Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What you try to pass off as Calvinism has no resemblance to what Calvinism actually is, so there is no reason to try and refute it. I doubt that any Calvinist here will waste any time trying to refute straw man arguments, half-truths, and outright misrepresentation.
I do not follow this argument. I do not believe that God is the sole fully sufficient cause of every event in the Universe. In other words, I do believe that there are other "wilfull" agents in the universe (such as human beings) who really do have a measure of "free will".The only Fatal flaw in the predestination theory is the lack of understanding by those who say it cannot be because they place their finite understanding on an infinite God who creation is running just as He planned it too. Everything being already decided by His divine will. Can that be accepted without understanding, YES.
hismessenger
I do not follow this argument. I do not believe that God is the sole fully sufficient cause of every event in the Universe. In other words, I do believe that there are other "wilfull" agents in the universe (such as human beings) who really do have a measure of "free will".
expos4ever said:But I do not hold this position because I think the alternative "cannot be". Of course, it is indeed possible that God fully determines what happens. I just do not see the Scriptures as supporting this view (and there are other problems with it as well).
First of all, I do not accept the premise that God has revealed Himself to be Omnipotent, at least not unless that claim is further explained. I think most people think this means that God can do "anything He wants to do." I think that such a view is probably mistaken - I think that when God makes certain commitments - for example that He will the Universe this way and not that - His own commitments in this respect constrain what He can do in the future. I suspect that in the very act of creation, God imposes limits on His future freedom to act. To get into this in detail is something I do not want to do in this post.I think you're framing the argument in such a way as to lend support to your contrarian view. Given a God who is (as He has revealed Himself to be) Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent, it would not seem reasonable to therefore assume that He is not the source, either permissively or actively of all that is, all that has or will happen, or exerting control and guidance and direction over the actions of men.
It may not align with your brand of Calvinism as who really knows how many versions there might be with each person interpreting for themselves.What you try to pass off as Calvinism has no resemblance to what Calvinism actually is, so there is no reason to try and refute it. I doubt that any Calvinist here will waste any time trying to refute straw man arguments, half-truths, and outright misrepresentation.
When you refer to "what God ordained", you are, by your own argument, clearly not holding the position that God has ordained every event. That's fine, as long as we understand each other on this - you have stated that men have "choices". Fair enough, but this means that God cannot have ordained everything. I think we will agree that those things He actually has ordained cannot be overturned by any choice of man. I have some concerns about your statement about being responsible for choices, but I think that would be a bit of a tangent.God knows this, and utilizes this, thereby causing His Purpose to come to pass while not directly interfering with the choices of men. God can shape those choices by controlling which choices are available, knowing what will be chosen from the choices available, such that men freely choose to do what God has ordained. Thus men are responsible for their choices, and God accomplishes that which He desires.
drew said:But I do not hold this position because I think the alternative "cannot be". Of course, it is indeed possible that God fully determines what happens. I just do not see the Scriptures as supporting this view (and there are other problems with it as well).
I have never written anything remotely close to what you seem to be ascribing to me in this extract from your post. I have no idea who you are addressing here.This is a very liberal mindset, "keeping an open mind", "considering all the possibilities", and ultimately deciding that it doesn't matter exactly what one believes, as long as they believe "something". Allowing that God may indeed "fully determines what happens" sounds good, but underlying this train of thought is the caveat, "but that can't really be the way it is". There has really been no credible alternative to the Calvinist/Reformed view shown here, certainly nothing that would withstand the kind of scrutiny that could and should be brought to bear on it.
When you refer to "what God ordained", you are, by your own argument, clearly not holding the position that God has ordained every event. That's fine, as long as we understand each other on this - you have stated that men have "choices". Fair enough, but this means that God cannot have ordained everything. I think we will agree that those things He actually has ordained cannot be overturned by any choice of man. I have some concerns about your statement about being responsible for choices, but I think that would be a bit of a tangent.
I have never written anything remotely close to what you seem to be ascribing to me in this extract from your post. I have no idea who you are addressing here.
nobdysfool,
It may not align with your brand of Calvinism as who really knows how many versions there might be with each person interpreting for themselves.
But unfortunately, 400 years of Calvinistic theology belies your statement. It is also historical fact of the predominate theology of Calvinism. Maybe you just don't understand the ramifications of such a theology when it is juxaposed alongside of what Scripture actually means and has been understood outside of Calvinism.
RightGIory said:t is not just Calvinism that has become relativistic, but all of protestantism has this fault. It stems from the one thing all protestants have in common. Sola Scriptura. Man, individual man, has become the authority over what he believes, how he believes and in whom he believes from a common source, the Bible. Man can determine his own personal gospel based on his own personal interpretation. Four hundred years and we have so many variations one can hardly count the number today.
