Calvinist Robots

[squint]

if it was only gods will then you COULD blame god

if we were not responsible for our choices then we would not be sinners, god would be

Abel, seriously, there are some really good theological explanations of these things that do not revolve around burning people alive in fire for all of eternity for not believing like you. There really are.

 

[Tzaousios]

And? Monergism and Free Will are compatable. Just never the Pelagian's idea of free will.

This seems like a bait and switch. From countless arguments with chestertonrules I am sure you have been able to tell that he clings to a different idea of "free will" than you and other Calvinists do.

It is a comparison of apples and oranges and will only serve to start the vicious circle over again.

Do you mean the historical sense of the Pelagian's idea of free will or are you using it as a pejorative term to describe anyone's idea about the human will that is not Augustinian or Calvinistic?

There have not been "a few." Augustinianism has been the position of your church the vast majority of history.

Again, synergism is not the only model which includes human responsibility. You are mistaking presence of responsibility for the notion of cooperation, or synergism. Go read Aquinas and you will find he was not a synergist.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article6
If you read that and percieve the doctrine of predestination therein to be different from Reformed predestination in any significant degree, you are misunderstanding monergism.

Half straw man. If God chooses to leave a man in his sin, his hard heart prevents him from being saved, the same way all are saved, by faith. He always "can" do something about it. He "can" believe. He just won't. As Luther put, "We can will, but we don't want to will."

Again, you and chestertonrules are operating from different philosophical and theological paradigms when it comes to the will. I think he understands the difference between monergism and synergism. Why go around the vicious circle yet again and not explain the difference between philosophical "free will" and Calvin's notion of Divine Voluntarism?

 

[PETE_]

Men are free to choose God, they just have no desire to do so because of their sin nature.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Why go around the vicious circle yet again and not explain the difference between philosophical "free will" and Calvin's notion of Divine Voluntarism?

For one, because I'm "Reformed," not "Calvinist," and I'm more familiar with Edwards' position on the will than Calvin's. Edwards' position is a matter of philosophical free will.

 

[Rick Otto]

if it was only gods will then you COULD blame god

if we were not responsible for our choices then we would not be sinners, god would be

Being responsible & being guilty are not always the same thing.

CANONS OF DORDT

Synod of Dordrecht

November 13, 1618 - May 9, 1619

FIRST HEAD OF DOCTRINE. DIVINE ELECTION AND REPROBATION

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 1. As all men have sinned in Adam, lie under the curse, and are deserving of eternal death, God would have done no injustice by leaving them all to perish and delivering them over to condemnation on account of sin, according to the words of the apostle: "that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God." (Rom 3:19). And: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (Rom 3:23). And: "For the wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 2. but in this the love of God was manifested, that He "sent his one and only Son into the world, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (1 John 4:9, John 3:16).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 3. And that men may be brought to believe, God mercifully sends the messengers of these most joyful tiding to whom He will and at what time He pleases; by whose ministry men are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?" (Rom 10:14-15).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 4. The wrath of God abides upon those who believe not this gospel. But such as receive it and embrace Jesus the Savior by a true and living faith are by Him delivered from the wrath of God and from destruction, and have the gift of eternal life conferred upon them.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 5. The cause or guilt of this unbelief as well as of all other sins is no wise in God, but in man himself; whereas faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him is the free gift of God, as it is written: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). Likewise: "For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him" (Phil 1:29)

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 6. That some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God's eternal decree. "For now unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world" (Acts 15:18 A.V.). "who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will" (Eph 1:11). According to which decree He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe; while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men equally involved in ruin; or that decree of election and reprobation, revealed in the Word of God, which, though men of perverse, impure, and unstable minds wrest it to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls affords unspeakable consolation.

.

 

[squint]

Are all men justified? Obviously not. Is every man alive in Christ? Also obviously not. No one is just alive, but not justified.

Since Calvinism does not purport to know who may really be who, there is no way to conclude that all are not alive in Christ. We do all live and move and have our being 'in Him' presently do we not?

Acts 17:
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as thoughhe needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

 

[squint]

<Staff Edit>

What is 'it' would be an interesting display from you I'm sure.

 

[&Abel]

not only do we have a freewill but it takes a great deal of effort of that freewill to be perfected

our nature is to sin...our nature is to die

we have to make the freewill choice to go up against our very nature

I can't think of a clearer example of freedom of a choice

 

[Tzaousios]

For one, because I'm "Reformed," not "Calvinist," and I'm more familiar with Edwards' position on the will than Calvin's. Edwards' position is a matter of philosophical free will.

Yes, but does not Edwards' notion of the will go back to Augustine's in that the divine and human wills are "compatible" in the fixed order of God's Providence, that the human will operates on its main desire (which for the unregenerate is sin), and that God's sovereign plan cannot be thwarted no matter what happens for good or evil?

