Are we really just robots?

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,472
✟86,534.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
StephanieSomer...twin1954...show me how control is not inversely proportional to a relationship. Show me how total responsibility for election would not by the same logic apply to total responsibility for reprobation.

I have seen no other theories advanced than what I have noted above. Skala and StephanieSomer assert that "it's a mystery" is a viable answer. Twin1954 denies that it's a mystery, denies will within a will, yet asserts both sovereignty and man's will at the same time without an explanation.

I'm not trying to foment anger here. I'm just seeing a huge gap between where God's sovereignty is claimed to be at synapse-level, total control for both the elect and reprobate, and where total responsibility in man is claimed despite that level of control. StephanieSomer, you CANNOT say that it is arrogant to want to understand God's ways. Theology is the stuff of councils and catechisms and synods and creeds and confessions and books and articles and white papers throughout the history of the church, that defines who we are as Christians today. It's the reason we are here on this forum.
Of course there is a relationship between God and His creation. For the reprobate it is one of Creator and sovereign Lord over His creatures. Responsibility has nothing to do with His control but with that relationship. We are responsible because He made us and had the right to demand whatever He wants without consideration of ability to obey.

As to how that relationship extends to reprobation He has the right to do what He will with His own. The first consideration is that He is under no obligation to save any. With that in mind we are left with the fact that He does choose to save whom He will and leave the rest in the depravity and just result of sin. He does not have to actively choose them to reprobation nor does He have to bear the responsibility for their damnation.

While He did purpose, for the glory of His name, the Fall and Adam's failure to continue in uprightness He in no way made Adam sin and plunge us all into the just damnation of our souls. His promise to Adam that when he sinned (it can very well be read that when He said in the day that you eat you shall surely die is the same as saying when you do because you are going to) death would be the result makes Adam responsible for his failure. Paul tells us that Adam was not deceived and he wasn't. Neither Satan nor Eve deceived Adam. He sinned with his eyes wide open and in full understanding that he was being disobedient to God. I assume, which I try to not do often when it comes to the Scriptures, that Adam desired the woman more than he desired God. He knew that she must die and he would die with her.

God's control over the Fall in no way implies that He was complicit in it. He set the circumstances and allowed the influences of Satan and Adam's love for the women but He didn't push Adam into sin. He simply saw to it that His purpose to glorify Himself in mercy to chosen sinners came about.

Consider that the angels have no concept of mercy except as they see it in the church, Eph. 3:10-11. The angels that fell are damned forever with no hope of mercy. The angels that God kept in purity need no mercy but both can only know what mercy is through the mercy of God to chosen sinners by Jesus Christ. The manifold wisdom of God is put on display by His sovereign control and eventual full accomplishment of His purpose. God is a God of purpose. Everything He does He does on purpose.


I added quite a bit to this post when I got home because I originally did it from my phone which was dying at the time.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

StephanieSomer

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2014
2,065
512
67
Chesapeake, VA
✟12,328.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
StephanieSomer, you CANNOT say that it is arrogant to want to understand God's ways. Theology is the stuff of councils and catechisms and synods and creeds and confessions and books and articles and white papers throughout the history of the church, that defines who we are as Christians today. It's the reason we are here on this forum.


I didn't. Read carefully what I posted. I said, "Making the assumption that God's ways are ALWAYS understandable to us is actually quite arrogant". Of course we should seek to understand. But, if it is beyond our comprehension for our feeble minds, we cannot therefore simply discard it as untenable. or impossible.
 
Upvote 0

Skala

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him
Mar 15, 2011
8,964
478
✟27,869.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
So, I have come to the position that BOTH have merit.

