Defining terms shortens debate: Free Will

[bbbbbbb]

1 Corinthians 1:26-31
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Do you believe in all five points of Calvinism?
Do you believe in Unconditional Election?
If you believe in Unconditional Election, you basically believe in Determinism, unless you can help explain to us how your version of Unconditional Election is different from other Calvinists.

Of course I believe in Calvinistic determinism, and happily agree with all five points. How does that translate to, "...this notion of God allowing freedom of people’s fate underneath an umbrella of predetermination of people’s fate." ?

 

[Mark Quayle]

"While the hand he holds behind his back keeps the truth from those he is deceiving."
Ahh, the old secret decree nonsense!
The god playing both sides of the board... because he isn't strong enough to play fair. Not the God of scripture, but the god of islam and Hindus.

You think you are capable of understanding it all if God was to tell you? Listen to CS Lewis, in his 'fable retold': "I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean?" You continue to elevate mankind to God's level, as though we could understand what Calvinists call his "secret will", were he to tell us.

You expect him to explain everything? He does not require us to comply with his plan. What we do is always in keeping with that; we are not capable of disobeying his plan. Even Satan fits it perfectly. His COMMAND is what we are able to disobey. It is not the same thing as his PLAN.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In truth, there is no such thing as Unconditional Election. The reality is that election, being limited to some and not all, has conditions. The question then becomes one of who establishes and fulfills the conditions. For synergists the conditions are established by God and fulfilled by God, but with necessary human cooperation. For monergists the conditions are established by God and fulfilled by God.

What are those conditions? You have misrepresented Monergism. God decides unconditionally who is elect. It is not conditional upon anything but his own will. I think you would do well to look up a few expository articles on TULIP. The term, "Unconditional", in Unconditional Election, has to do with man's will, or ability, or morality or any other responsibility of man in producing God's election. God's choice doesn't consider one's assets, but God's own counsel.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Actually, the God revealed in the Bible is exceedingly benevolent, but not omnibenevolent.

If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent the Fall could never have happened. A truly omnibenevolent God would never allow anyone to die, in any sense of the word, much less for sin and its result to corrupt the perfect world.

Then you have defined omnibenevolent to encompass fallen mankind's definition. But if that definition is valid, then you are right, God is not omnibenevolent. It might be useful to use that argument in some of our debates, particularly with Atheists, who love to point out that God cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent. I will have to remember this.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What are those conditions? You have misrepresented Monergism. God decides unconditionally who is elect. It is not conditional upon anything but his own will. I think you would do well to look up a few expository articles on TULIP. The term, "Unconditional", in Unconditional Election, has to do with man's will, or ability, or morality or any other responsibility of man in producing God's election. God's choice doesn't consider one's assets, but God's own counsel.

The conditions for eternal life are clearly stated by our Lord Himself - You must be born again. He who believes in Me has eternal life and does not come into judgement, but has passed from death into life.

For the synergist, these conditions are met through God's grace and man's cooperation in such things as water baptism (the new birth) and various works of faith.

For the monergist, these conditions are met entirely through God's grace.

The fact is that Jesus Christ did set forth clear parameters for salvation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The conditions for eternal life are clearly stated by our Lord Himself - You must be born again. He who believes in Me has eternal life and does not come into judgement, but has passed from death into life.

For the synergist, these conditions are met through God's grace and man's cooperation in such things as water baptism (the new birth) and various works of faith.

For the monergist, these conditions are met entirely through God's grace.

The fact is that Jesus Christ did set forth clear parameters for salvation.

Unconditional Election is not talking about conditions for salvation. It is about conditions for God choice.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Unconditional Election is not talking about conditions for salvation. It is about conditions for God choice.

Then, the discussion becomes relatively meaningless. That leaves both parties in a quagmire attempting to define conditions for God's choice, or grace, or election. Reformed folks tend to retreat into the Catholic and Orthodox responses to some of their more arcane doctrines - "It's a mystery."

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Then, the discussion becomes relatively meaningless. That leaves both parties in a quagmire attempting to define conditions for God's choice, or grace, or election. Reformed folks tend to retreat into the Catholic and Orthodox responses to some of their more arcane doctrines - "It's a mystery."

Many things in Scripture are identified as mysteries. Is there a problem with mysteries ?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then, the discussion becomes relatively meaningless. That leaves both parties in a quagmire attempting to define conditions for God's choice, or grace, or election. Reformed folks tend to retreat into the Catholic and Orthodox responses to some of their more arcane doctrines - "It's a mystery."

How is that meaningless? How does that make Reformed folks attempting to define conditions for God's election? I just finished saying there are none.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Of course I believe in Calvinistic determinism, and happily agree with all five points. How does that translate to, "...this notion of God allowing freedom of people’s fate underneath an umbrella of predetermination of people’s fate." ?

