Free will, and original sin --a discussion continued

BarnyFyfe · Jan 1, 2020

JAL said:
I'm saying that it was God's WILL for Adam to have some degree of real libertarian freedom.

One surely couldn't help but wonder why God would place an innocent and holy Adam in Eden and give him a test that He was determined to see him fail.

JAL · Jan 1, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
su·per·sede
/ˌso͞opərˈsēd/

variant spelling: supercede
verb

take the place of (a person or thing previously in authority or use); supplant.

Again, you mischaracterize --"control freak"?!

Correct. It was a mischaracterization. It was a gross understatement of your position. Pardon me.

God is in control by virtue of WHO HE IS.

(Sigh) C'mon Mark. This statement assumes what is to be proven. I showed you a simple analogy, namely the fact that a human father need not be a control freak to be a good leader. You have demonstrated no cogent explanation as to why God must be such in order to be God. Just because you bought into some bogus philosophical belief about God, don't expect the rest of us to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

You impugn his nature.

See above. You've already ASSUMED His nature to be freakishly controlling. Assuming is not proving.

He is not effect. HE IS. Can't you see how different that is??? His very being implies everything else is logically, as relates to cause-and-effect, downstream from him. That logically means that he controls all things. You may as well ask if the Almighty can make a rock too big for him to pick up, as to suggest that there is something outside of his control.

Again, you've bought into this weird philosophical assumption. Can't you see that? And can't you see that assuming is not proving?

Unavoidably philosophy overlaps with theology. I'm not denying that fact. But when forced to select among several philosophical claims, we should try to pick those that seem to lead to the most fully coherent and fully consistent system.

The second philosophical assumption that you've bought into is the notion that man and God are metaphysically different, dismissing the biblical data to the contrary as mere anthropomorphisms. Once you make that leap, you've already implied that your conclusions are drawn primarily from philosophy rather than exegesis. Also I enumerated at least 17 problems arising from that leap (a total of 26 if we include those specific to the Reformed view).

By NOT making that leap, I developed a simple system that brings 26 unresolved issues down to zero. It would be completely irrational for me to buy into your dead-end philosophies and metaphysics. This is a no-brainer.

Mark Quayle · Jan 1, 2020

Clete said:
I am just continually stunned by Calvinst's inability to think clearly enough to follow what should be a childishly simplistic point.

You suggest that is Satan who rebels and God who uses that rebellion. First of all, when taken to it's logical extreme, that alone is blasphemy but let's not even go there. Let's just keep the point super simple.

Here's the point....

Your doctrine does not teach the Satan rebels against God! It teaches just the exact opposite. It teaches that every single thing that Satan says, thinks, does or wants to do was all commanded by God Himself before time began and that Satan is just doing what God commanded that he do.

Read the quote again...

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)

My doctrine does indeed teach that Satan rebels against God! Would you pretend Satan's compliance is obedience? He HAS to do what God says. Look how God controls him in the account of Job.

Look at the hilarious story of Ahab and Jehosophat in 1 Kings 22. In verse 22, the Lord tells a spirit to go and do what exactly what it wanted to do-- to deceive Ahab. (You no doubt will read the conversation as that of the spirit coming up with the plan on its own, but it is not said to be so).

When God says (Proverbs 21) that the heart of the king is as a watercourse in the hand of the Lord, that he directs wherever he will, do you think that only refers to the the king if he is willing to be used of the Lord? Do you also think that only applies to kings?

Psalm 139 "3 You search out my path and my lying down; You are aware of all my ways. 4 Even before a word is on my tongue, You know all about it, O LORD. 5 You hem me in behind and before; You have laid Your hand upon me.

Would you imagine a God who learns about the future as the Open Theists claim, albeit by foresight as you claim? This seems to be what you are saying.

Again, God causing what he does is nothing like us causing what we do. He is not like us --we are like him, only not very much.