I am curious how you come to that conclusion because TULIP and it's opposite (the 5 points of Armininiasm) are literally exact opposites of each other. How can both have merit? Observe:

Calvinism:
1) Man is totally depraved and must act within the confines of his sinful nature
Arminianism:
1) Man does not necessarily act within the confines of his nature (ie, he is not totally depraved)

Calvinism:
2) God elected unconditionally
Arminianism:
2) God elected conditionally

Calvinism:
3) Jesus died to secure the salvation of only believers
Arminianism:
3) Jesus died to try to save everyone (note: not to actually save anyone, but only to potentially save them)

Calvinism:
4) God never fails to bring the elect to repentance
Arminianism:
4) God fails all the time to bring people to repentance

Calvinism
5) God keeps those He has saved, because salvation is His work
Arminianism:
5) Some of the people God saves can be lost and are ultimately sent to hell

As you can see, each point of contention is a black-or-white, yes-or-no issue. There is no gray area. Both cannot be true. How then can each have merit or each be true?

So, I fully subscribe to the complete sovereignty of God. I also fully admit to free will.

Please note that this distinction is not helpful because Calvinists don't outright deny "Free will". What we deny is a certain understanding of free will, namely Libertarian Free Will.

So when you say "subscribe to the complete sovereignty of God. I also fully admit to free will. ", you are not saying anything that a Calvinist wouldn't say, too.

If you don't know what is meant by Libertarian Free will (vs the kind of free will Calvinists affirm) I would be glad to help.
 
Upvote 0

StephanieSomer

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2014
2,065
512
67
Chesapeake, VA
✟12,328.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I am curious how you come to that conclusion because TULIP and it's opposite (the 5 points of Armininiasm) are literally exact opposites of each other. How can both have merit? Observe:

Calvinism:
1) Man is totally depraved and must act within the confines of his sinful nature
Arminianism:
1) Man does not necessarily act within the confines of his nature (ie, he is not totally depraved)

Calvinism:
2) God elected unconditionally
Arminianism:
2) God elected conditionally

Calvinism:
3) Jesus died to secure the salvation of only believers
Arminianism:
3) Jesus died to try to save everyone (note: not to actually save anyone, but only to potentially save them)

Calvinism:
4) God never fails to bring the elect to repentance
Arminianism:
4) God fails all the time to bring people to repentance

Calvinism
5) God keeps those He has saved, because salvation is His work
Arminianism:
5) Some of the people God saves can be lost and are ultimately sent to hell

As you can see, each point of contention is a black-or-white, yes-or-no issue. There is no gray area. Both cannot be true. How then can each have merit or each be true?



Please note that this distinction is not helpful because Calvinists don't outright deny "Free will". What we deny is a certain understanding of free will, namely Libertarian Free Will.

So when you say "subscribe to the complete sovereignty of God. I also fully admit to free will. ", you are not saying anything that a Calvinist wouldn't say, too.

If you don't know what is meant by Libertarian Free will (vs the kind of free will Calvinists affirm) I would be glad to help.


As I posted before, in the same way that God is one, yet also three. It only requires a third grade education to know a single thing cannot be understood as both 1 AND 3. Yet, God IS both. And that is as illogical as the points you raise. But Scripture clearly affirms it to be so. I do not have to be able to understand everything that God says is true. I merely have to take Him at His word.
 
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,472
✟86,534.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I didn't. Read carefully what I posted. I said, "Making the assumption that God's ways are ALWAYS understandable to us is actually quite arrogant". Of course we should seek to understand. But, if it is beyond our comprehension for our feeble minds, we cannot therefore simply discard it as untenable. or impossible.
While what you say is essentially true it is far to easy to use it as an excuse to not learn of God and His ways and His purpose of grace in Christ Jesus alone. While the secret things do belong to God, Deut. 29:29 the things that are revealed belong to us and we are commanded as believers to learn of Christ. Matt. 11:29 How do we learn of Christ except to seek to know Him in all that we can find in the Scriptures? God gave us the ability to reason, one of the things that separates us from the brute beasts, and the ability to consider and be assured in truth concerning Him from His Word.

Moreover he has called and gifted men with understanding in the Scriptures to instruct us and teach us these things. All theology should have shoeleather on it or else it is only intellectual exercise. Understanding the wonderful mercy of God and the depravity and inability of man to do good is essential to building a firm foundation in the Gospel. We cannot simply chalk it up to unknowable.
 