RightGlory said:This is why you have just stated, that this is not what I believe. So what, thousands believe differently solely on the basis of their personal interpretation. It is why one cannot speak for another christian today because no one knows what the other christian believes. Yet, Christianity is a unified faith, a single faith and has always been so. What I explain today would have been fully understood by someone in the early Church. I can speak for all Christians the world over and they would all know of what I am saying. It is because Christianity is a universal Gospel, given once, for all, for all time. It has been preserved, unchanged, by the Holy Spirit in time.
RightGlory said:It is quite obvious, reasonable, and logical to assume that it was not man that was able to do this over a 2000 year period.
We have such an opposite example in just 500 years with the Roman Catholic Church, but the best example of man being in charge is protestantism for the next 500 years.
RightGlory said:This does not misrepresent Calvinism in the least. Calvinism stands on its own in whatever version a person would like to to be. But when explained within the Gospel as it was proclaimed by the Apostles, preserved in time by the Holy Spirit to this day, Calvinism is a very long way from that Gospel. That you disagree is a free choice you have as a human being. That is why you are discussing it today. It is called Calvinism or Reformed Theology, it is called that because it is a version of the real Gospel which does not bear a man's signature. It is the Gospel according to Christ. It is not Paul's Gospel or Peter's or Apollos and surely not Calvin's or Luther's or any other protestant's interpretation of that Gospel.
expos4ever said:When you refer to "what God ordained", you are, by your own argument, clearly not holding the position that God has ordained every event. That's fine, as long as we understand each other on this - you have stated that men have "choices". Fair enough, but this means that God cannot have ordained everything. I think we will agree that those things He actually has ordained cannot be overturned by any choice of man. I have some concerns about your statement about being responsible for choices, but I think that would be a bit of a tangent.
This is a difficult issue to talk about since we all need to be exceedingly precise in our terminology. I will try to be as precise as possible and explain exactly what I mean. Consider this assertion:Actually, the statements are not mutually exclusive, as you seem to want to believe. There is no necessary conflict between God ordaining everything and men freely choosing.
This argument has some appeal but I do not think it works. Your argument here, I suggest, gets its appeal from the presumption that if "one little thing" is out of God's control, that disturbance is propagated through time and will interfere with God's future plans in a kind of domino effect.If God didn't ordain everything, ultimately, then it is unavoidable that God's Creation is subject to randomness beyond His control or intent. He must continually apply "correction" and "adjustments" to keep it moving in the general direction that He wants, but He can only ordain certain events, and even those are subject to the force of randomness. I have heard it argued that the crucifixion was ordained, but the events leading up to it were not. That makes no logical sense. Stop and think about it.
Cygnus,
Maybe the problem you have with faith is your definition or how man uses faith.
Men such as Enoch, Noah, Rahab, Abraham and Cornelius all had faith. They had a knowledge of God and then believed in it. We can believe IN something but we also need to believe in the sense of trust or reliance.
All men have the first, but what they do with that knowledge in accepting and to rely upon it makes a believer. Faith of this kind is built upon reason. One must have reason to trust in that which he has knowledge of.
Jesus as He began His ministry clearly assumed that all men could believe. The Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the Gospel. Mark 1:15
All through His ministry Jesus asked men to believe. Believe in Him. After Pentacost, the Holy Spirit is poured out upon all flesh. All men are being called by the Holy Spirit. It would be impossible to believe if man did not have the knowledge of God, which Paul says all men have, and that God is requiring of all men to make a choice. Use the faith given to believe. Accept Christ this day, NOW! Paul alludes to it in Rom 12:3.
Christ redeemed mankind, freeing mankind from the bondage to death and sin which had held man captive. All men have the ability and capability to respond to Christ. That ability and responsibility will be charged to them at the judgement. God is not capricious in that He demands of man something that they cannot do and then hold them responsible for it.
This may not fit your reformed theology but it does align with scripture and as scripture has been understood since the beginning with the Apostles.
This is a difficult issue to talk about since we all need to be exceedingly precise in our terminology. I will try to be as precise as possible and explain exactly what I mean. Consider this assertion:
A1: All events that occur are have only one and only one wilfull agent as their fully sufficient cause - God.
This assertion cannot be reconciled with the view that man has free will. By the very nature of the assertion A1, man cannot have free will. There are no issues of perspective here. If A1, as written, is true, man cannot have free will.