Mark Quayle · Jan 1, 2020

JAL said:
Correct. It was a mischaracterization. It was a gross understatement of your position. Pardon me.
(Sigh) C'mon Mark. This statement assumes what is to be proven. I showed you a simple analogy, namely the fact that a human father need not be a control freak to be a good leader. You have demonstrated no cogent explanation as to why God must be such in order to be God. Just because you bought into some bogus philosophical belief about God, don't expect the rest of us to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

See above. You've already ASSUMED His nature to be freakishly controlling. Assuming is not proving.

Again, you've bought into this weird philosophical assumption. Can't you see that? And can't you see that assuming is not proving?

Unavoidably philosophy overlaps with theology. I'm not denying that fact. But when forced to select among several philosophical claims, we should try to pick those that seem to lead to the most fully coherent and fully consistent system.

The second philosophical assumption that you've bought into is the notion that man and God are metaphysically different, dismissing the biblical data to the contrary as mere anthropomorphisms. Once you make that leap, you've already implied that your conclusions are drawn primarily from philosophy rather than exegesis. Also I enumerated at least 17 problems arising from that leap (a total of 26 if we include those specific to the Reformed view).

By NOT making that leap, I developed a simple system that brings 26 unresolved issues down to zero. It would be completely irrational for me to buy into your dead-end philosophies and metaphysics. This is a no-brainer.

I didn't pick a philosophy. It only makes sense. God IS indeed metaphysically different from us; the difference is as obvious as the difference between Creator and Created. We are spiritual beings, as is he --I don't deny that-- but to then conclude that we have his same abilities, capacities and rights is ludicrous. We are NOT like him, in most regards --and most certainly not apart from him, as though we of any regard apart from his use for us. We are not his fellow living beings. We are his CREATURES. In fact, apart from him we are spiritually DEAD. Unable to do anything spiritual for ourselves. Free Will, as you espouse, is a non-fact.

JAL · Jan 1, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
You present a supposed Creator, whose plans, somehow, by him being the victim of circumstance beyond his control, are overwhelmed by Satan's and free-willing self-appointed enemies' (fallen humanity's) work. And now he must fly by the seat of his pants, acting and reacting according to how his creation runs his creation. No doubt he's wringing his hands up there now, worried about what we might do next.

Again, you only have two options:
(System 1) God is an absolute control-freak.
(System 2) He chooses to relinquish some of His control FOR THE SAKE OF permitting some degree of real human freedom.
You've cast your vote for System 1. You claim that System 2 makes God a "victim". This is hyperbolic. He evaluated the pros and cons and then put the system in place despite them.

Logically, your thinking extrapolates to even disallow him "miracle".

You seem to be intermixing unrelated categories. First of all, are you referring to my specific metaphysics? If so, I'll say this. I don't recall that the Greek for 'miracle' is in the NT. I believe the word often used is dunamis (power). Imagine for example a cancer too far advanced for modern remedies and surgeons. In my metaphysics, The Physician can reach in with His own physical hands and perform the surgery. If you want to call it a miracle that's fine with me - although personally I'd call it what the Bible calls it, namely "a work of power". But there's nothing magical/supernatural about it, if that's what you're asking.

God cannot, by extrapolation of your precepts, even interfere or intervene in the affairs of free-willing man.

Huh? Healing cancer doesn't count as intervention? The Inward Witness whereby we get saved doesn't count as intervention? What kind of intervention do you have in mind?

HOW, exactly, does your free will operate outside of God's choice?

You have spent FAR too much time reading Reformed dogma. You see a conflict where there is is none. See above where I talked about System 1 and System 2.

JAL · Jan 1, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
I didn't pick a philosophy. It only makes sense.

No, Mark. It doesn't make sense to everyone. You're trying to forge an axiom that isn't viewed as compelling in the eyes of most people. The Reformed section of the church might consider it to be tautological, but the rest of us honestly do not.

Remember I postulated an axiom a while back regarding my dispute with Sola Scriptura? If you recall it was this:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and that B is good, I should opt for B."