Upvote 0

kj7gs

Junior Member
Jun 13, 2007
41
4
Kingman, AZ
✟15,185.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
After reading these posts, and with a little thought, I came up with the following:

1. Sproul is right. We have free agency, and the ability to make day-to-day decisions. We do not have free will. Basically this amounts to passive reprobation.

2. Free will is officially defined as the ability to make moral choices. I would narrow that to the ability to make moral choices as far as mankind is concerned. Those moral choices may not be righteous choices, and vice versa.

3. God is active in election and generally passive in reprobation except where necessary, i.e. hardening of pharaoh's heart, Judas. God does not need to operate at the synapse level, actively controlling sin. Setting conditions in motion at creation would facilitate the doctrine of Total Depravity well enough. Only an inept God would have to constantly attend to things. When I program a computer, I don't need to re-verify every line every time the program runs. It runs exactly as I set it up. No micro-management "synapse control" is needed.

Sorry folks, I can't go with heavy defenses of "it's a mystery" if an issue can be reasonably and logically approached. I would think that my statements above would be reasonable and Calvinistic.
 
Upvote 0

StephanieSomer

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2014
2,065
512
67
Chesapeake, VA
✟12,328.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
While what you say is essentially true it is far to easy to use it as an excuse to not learn of God and His ways and His purpose of grace in Christ Jesus alone. While the secret things do belong to God, Deut. 29:29 the things that are revealed belong to us and we are commanded as believers to learn of Christ. Matt. 11:29 How do we learn of Christ except to seek to know Him in all that we can find in the Scriptures? God gave us the ability to reason, one of the things that separates us from the brute beasts, and the ability to consider and be assured in truth concerning Him from His Word.

Moreover he has called and gifted men with understanding in the Scriptures to instruct us and teach us these things. All theology should have shoeleather on it or else it is only intellectual exercise. Understanding the wonderful mercy of God and the depravity and inability of man to do good is essential to building a firm foundation in the Gospel. We cannot simply chalk it up to unknowable.


You have misunderstood what I have said. I never claimed the truth was unknowable. I AM saying that the intellectual compromise between Arminian and Calvin is unknowable, since they contradict each other, in our minds, JUST AS the truth of the Trinity does.

I don't believe it is impossible to understand the truth. I do. Scripture actually DOES have support for BOTH ideas.

Just as it is impossible for my feeble mind, and yours, to understand the reality of the Trinity in full, it is impossible for my feeble mind to force the two ideas to be in agreement. But, if Scripture says elements of both ideas are true, (and it does), I am bound by command to believe them. It is not necessary for me to be able to understand WHY and HOW they both can be true, I simply trust God and His Word. We are often limited in our sight. It is in those times that we MUST walk by faith.
 
Upvote 0

kj7gs

Junior Member
Jun 13, 2007
41
4
Kingman, AZ
✟15,185.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
You have misunderstood what I have said. I never claimed the truth was unknowable. I AM saying that the intellectual compromise between Arminian and Calvin is unknowable, since they contradict each other, in our minds, JUST AS the truth of the Trinity does.

StephanieSomer, I can go with "it's a mystery" for several concepts found in the Bible. On Arminianism vs. Calvinism, I find Calvinism to be far more biblical and reasonable.

But the issue that I wanted to discuss here is sovereignty in election and reprobation and control to the extent that no relationship can exist for the elect, and control to the point of God being responsible for sin in the reprobate. I have some theories available to me to explain it, "it's a mystery" being one of those theories. But I don't like seeing it used as a convenient way to reply to any question we can't answer. If you and the other responders to my question want to use it, fine. I'm going to go for better responses. Sproul made an excellent, though incomplete, point in my Reformed Study Bible. There are other theories out there, but I feel Molinism, Thomism, and others are flawed. Clark's "will within a will" amounts to a detective novel's response of "who sent you!?" with God going to jail for setting up the sin.