Well, because in Calvinism, God is predetermining the fate of those who would be saved, and those who would not be saved. Do you believe it is God's will for people to sin? In Calvinism, this is what you must conclude with. God created some simply to be punished for being sinful that is something that is beyond their own control. It would be like a master who kicks his dog like a football because it has an uncontrollable pooping problem. The dog cannot help but to poop, and yet the master does not care. This is how you must see God (Which does not exist in the Bible). God is love. God is good. God so loved the WORLD. Yet, you redefine certain words in the Bible like: “world” in John 3:16 like you do other Scriptures (1 John 2:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:10, Matthew 23:37) to fit your view of God you want to be true (that simply does not exist).

 

[renniks]

You expect him to explain everything? He does not require us to comply with his plan. What we do is always in keeping with that; we are not capable of disobeying his plan. Even Satan fits it perfectly. His COMMAND is what we are able to disobey. It is not the same thing as his PLAN.

So you create a false division between God's will and God's plan. God tells us what his will is for us- to be confirmed into Christ's image. The problem is, you claim he has a secret decree that is different than his will.

 

[renniks]

Of course I believe in Calvinistic determinism, and happily agree with all five points. How does that translate to, "...this notion of God allowing freedom of people’s fate underneath an umbrella of predetermination of people’s fate." ?

Under determinism, all is fated. Freedom does not exist.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well, because in Calvinism, God is predetermining the fate of those who would be saved, and those who would not be saved. Do you believe it is God's will for people to sin? In Calvinism, this is what you must conclude with. God created some simply to be punished for being sinful that is something that is beyond their own control. It would be like a master who kicks his dog like a football because it has an uncontrollable pooping problem. The dog cannot help but to poop, and yet the master does not care. This is how you must see God (Which does not exist in the Bible). God is love. God is good. God so loved the WORLD. Yet, you redefine certain words in the Bible like: “world” in John 3:16 like you do other Scriptures (1 John 2:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:10, Matthew 23:37) to fit your view of God you want to be true (that simply does not exist).

You say, "Do you believe it is God's will for people to sin?" Again, what do you mean by God's will? Like the OP says, it's useful to define terms. I'm pretty sure you are intelligent enough to see the difference between "God's plan" (hidden will) and "God's command" (revealed will). What would make you think they are one and the same, considering that his command is not always followed --the fact that (in your theology) God must wait for man to obey before God can do what he planned? Do you honestly think man can change what God planned from the very beginning? Extrapolating your thinking: Not only does God not know what any one person will decide, he didn't know, when he created all things, that Lucifer would revolt. If he did know, then why did he go ahead and create anyway? (I say this, because if he did know, but created anyway, logically he caused (deistically, at the very least) it to happen this way, too). You proffer a very weak god.

You say that in Calvinism, God "created some simply to be punished for being sinful." Wrong again. That is not what Calvinism says. Read Romans 9:22 & 23 for the reason God created them --a reason, if not the only reason. (Logically there are other reasons, too, having to do with cause and effect and the construction of the Body of Christ) --

You assume that God's command implies the ability to obey --it does not. Like the rule: if one never sinned he needs no savior, the fact is that their will is depraved --it contends against God, and has no inclination to do otherwise-- they cannot because they will not, do not, and their every pretension of doing so is only compliance --not obedience. If God created some for one purpose and others for another purpose, what is that to you? Who are you to judge the goodness of God? Is their sin beyond their control? Of course it is --they are, according to Scripture, slaves to sin. But can you tell me their will is not completely enroiled in their every decision, that rails against God?

You assume the integrity of man's way of thought, and a status of each man separately from God as equally a being in and of himself.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Many things in Scripture are identified as mysteries. Is there a problem with mysteries ?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Many things in Scripture are identified as mysteries. Is there a problem with mysteries ?

There is no problem with mysteries that are revealed as such in scripture. However, reading mysteries into a text where there are none is problematic, at best.

 

[bbbbbbb]

How is that meaningless? How does that make Reformed folks attempting to define conditions for God's election? I just finished saying there are none.

The problem is not the concept of conditions, but the limitation of the concept to that of God's choice. There is the distinct possibility that God does not blindly elect folks just because. He actually might have His reasons. That He has not revealed His rationale to us does not mean that He lacks any rationale.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Under determinism, all is fated. Freedom does not exist.

Let me put it another way: "...this notion of God allowing freedom of people’s fate underneath an umbrella of predetermination of people’s fate." is a jumble of words that don't make sense. What does it mean? What is "freedom of people's fate", anyway? Can you rewrite the sentence in other words?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The problem is not the concept of conditions, but the limitation of the concept to that of God's choice. There is the distinct possibility that God does not blindly elect folks just because. He actually might have His reasons. That He has not revealed His rationale to us does not mean that He lacks any rationale.

Of course God does not blindly elect folks! I never said he did. Of course he has his reasons. How does that then logically imply that there's something wrong with what you characterize as "limitation of the concept to that of God's choice"? To my thinking it affirms the fact that God's choice is supreme.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Under determinism, all is fated. Freedom does not exist.

Again, define "freedom" --and around we go....