You said "for one," what about the other comments I made above?

 

[&Abel]

Yes, but does not Edward's notion of the will go back to Augustine's in that the divine and human wills are "compatible" in the fixed order of God's Providence, that the human will operates on its main desire (which for the unregenerate is sin), and that God's sovereign plan cannot be thwarted no matter what happens for good or evil?

You said "for one," what about the other comments I made above?

we are ALL natural sinners

I am creating new desires but I am still predisposed to sinful selfish behavior

 

[PETE_]

Go to the zoo and start feeing the lions hay instead of meat. the lion will starve to death. The lion is free o eat as much straw as it likes and the straw has all the nutrients needed to keep the lion alive, but it will not eat. It does not starve because it is forced but because it is not in it's nature to eat straw.

The same is true of man. We are free to come t God. Nothing is preventing us from making that choice forcibly. It is just not in man's sinful nature to make that choice and turn to God as a result of Adam's fall.

 

[&Abel]

Adam and Eve are the only humans who were born completely free of sinful nature and yet they made a freewill choice to eat

had there been no freewill they would not have sinned

had it only been about what god wanted they would not have eaten that apple

 

[&Abel]

Go to the zoo and start feeing the lions hay instead of meat. the lion will starve to death. The lion is free o eat as much straw as it likes and the straw has all the nutrients needed to keep the lion alive, but it will not eat. It does not starve because it is forced but because it is not in it's nature to eat straw.

The same is true of man. We are free to come t God. Nothing is preventing us from making that choice forcibly. It is just not in man's sinful nature to make that choice and turn to God as a result of Adam's fall.

thats a good analogy

 

[Evergreen48]

Adam and Eve procreated as God set it up from the beginning. That is why all men are sinners because the very first of the Human race sinned. Sin begets sin... Therefore all men are born to die. It is the eternal life that is given by Gods Grace and through His will and choosing. For that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. Which all of the born into Christ are. But one must be born into Christ through the Spirit of God and this is of Gods choosing and not mens works thoughts or actions..It is pure grace

I am confused about this Adam and Eve thing.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make 'adam in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27. So God created 'adam in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1 Kings 8:38 what prayer and supplication soever be made by any 'adam, or by all thy people Israel, who shall know every the plague of his own heart, and spread forth his hands toward this house:

Which 'adam was Eve supposed to procreate with, the one referred to in Genesis 1:26-27, or the 'adam referred to in 1Kings 8:38?

Or the one referred to in Job 5:7 "Yet 'adam is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward."

Or the one referred to in Proverbs 15:20 "A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish 'adam despiseth his mother." . . . . . .

 

[Rick Otto]

Well, I could try, but it won't be pretty, LOL!

Scripture says that God is the Potter and we are the clay.
Compared to a robot, which moves around, makes funky noises computes certain things, and actually gets some stuff done, clay just sits there. Robots, on the other hand, at least create an illusion of something akin to autonomy (provided their batteries are charged on a regular basis).

Long story short, the notion that we are robots is too flattering, if Scripture's statement on the issue is any indicator.

.

Claymation?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHA9thmrI20

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Go to the zoo and start feeing the lions hay instead of meat. the lion will starve to death. The lion is free o eat as much straw as it likes and the straw has all the nutrients needed to keep the lion alive, but it will not eat. It does not starve because it is forced but because it is not in it's nature to eat straw................

Rotherham) Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb, shall feed, in unity, And, the lion, as an ox, shall eat straw; But as for the serpent, dust, shall be his food: They shall not harm--Nor shall they destroy, In all my holy mountain, saith Yahweh.

 

[&Abel]

without freewill Adam and Eve would have been designed so they would never sin, no choice would have been offered because it would have been unneeded

satan wouldn't have rebelled

if you take away man's will then you place blame squarely on god's shoulders

he either screwed up his design or designed us to sin

but he didn't...he created a being with freewill, knowing what would happen only based on the foreknown choice

 

[Evergreen48]

The same is true of man. We are free to come t God. Nothing is preventing us from making that choice forcibly. It is just not in man's sinful nature to make that choice and turn to God as a result of Adam's fall.

Which 'adam fell?

The one referred to in Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed 'adam of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and 'adam became a living soul. 8. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the 'adam whom he had formed.

or the one referred to in Ecclesiastes 7:29 "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made 'adam upright; but they have sought out many inventions." ? ? ?

 

[&Abel]

how amazing is it for god to have created us and yet is not directly responsible for our decisions

this is only possible if the choice and responsibility is on our shoulders

 

[&Abel]

Which 'adam fell?

The one referred to in Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed 'adam of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and 'adam became a living soul. 8. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the 'adam whom he had formed.

or the one referred to in Ecclesiastes 7:29 "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made 'adam upright; but they have sought out many inventions." ? ? ?

Adam is used as a name for the first man and for all mankind

it depends on the context