Arminianism has its own answer: free will. Unfortunately there's no stopping a return to Pelagian heresy in this answer. Calvinism has its own dilemmas with this, but control being inversely proportional to man's will leaves boundaries with so much gray area in between that "it's a mystery" has to be used, and to have no better answer than that, leaves Calvinism talking out of two sides of its mouth, and a faith that is not to be taken seriously.

Hopefully you see my point here. "It's a mystery" is asserted at the Calvinist's peril in any debate. "It's a mystery" leaves the Calvinist walking away with either a proverbial head in the sand, or head hanging in defeat.
 
Upvote 0

StephanieSomer

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2014
2,065
512
67
Chesapeake, VA
✟12,328.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
StephanieSomer, I can go with "it's a mystery" for several concepts found in the Bible. On Arminianism vs. Calvinism, I find Calvinism to be far more biblical and reasonable.

But the issue that I wanted to discuss here is sovereignty in election and reprobation and control to the extent that no relationship can exist for the elect, and control to the point of God being responsible for sin in the reprobate. I have some theories available to me to explain it, "it's a mystery" being one of those theories. But I don't like seeing it used as a convenient way to reply to any question we can't answer. If you and the other responders to my question want to use it, fine. I'm going to go for better responses. Sproul made an excellent, though incomplete, point in my Reformed Study Bible. There are other theories out there, but I feel Molinism, Thomism, and others are flawed. Clark's "will within a will" amounts to a detective novel's response of "who sent you!?" with God going to jail for setting up the sin.

Arminianism has its own answer: free will. Unfortunately there's no stopping a return to Pelagian heresy in this answer. Calvinism has its own dilemmas with this, but control being inversely proportional to man's will leaves boundaries with so much gray area in between that "it's a mystery" has to be used, and to have no better answer than that, leaves Calvinism talking out of two sides of its mouth, and a faith that is not to be taken seriously.

Hopefully you see my point here. "It's a mystery" is asserted at the Calvinist's peril in any debate. "It's a mystery" leaves the Calvinist walking away with either a proverbial head in the sand, or head hanging in defeat.

Just to clarify...
I do not believe which one is correct is a mystery. I believe BOTH are correct. The mystery is HOW that can be so. As you just stated, there are problems with both sides. It must be noted that the "problems" arise from the premise that ONLY one CAN be correct. Once you abandon that presupposition, the problems vanish. Does that appear foolish? Of course it does! Does the appearance of foolishness necessarily make it untenable? Not at all. The concept of the Trinity is exactly like that. The only way to accept it is to abandon any necessity to make it make sense to US, and simply believe what God says.
 
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,472
✟86,534.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
You have misunderstood what I have said. I never claimed the truth was unknowable. I AM saying that the intellectual compromise between Arminian and Calvin is unknowable, since they contradict each other, in our minds, JUST AS the truth of the Trinity does.

I don't believe it is impossible to understand the truth. I do. Scripture actually DOES have support for BOTH ideas.

Just as it is impossible for my feeble mind, and yours, to understand the reality of the Trinity in full, it is impossible for my feeble mind to force the two ideas to be in agreement. But, if Scripture says elements of both ideas are true, (and it does), I am bound by command to believe them. It is not necessary for me to be able to understand WHY and HOW they both can be true, I simply trust God and His Word. We are often limited in our sight. It is in those times that we MUST walk by faith.
There are many things in the Scriptures that I do not understand to be sure. But that the whole of the Scriptures teach both the doctrines of grace, Calvinism, and the doctrines of free will works religion, Arminianism, is untrue. Yes there are passages that can be understood as teaching Arminianism but when compared and interpreted by the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole they cannot teach Arminianism.