I've articulated this principle on multiple threads and never seen anyone dispute it. It REALLY IS an example of a compelling axiom. But I'm being perfectly honest with you when I say that the Reformed determinism is not compelling. Far from it, as it seems to blatantly conflict with maximal kindness, justice, and integrity.

Mark Quayle · Jan 1, 2020

JAL said:
Again, you only have two options:
(System 1) God is an absolute control-freak.
(System 2) He chooses to relinquish some of His control FOR THE SAKE OF permitting some degree of real human freedom.
You've cast your vote for System 1. You claim that System 2 makes God a "victim". This is hyperbolic. He evaluated the pros and cons and then put the system in place despite them.

You seem to be intermixing unrelated categories. First of all, are you referring to my specific metaphysics? If so, I'll say this. I don't recall that the Greek for 'miracle' is in the NT. I believe the word often used is dunamis (power). Imagine for example a cancer too far advanced for modern remedies and surgeons. In my metaphysics, The Physician can reach in with His own physical hands and perform the surgery. If you want to call it a miracle that's fine with me - although personally I'd call it what the Bible calls it, namely "a work of power". But there's nothing magical/supernatural about it, if that's what you're asking.

Huh? Healing cancer doesn't count as intervention? The Inward Witness whereby we get saved doesn't count as intervention? What kind of intervention do you have in mind?
You have spent FAR too much time reading Reformed dogma. You see a conflict where there is is none. See above where I talked about System 1 and System 2.

Again, no. God is not a control FREAK. We are the freaks, rebellious, foolish, self-assumed controllers. God is by virtue of who he is, in control. He is the controller --not us.

You misunderstand my point about miracle completely. (I too don't like the word --to me, it is all miracle, or maybe even all natural, depending on what one means by "natural". The same one who causes everything causes the unusual, too.) I am saying that intervention is still the act of cause. Whether it is intervention, as you see it, or done from the beginning, is irrelevant to God. As far as that goes, he is continuously 'intervening' by the very fact that EVERYTHING that exists does so by his decree; he upholds everything, it does not exist on its own.

Think about the logical disparity in such a statement as I have heard, "I think the most sovereign thing God can do is to relinquish some of his sovereignty." Really?? Drivel.

JAL · Jan 1, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
I didn't pick a philosophy. It only makes sense.

Determinism doesn't make sense to me.

God IS indeed metaphysically different from us; the difference is as obvious as the difference between Creator and Created.

Determinism isn't an obvious conclusion.

We are spiritual beings, as is he --I don't deny that-- but to then conclude that we have his same abilities, capacities and rights is ludicrous.

Same how? Same quantitatively? Or qualitatively? Of course it's ludicrous to claim that I have the same quantity of knowledge that God has - I don't even have my Dad's quantity of knowledge. But that doesn't prove that Dad and I are two metaphysically different kinds of beings. And even if we were, it doesn't prove that we must be different in all respects. On the contrary, the possibility of a relationship would seem to imply areas of similarity.

We are his CREATURES.

Correct. God formed Adam out of matter like a potter shapes clay. Note the potter is a material body with material hands. And?

We are NOT like him, in most regards --and most certainly not apart from him, as though we of any regard apart from his use for us. We are not his fellow living beings. We are his CREATURES.

Actually the potter analogy - and bear in mind this is YOUR favorite analogy on the thread - implies that we are EXACTLY like Him.

But again, even if we were different, as you claim, it doesn't prove we are different in all respects. You are leaping to unwarranted conclusions.

In fact, apart from him we are spiritually DEAD. Unable to do anything spiritual for ourselves. Free Will, as you espouse, is a non-fact.

(Sigh) You keep returning to this strawman. For the 31-bi-zillionth time, I 'm not disputing you on WHETHER we have a sinful nature but on WHY Adam (or anyone else) has a sinful nature. For purely deterministic reasons?

JAL · Jan 1, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
Again, no. God is not a control FREAK. We are the freaks, rebellious, foolish, self-assumed controllers. God is by virtue of who he is, in control. He is the controller --not us.

