? God willed to allow man to reject Him if man so deemed it to be. To me? That is truly creating another life onto itself. Otherwise? God would have been left playing with toy soldiers and dolls.

Where have I said (nevermind "insist"ed) that God did not create man in his own image?

Of course God is absolute sovereign! But what does "created with a domain for sovereignty" mean? Not sure I follow your writing after that claim, either. I can only assume you mean that man must also be sovereign independent of God's sovereignty to avoid being God's little toy soldiers and dolls. That whole logic is monstrous on its face.

 

[GenemZ]

Where have I said (nevermind "insist"ed) that God did not create man in his own image?

Of course God is absolute sovereign! But what does "created with a domain for sovereignty" mean?

God gave man's soul volition and reasoning ability. Animal souls only have instinct. Angels (who are also called " sons of God") were also created in his image. Angels and man both have been granted volition and the ability to reason.

Our volition is sovereign in regards to our attitude towards God.

Even though its God's desire that all believe? God must honor the sovereignty of the souls of those who wish to reject Him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Calvinism is deterministic. Your decisions are already determined for you. They affect the future but they aren't really your decisions.

Even a dog, who is hardly considered self-aware, who is credited with being responsive instinctively and according to programming, makes decisions. How are we, who at least have self-awareness and unlike the dog are made in the image of God, not making decisions?

We never claim to not be making decisions although we admit to all sorts of causes, influences and instincts, internal and external stimuli, habits etc etc, without considering God in the mix. Even when we can pretty reliably predict what someone's choices will be, we do not say they don't choose, even though we something of the causes behind their choice. So why, if we admit God as the originator of all those influences etc, does the story somehow become, "we are not deciding"?