Therefore rather than concluding that both are true and we cannot understand how, the mystery, we must interpret them according to the teaching of the Bible as a whole. It is very tempting to read into passages our theology but prayerful Bible study with the help of those men called and gifted of God to teach His truth will usually open things up. There are some things that are called a mystery in the Bible but they are not how free will works religion and the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus alone can coexist. The simple fact is that they cannot. One is true and the other a lie.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

StephanieSomer

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2014
2,065
512
67
Chesapeake, VA
✟12,328.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There are many things in the Scriptures that I do not understand to be sure. But that the whole of the Scriptures teach both the doctrines of grace, Calvinism, and the doctrines of free will works religion, Arminianism, is untrue. Yes there are passages that can be understood as teaching Arminianism but when compared and interpreted by the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole they cannot teach Arminianism.

Therefore rather than concluding that both are true and we cannot understand how, the mystery, we must interpret them according to the teaching of the Bible as a whole. It is very tempting to read into passages our theology but prayerful Bible study with the help of those men called and gifted of God to teach His truth will usually open things up. There are some things that are called a mystery in the Bible but they are not how free will works religion and the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus alone can coexist. The simple fact is that they cannot. One is true and the other a lie.


I have never recognized Arminianism to have anything to do with a works based Salvation. It's about man having free will. Many believe that if man has a free will that it negates the Sovereignty of God, and therefore reject anything about it. Under simply man's understanding that may be true. Am I to limit God by my understanding? I think not.
 
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,472
✟86,534.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I have never recognized Arminianism to have anything to do with a works based Salvation. It's about man having free will. Many believe that if man has a free will that it negates the Sovereignty of God, and therefore reject anything about it. Under simply man's understanding that may be true. Am I to limit God by my understanding? I think not.
Knowing what a theology actually teaches and the implications of it is not limiting God by your understanding it is knowing truth from lies. But to stick your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge that the difference is clear between the theologies and just call it a mystery is an excuse. If that offends you I apologize it isn't my intention. To deny that Arminianism is free will works religion is to ignore what Arminianism teaches in order to hang on to it for some reason.

There is no denying that man has a will but it is not free.
 
Upvote 0

Skala

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him
Mar 15, 2011
8,964
478
✟27,869.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
As I posted before, in the same way that God is one, yet also three. It only requires a third grade education to know a single thing cannot be understood as both 1 AND 3. Yet, God IS both. And that is as illogical as the points you raise. But Scripture clearly affirms it to be so. I do not have to be able to understand everything that God says is true. I merely have to take Him at His word.

Actually the Trinity is not logically incoherent.

God is one being but three persons
(those are two different categories)

That is quite different than saying that something is one A but also 3 A's.

So, the trinity does not violate any rules of logic, thus your analogy fails I think, and thus, the points I raised are not illogical.

Also, I take issue with what you said: "do not have to be able to understand everything that God says is true."

There is NOTHING in the Bible that teaches Arminianism. Thus, it cannot be true, not even partially.
 
Upvote 0

Skala

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him
Mar 15, 2011
8,964
478
✟27,869.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Just to clarify...
I do not believe which one is correct is a mystery. I believe BOTH are correct.

This makes no sense.

Are you saying that both things are true?

1) God elected based on grace alone (Calvinism)
1) God elected based on foreseen obedience (Arminianism)

How can it be grace alone but ALSO based on something humans do? Also, where does the Bible teach conditional election (Arminianism)?

2) Man is not able to obey God without regeneration (Calvinism)
2) Man is able to obey God without regeneration (Arminianism)

Are you saying both things are true? How can they both be true? Also, where does the Bible teach that man can obey God without regeneration? (Arminianism)

3) Jesus died to secure the salvation of believers (Calvinism)
3) Jesus died to try to save everyone but not secure the salvation of anyone in particular (Arminianism)

Are you saying both of these are true? Also, where does the Bible teach hat Jesus was merely trying to save everyone? (Arminianism)

4) God never fails to bring the elect to salvation (Calvinism)
4) God fails all the time to bring people, even the elect, to salvation (Arminianism)

Are you saying both are true at the same time?

5) God keeps the elect because salvation is His work to His own glory (Calvinism)
5) God loses the elect all the time because salvation is man's work (Arminianism)

Are you saying both are true?