This is not a rebuttal. You just don't like my choice of terminology. It's just a superficial reply. When I get superficial replies, it's pretty clear that the dissenters have no leg to stand on.

Mark Quayle · Jan 1, 2020

JAL said:
No, Mark. It doesn't make sense to everyone. You're trying to forge an axiom that isn't viewed as compelling in the eyes of most people. The Reformed section of the church might consider it to be tautological, but the rest of us honestly do not.

Remember I postulated an axiom a while back regarding my dispute with Sola Scriptura? If you recall it was this:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and that B is good, I should opt for B."

I've articulated this principle on multiple threads and never seen anyone dispute it. It REALLY IS an example of a compelling axiom. But I'm being perfectly honest with you when I say that the Reformed determinism is not compelling. Far from it, as it seems to blatantly conflict with maximal kindness, justice, and integrity.

No. JAL, it does not. By your worldview, where living creatures, particularly humans, by virtue of being living beings, merit that God dignify them as such, as though he is a living being of their same sort --but he is not. Leaving aside, for this post, that the dead in sin are spiritually dead, NONE of us is still on the level from which God deals with his creation. The thing created has no right --indeed no understanding-- from which to question the Creator.

I don't dispute your axiom. I question why you think it is useful or necessary to bring up such an obvious thing. It proves nothing, except perhaps to imply we have conscience.

The logic of First Cause being the only cause of everything else is indeed compelling. The fact that not many look for it, and many who are faced with it look away does nothing to mar the truth of it. But your logic of innate unfettered ability to choose apart from the enabling of the Creator is, well, incomplete, to put it nicely. It is not compelling.

JAL · Jan 1, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
You misunderstand my point about miracle completely...

Evidently so, because I was pretty sure I answered it.

I am saying that intervention is still the act of cause.

Sure. I gave you an example. God performs the surgery, causing a healing, via His own physical hands. And?

Whether it is intervention, as you see it, or done from the beginning, is irrelevant to God. As far as that goes, he is continuously 'intervening' by the very fact that EVERYTHING that exists does so by his decree; he upholds everything, it does not exist on its own.

See there you go again. You imply that if God causes ONE thing, He must be the inexorable cause of EVERYTHING. It's all or nothing in your view. Can't you see that you've bought into a philosophical axiom uncompelling to the rest of us?

he upholds everything

Traditional metaphysics has afforded no explanation as to how God upholds the stars. In my metaphysics, it is a simple concept. Gravity is the physical hand of God, in my view, pushing and pulling on every particle of matter as needed.

Think about the logical disparity in such a statement as I have heard, "I think the most sovereign thing God can do is to relinquish some of his sovereignty." Really?? Drivel.

Why is that drivel? As a human father, I could either:
(1) Lock and bolt the refrigerator door, as a control freak.
(2) OR, I could let my kids have the freedom to choose between grape juice, lemonade, or punch, thereby relinquishing some of my sovereignty.

Why is that drivel? Again, I think you've spent WAY too much time steeped in Reformed dogma. You've bought into a philosophical theory of sovereignty convincing only to the Reformed party.

JAL · Jan 1, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
I don't dispute your axiom. I question why you think it is useful or necessary to bring up such an obvious thing. It proves nothing, except perhaps to imply we have conscience.

It refutes Sola Scriptura. I answer to conscience - and conscience alone. Sola Scriptura claims that Scripture is the only final rule of faith and practice.

JAL · Jan 1, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
The logic of First Cause being the only cause of everything else is indeed compelling.

Well duh. If we start with the ASSUMPTION that God is First Cause, the ensuing causality is compelling. What is NOT compelliing is the assumption itself.

JAL · Jan 1, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
The thing created has no right --indeed no understanding-- from which to question the Creator.

Actually he does have the right to question the creator, if he can do so in GOOD CONSCIENCE (funny a moment ago you implied that my doctrine of conscience has no major import).