Why? Because unless man can have a wilfully determining role in respect to at least partially causing some event, then, by the very definition of free will, man does not have free will.
the fact that all men have a knowledge of God has never been open to any dispute on these forums , the idea that all men have faith , even when scripture says "all men do not have faith " IS open to objection , thus far you have failed to do what I asked , show from scripture that all men have faith ....... and I am still waiting .
as for the rest of your post/s you are wandering about in the mud = implying you are looking for a fight , rabbit trails like objecting to a "capricious god " who isn't existant and no man follows such a sham.....
try , I know it must be difficult for you , but please try and leave all that bagage behind , this is not a thread about Calvinism . nor is it a thread about the "infallibility" of you or your Church , if you wish to debate either of those items and how diversity exists with infallibility , just start YOUR OWN thread.
e4e said:But I do not hold this position because I think the alternative "cannot be". Of course, it is indeed possible that God fully determines what happens. I just do not see the Scriptures as supporting this view (and there are other problems with it as well).
nobdysfool said:This is a very liberal mindset, "keeping an open mind", "considering all the possibilities", and ultimately deciding that it doesn't matter exactly what one believes, as long as they believe "something". Allowing that God may indeed "fully determines what happens" sounds good, but underlying this train of thought is the caveat, "but that can't really be the way it is". There has really been no credible alternative to the Calvinist/Reformed view shown here, certainly nothing that would withstand the kind of scrutiny that could and should be brought to bear on it.
e4e said:I have never written anything remotely close to what you seem to be ascribing to me in this extract from your post. I have no idea who you are addressing here.
I do not believe I have ever claimed that my position will not lead to logical problems. If you can find any, please point them out. But, despite what you wrote above, I never said anything remotely implying that "that it doesn't matter exactly what one believes, as long as they believe "something"" If you believe that my thinking leads to such a conclusion it is, of course, incumbent on you to make that case. Same with your implication that underlying my thinking is "the caveat, "but that can't really be the way it is". The only things you know about what I think are the things I write. If you can point to something I have written and show that the necessary underlying thinking is a denial of the possibility that the Calvinist position is correct, by all means give us the evidence.I can see that it's quite possible that you aren't aware of where your thinking leads to logically. That's not a slam, that's just making my own observation.
You made entirely unsubstantiated claims about my "liberal mindset" thinking and what I believe. Please support your claims or withdraw them.It is equally obvious that you find some of my conclusions and extensions of what I perceive you to be saying to be offensive to you. If I am not understanding you correctly, please show me why, rather than just say "I have no idea who you are addressing here". You know very well I am addressing what I perceive you to be saying.
There is so much to legitimately engage in what you post that, indeed, I have been a little light on what position I hold - at least not at the point in time at which you made this observation.As I have pointed out before, I think you need to start fleshing out your alternative views, rather than just defining them by what you oppose. I mean no disrespect, I am just tired of having to deal with straw men and misunderstood views, and want to see some real substance from you as to what you actually do believe.
e4e said:This is a difficult issue to talk about since we all need to be exceedingly precise in our terminology. I will try to be as precise as possible and explain exactly what I mean. Consider this assertion:
A1: All events that occur are have only one and only one wilfull agent as their fully sufficient cause - God.
This assertion cannot be reconciled with the view that man has free will. By the very nature of the assertion A1, man cannot have free will. There are no issues of perspective here. If A1, as written, is true, man cannot have free will.
Why? Because unless man can have a wilfully determining role in respect to at least partially causing some event, then, by the very definition of free will, man does not have free will.
I never stated that the position that I am critiquing is a position you hold.Your analogy fails at the point of its inception, because it does not correctly describe my view, or the Calvinist view. I reject the analogy, because it has no relevance.
I agree that I should provide a definition of free will.The next thing that needs to be done, is to define not only what free will is, in your view, but what it is not. Until that has been defined, the discussion will waste time chasing down rabbit trails and false views of the other's beliefs.
I never stated that the position that I am critiquing is a position you hold.
I presented a view and critiqued it. This is part of an effort to converge on an understanding that is workable. I was very intentional in not ascribing this view to you or any other specific poster.
expos4ever said:I agree that I should provide a definition of free will.
It is obviously possible for agents in this universe to act freely, unless you believe that God does not act freely (perhaps you do, I will be interested to read what you say about this).
expos4ever said:Here is my definition:
expos4ever said:"A decision X on the part of entity A can be said to at least partly arise by A's free will if any of the causal mechanisms that lead to X are not themselves exhaustively (fully) caused by forces outside A"
I know this may seem complex, but I think it says exactly what I beleive to be the case.
expos4ever said:There is a tricky aspect of this: Let's say that the entity in question is a person. Let's say they are born in a state where they are "programmed" to respond to seeing a juicy steak by salivating. While the faculty that "causes" the salivating is "inside the person" - part of their constitution - that faculty is the way it is because of the "programmer" that programmed them to salivate. And that programmer is a force "outside" the person. So when such a person salivates, it is not a free will act by my definition.
expos4ever said:Free will is a tricky concept. But unless one believes that God "has no control over what He does", one almost certainly must accept the reality of free will as a concept, even if you ascribe it only to God.
expos4ever said:I suspect that some who reject "freewill" leverage the appeal of "everything must be caused by something else" notion, and reason that there can be nothing that a person can ultimately "freely" choose to do (since that thing would be caused by something else). Well that indeed has appeal. But I think that if one believes in a God, whose very actions are not fully caused by something else, then one has to bite the bullet and accept the notion of human free will as a possibility.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?