I refuse to let this die, there is no possible way both can be true at the same time. Claiming something is a mystery is not the same as something being completely illogical.

The trinity is a mystery but not illogical
The hypostatic union is a mystery but not illogical

But your assertions that both Calvinism and Arminianism are true and a mystery, is absolutely illogical.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Don Maurer

^Oh well^
Jun 5, 2013
424
136
Pa, USA, Earth, solar system, milky way, universe.
✟53,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
So would our will, our decisions, our actions, our being...all be an illusion?
Anyone who knows reformed or Calvinistic theology will automatically know this as a straw man.

WILL----Anyone claiming to be a Calvinist, and says that Calvinist theology pictures human will as an illusion is simply not a Calvinist, and never was a Calvinist.

Now I will admit, that Calvinists make slips of the tongue (or pen) and sometimes to not correctly articulate their own theology. I recognize that when the OP said this, and I want to allow for any clarification or retraction, but that is simply not what Reformed people say. We believe that mankind has a will. How can original sin bring the will under its influence if there is no will?

DECISIONS-----Anyone claiming to be a Calvinist will know that mankind makes decisions. A Calvinist will say that we constantly make decisions. I got up and put my left shoe on, and then put my right shoe on. While insignificant, it was nevertheless a decision. Of course the decision of faith is far far more significant. A Calvinist will know that the decision of faith is made when God regenerates the heart. Nevertheless, no real Calvinist would deny that the decision of faith is a real decision.

ACTIONS----- Of course we believe in human actions. We, as reformed, believe before regeneration that all actions are corrupt. No man is righteous. It seems to me that I will have to ask if the writer of the OP agrees that all human actions before regeneration are evil? Maybe he believes that evil actions do not constitute real actions if they are under the influence of original sin. I am glad that the OP did not go so far as to deny original sin, that would have been outright heresy. Yet the writer of the OP brings questions to my mind if he sees grasps the concept of original sin and its relationship to our actions, and will and decisions. No, Robots do not have original sin.

BEING----- This is a little stunning to me that one could call into question if Reformed believe that we are actual "beings" are an illusion in reformed theology?

In conclusion, I do not mind the question, but I am having a problem picturing the writer of the OP as a Calvinist as he claimed. My guess here is that there is a huge terminology barrier. Possibly the writer believes himself a Calvinist because he believes in several of the points of TULIP (no matter how inconsistently). Of course, there is much more to Reformed theology than TULIP. In fact I am requesting from the writer of the OP to please show me other posts you have written which demonstrate a knowledge of Calvinism or reformed soteriology.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

StephanieSomer

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2014
2,065
512
67
Chesapeake, VA
✟12,328.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Actually the Trinity is not logically incoherent.

God is one being but three persons
(those are two different categories)

That is quite different than saying that something is one A but also 3 A's.

So, the trinity does not violate any rules of logic, thus your analogy fails I think, and thus, the points I raised are not illogical.

Also, I take issue with what you said: "do not have to be able to understand everything that God says is true."

There is NOTHING in the Bible that teaches Arminianism. Thus, it cannot be true, not even partially.


I am well aware of the distinction that God is one being yet three persons. Show me just one more example of a being that is more than one person.
 
Upvote 0

kj7gs

Junior Member
Jun 13, 2007
41
4
Kingman, AZ
✟15,185.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Don_Maurer, thanks for your post. Your "No True Scot" fallacy aside, my adherence to Calvinism is not the issue here. As for the other items you mentioned:

Original sin as a "setup" is echoed by Calvin himself in Book III, Ch 23, at 2232.

On putting on shoes, Lanning (sermonaudio.com, Jehovah's Absolute Sovereignty Over Man) seems to assert it, while you've opted for Sproul's solution as reflected in my Reformed Study Bible.

I am only asking my questions on this because of the logical conclusions we may take from these affirmations of God's absolute sovereignty. Listen closely to his sermon, and Lanning will describe our actions as illusion.
 