Paul raises the query, "Who are you to question God?" Who am I? I am God's child !!! Of course I can ask my Father questions !!!! But I'm supposed to do this in good conscience, not with an attitude of rebellion. Thus Paul's words can be paraphrased:

"Who are you to rebel against God?"

That rebellious attitude is uncalled for. But if the exegete cannot formulate questions, if he is not allowed to ask whether Reformed doctrine contradicts Scripture, how is he going to learn anything? How is he going to draw any conclusions?

Mark Quayle · Jan 1, 2020

JAL said:
Actually he does have the right to question the creator, if he can do so in GOOD CONSCIENCE (funny a moment ago you implied that my doctrine of conscience has no major import).

Paul raises the query, "Who are you to question God?" Who am I? I am God's child !!! Of course I can ask my Father questions !!!! But I'm supposed to do this in good conscience, not with an attitude of rebellion. Thus Paul's words can be paraphrased:

"Who are you to rebel against God?"

That rebellious attitude is uncalled for. But if the exegete cannot formulate questions, if he is not allowed to ask whether Reformed doctrine contradicts Scripture, how is he going to learn anything? How is he going to draw any conclusions?

Funny you laugh at me questioning why you bring up the obvious to mean I disagree with you that it is obvious. What has Reformed doctrine to do with this passage? The passage is what it is. It is not about Reformed doctrine. Ask all you want if Reformed doctrine contradicts Scripture. It will likely color your exegesis if you ask all your questions in light of your position concerning Reformed doctrine.

No, Paul isn't going into the convolutions you find necessary to make it ok to question God. Paul is directly referring to the question he mentioned immediately before. He doesn't apply good conscience or rebellion here, but simple status as Created questioning the Creator. He's not even pompously shouting down the questioner. He's making a logical point (within another theme), that the Created does not have the standing by which to question the Creator.

(Side issue, though related to our conversation: By the above I'm not saying Paul is criticizing those who in good conscience ask questions of their Creator. Of course they should --in fact they are told to more than once! But it would be wise to understand that their words are small and weak, and their comprehensions silly and self-centered, compared to the wisdom and love of their Creator. I wish people could understand that no matter how well we represent our most "honest" feelings, our questions to God are still false in some ways. We assume things we do not understand, when we ask God. I like CS Lewis' statement in 'Til We Have Faces (A fable retold). “When the time comes to you at which you will be forced at last to utter the speech which has lain at the center of your soul for years, which you have, all that time, idiot-like, been saying over and over, you'll not talk about the joy of words. 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? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?”)

JAL · Jan 1, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
Funny you laugh at me questioning why you bring up the obvious to mean I disagree with you that it is obvious. What has Reformed doctrine to do with this passage? The passage is what it is. It is not about Reformed doctrine. Ask all you want if Reformed doctrine contradicts Scripture. It will likely color your exegesis if you ask all your questions in light of your position concerning Reformed doctrine.

No, Paul isn't going into the convolutions you find necessary to make it ok to question God. Paul is directly referring to the question he mentioned immediately before. He doesn't apply good conscience or rebellion here, but simple status as Created questioning the Creator. He's not even pompously shouting down the questioner. He's making a logical point (within another theme), that the Created does not have the standing by which to question the Creator.

You're implying my comment on that passage had no relevance. Yet throughout this entire thread you've used that very passage as a prooftext for divine antinomianism. You've used it to argue (paraphrasing), 'God makes the rules. He defines justice however He pleases. And we have no right to question it." It is YOUR writings that triggered my post. The point of that post is that it is not God we are questioning - it is the (diabolical) Reformed interpretation of God that we question.

I can promise you the following with much confidence. You'll feel ashamed of yourselves on judgment day when God asks you, "Why did you preach to the entire world that I'm the kind of evil monster who would deterministically send billions to the fires of hell?"

JAL · Jan 1, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
The passage is what it is.

Baloney - or more precisely stated, misleading. I have no direct access to Scripture - only to my fallible interpretations. And you've opted for a tunnel-vision that refuses to consider other interpretations. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that if I asked you right now to summarize MY interpretation of it, you'd come up empty - even though I linked you to it a couple of times. Fact is, you've already presumed yourself infallible on the veracity of the Reformed interpretation. If any view is "colored" here, it is clearly your own.

Mark Quayle · Jan 1, 2020

JAL said:
You're implying my comment on that passage had no relevance. Yet throughout this entire thread you've used that very passage as a prooftext for divine antinomianism. You've used it to argue (paraphrasing), 'God makes the rules. He defines justice however He pleases. And we have no right to question it." It is YOUR writings that triggered my post. The point of that post is that it is not God we are questioning - it is the (diabolical) Reformed interpretation of God that we question.

I can promise you the following with much confidence. You'll feel ashamed of yourselves on judgment day when God asks you, "Why did you preach to the entire world that I'm the kind of evil monster who would deterministically send billions to the fires of hell?"

If I were to talk like you do, I could change what you say there, to, "Why didn't you coddle to the presumptions of those who don't understand I am not tame?", or many other things.

Start again at the beginning --the Word of God. He says he predestines --call it what you want, he says it. Then reason where to draw the line between free will and predestination if you wish. But when logic and Scripture both say he predestines, I have a hard time drawing some line. Then Christ has the gall to say, "Without me you can do nothing", and I can't help but think that has to mean something. I'm really sorry you can't see it, but you are missing something beautiful, that glorifies the elect BECAUSE of God's glory --not in and of man himself. We are only something worthy IN HIM. Not because we responded by the integrity of our choices.

God sends them to the Lake of Fire, not in unfair retribution. They will pay their infinite debt, precisely and thoroughly. His unfairness is only in that his Elect will not, but his Son will pay their debt (and has already done so). We are and even more will be eternally grateful.

If you would, please, return to the Potter and Clay discourse, or no, let's just talk about us, since you think we are worthy copies of him. If I fashion a puppet, I have not made a living being. It is dead as a doornail, no matter how much it looks like me. If I make a lot of them, they are all of a kind, and that is not me. If I have to power to enliven one of them, making it an actual living being, I can point to the ones who failed to live up to my example, and show the living one what the others are good for. (Of course, this analogy fails at some point. I did not intend it to be absolutely paralleling what we are to him).

God owes us no dignity or respect as fellow living beings, not even as made in his image. He may well be angry if one of us lord's it over his peers, but we are not God's peers. We are DEAD apart from him. Worth only his use for us and his assessment of us. When he is done with us, what ends up in the firepit is not what we assumed we were during this temporal existence.

But I think we have talked enough. Thank you for your persistence.

JAL · Jan 2, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
If I were to talk like you do, I could change what you say there, to, "Why didn't you coddle to the presumptions of those who don't understand I am not tame?", or many other things.

In other words you think there are two possible disservices here:
(1) Presenting Him as more kind, honest, and fair than He actually is.
(2) Presenting Him as an evil, dishonest monster when He is in fact perfectly kind and honest.
I'm surprised you think #1 is a major cause for worry. I'd be a bit more concerned about #2.

He says he predestines

(Sigh) As I made clear about 400 posts back, and several times since then, I do not deny election and predestination. The problem is that you're only willing to consider the REFORMED version/theory of predestination. This is a tunnel-vision that presumes itself an infallible interpreter of Scripture.

God owes us no dignity or respect as fellow living beings, not even as made in his image.

He owes us nothing if we legitimately fell via libertarian freedom (as my theory of Adam allows). But as for your deterministic system: Clete's post 497 and his post 502 are excellent rebuttals here.

We are DEAD apart from him.

(Sigh). Yes, for the 32-bi-zillionth time, we are dead in sin. We have a sinful nature. The question is WHY do we have a sinful nature? For deterministic reasons?