Upvote 0

moonbeam

Senior Member
Supporter
Jul 16, 2004
1,546
61
✟33,604.00
Faith
Calvinist
I think it was Clark who advocated a "will within a will" for both the elect and the reprobate. The problem for either side is that God's control of synapses and neurons to push one into behavior that is either righteous or sinful, makes God an accomplice in both.


The correct scriptural position is "will within a will" as ably advocated by Clark among others.

Your use of the phrase "to push one into behaviour" confers the notion of unwillingness on part of the person concerned…when in fact the personal experience is one of willingness.

Even in the situation where the particular choice is extremely unpalatable, even horrifically so…it is still made…because it needed to be made (and hence was a willing choice)

All choices…when viewed in retrospect (a convenient vantage point) were made for a reason, a reason which was primary at that point of decision.

That this makes God an accomplice in both can be accepted…as God is inextricably an accomplice in creation; not only in its conception and inception, but in upholding its very existence and "being" by the word of His power.

The moral framework in which most people find the determinist position immediately abhorrent…can actually provide a basis for refutation (at certain points of principle) when these are augmented with necessary logical philosophical inferences drawn from scripture…it becomes apparent that the issue is really a false dichotomy.

But the emotive resonance of our personalities combined with the cognitive difficulties arising from the implications assaults our minds to such a degree that it often ensures that the truth in regards this matter is not easily absorbed.


But, if God orders the steps of the elect, there is no reason for a relationship. Just order the steps and you have the equivalent of a Furby I suppose.


The nature of the relational issue…or the concept of what constitutes a relationship…taken from the peculiar and distinct perspective of Creator and creature respectively…I think requires to be examined from some fundamental points.

Firstly…The Persons who constitute the Triune God are in a sublime relationship which we necessarily must accept as absolute in all and any perfections or aspects conceivable.

Secondly…Because of the above the Triune God has no logical necessity or "need" of a relationship with a lesser and necessarily created entity…such as ourselves.

Thirdly…That the Father (within the Triune God) has created rational and relational creatures must (as a logical necessity) pertain to an internal dynamic existent within the interpersonal relationship between the individual Persons of the Triune God.

Fourthly…The entire creation is purposed to be an expression of Self…in particular the Self expression of the Father who is the originator within the One Triune God…for the entire creation was made for His good pleasure…for all things are from Him and to Him.

.
 
Upvote 0

moonbeam

Senior Member
Supporter
Jul 16, 2004
1,546
61
✟33,604.00
Faith
Calvinist
God does not need to operate at the synapse level, actively controlling sin. Setting conditions in motion at creation would facilitate the doctrine of Total Depravity well enough. Only an inept God would have to constantly attend to things. When I program a computer, I don't need to re-verify every line every time the program runs. It runs exactly as I set it up. No micro-management "synapse control" is needed.


The reason your computer runs exactly as you set it up…is because that is exactly how you set it up…the micro-management of "synapse control" was inherent in the original programming.

To transpose that into the relational dynamic between two individuals would give both the cognitive sensation of autonomy (free will)..as the programming (synapse control) of one individual would merge seamlessly with that of another at any given point of the data stream…thereby achieving flawless function; the natural derivative of exquisite programming...it all being the one cohesive and coherent data stream…from the logically cohesive and coherent mind of the One Exquisite Programmer.

For example…the internal impulse to pray for Gods intervention in a particular situation…when answered positively…reinforces the sense of Gods immanence.

.



.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Skala

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him
Mar 15, 2011
8,964
478
✟27,869.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I am well aware of the distinction that God is one being yet three persons. Show me just one more example of a being that is more than one person.

Huh? You were the one that said the Trinity was logically incoherent.

I proved that it is not by pointing out that 1 being but 3 persons are two different categories

In other words, saying "God is 1 being, but 3 persons" is not the same as saying "God is 1 person, but 3 persons" or "God is 1 being, but 3 beings"

The first statement is not illogical, the next two are.
 
Upvote 0