P.S. And as for your repeated assumption that man and God are metaphysically different, just bear in mind that's a purely philosophical conclusion without clear biblical support. At least that fact should give one pause. And since this puts us on the topic of philosophy, recall that Occam's Razor is a very solid principle of rational thinking. Occam's Razor holds that the simplest possible solution is probably the correct one. Thus for example, I outlined earlier how the 26 apparent contradictions still unresolved in Reformed thinking can EASILY be resolved by moving from a multi-metaphysics to a simple uniform metaphysics. This success is precisely what Occam's Razor predicts.

Clete · Jan 2, 2020

Mark Quayle said:
My doctrine does indeed teach that Satan rebels against God! Would you pretend Satan's compliance is obedience? He HAS to do what God says. Look how God controls him in the account of Job.

Your implication here is that he is doing what God says against his will but that isn't what Calvinism teaches!

It isn't merely his actions that God predestined, every thought in his head. Read the quote again!...

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)

Look at the hilarious story of Ahab and Jehosophat in 1 Kings 22. In verse 22, the Lord tells a spirit to go and do what exactly what it wanted to do-- to deceive Ahab. (You no doubt will read the conversation as that of the spirit coming up with the plan on its own, but it is not said to be so).

I will no doubt read the conversation to be what the words of the text indicate it to be, which is that God asked a question and someone answered it and God liked the answer and commanded it to be done. It's a really clear passage that even small children could understand. You have to be a Calvinist to misunderstand it.

You say "it is not said to be so". Why? Because you say so?

The only reason you say so is because it conflicts with your doctrine!

When God says (Proverbs 21) that the heart of the king is as a watercourse in the hand of the Lord, that he directs wherever he will, do you think that only refers to the the king if he is willing to be used of the Lord? Do you also think that only applies to kings?

It doesn't even apply to kings, at least not directly! It's a very common figure of speech. It's talking about the nation that the king is the sovereign of, not the king himself. Although, it is true that God does deal directly with kings as a means of directing a nation but the point is that this passage is talking directing nations.

Psalm 139 "3 You search out my path and my lying down; You are aware of all my ways. 4 Even before a word is on my tongue, You know all about it, O LORD. 5 You hem me in behind and before; You have laid Your hand upon me.

Amen!

It does not say one word about predestination - not a single word! And it isn't at all hard to understand that God knows us better than we know ourselves, He knows our thoughts, our motivations, our tendencies and works through, around and in spite of ourselves and those around us to accomplish that which He desires to accomplish - though He is not always successful.

Would you imagine a God who learns about the future as the Open Theists claim, albeit by foresight as you claim? This seems to be what you are saying.

What's so bad about the idea of God learning about the future?

Genesis 18:21
I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”

Genesis 22:12
And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

Again, God causing what he does is nothing like us causing what we do.

I seriously cannot understand how it is even possible for a grown man who understands the English language to write such an insane sentence!

Where in you doctrine is there room for such a distinction between what God causes and what we cause?
At the very least you must believe that everything in the later category is included in the former! Calvinism teaches that everything is caused by God's own command! That whatever happens does so as a result of not only God's will but because He commands it to be. It isn't just "the Devil and the whole train of the ungodly", it's every single event that happens anywhere at any time. There is no "us causing what we do", according to Calvinism!

He is not like us --we are like him, only not very much.

Again, I am simply stunned that any adult human being is capable of letting something this silly escape their lips. If we are like Him then His is like us, by definition! Not in every way, of course, but we are created in His image for the express purpose of relating to Him and more than that, actually loving Him and being loved by Him. Your doctrine has God so totally transcendent as to be completely unrelatable in any meaningful way. You don't believe that even the way God's thinks is anything we can hope to understand or relate to. You believe that God being arbitrary is Him be just. You think that God creating human beings for no reason at all other than to punish them is somehow God being kind. You think that the God of Love is somehow incapable of being moved by love (impassibility). It's complete utter nonsense that is born not out of scripture but out of the mind of a homosexual pagan Greek philosopher.

Free will, and original sin --a discussion continued

Deputy Seventh-day Adventist

Veteran

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Veteran

Veteran

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Veteran

Veteran

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Veteran

Veteran

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Veteran

Active Member

Similar threads