How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Brother-Mike]

Could I understand better?
BM,,,why do we have to hear from James White and Charles Spurgeon?

Why can't we hear from scripture, which is God's word to us, plain and simple with no spin put on it?

Would you agree with me that the ONLY men we should pay any attention to would be the Early Church Fathers?
That would be the early theologians up till 325AD.

Why would anyone now know more than them??

They didn't believe in eternal unconditional security (OSAS) or predestination, BTW.

In time young Jedi - I did also say that I would summarize in my own words if for whatever reason you’re not interested in Spurgeon. I’m likely going to be free enough to respond by this afternoon. Repent for your lack of patience in the meantime

 

[GodsGrace101]

In time young Jedi - I did also say that I would summarize in my own words if for whatever reason you’re not interested in Spurgeon. I’m likely going to be free enough to respond by this afternoon. Repent for your lack of patience in the meantime

I respect Charles Spurgeon but I don't use him for my belief system. That's reserved for God's revelation of Himself in scripture, especially the NT.
The ultimate revelation.
I do not respect James White.
I don't lack patience...

 

[Clare73]

To begin with the text says "all men" and not "all types of men". Assuming that Paul who wrote half of the NT had a lapse in precision and meant "all types of men" in 1 Timothy 2:4, then that would also need be the context in surrounding verses 1 Timothy 2:1, 1 Timothy 2:2, and 1 Timothy 2:6. In particular, how much sense does it make for Paul to tell Timothy to pray for "all types of men" in 1 Timothy 2:1? It would sound like mush. The whole passage of 1 Timothy 2:1-6 makes much more sense if Paul was telling Timothy is to pray for "all men".

When you understand Ex 4:21-22; i.e., God both commanded Pharaoh to "Let my people go," and likewise hardened his heart so that he would not obey, then you will understand 1Ti 2:1-6.

 

[JAL]

When you understand Ex 4:21-22; i.e., God both commanded Pharaoh to "Let my people go," and likewise hardened his heart so that he would not obey, then you will understand 1Ti 2:1-6.

Classic Clare-style posting. A couple of problems with your style, at least now and then.

...(1) Please don't speak to us in riddles. Please don't tell us, "If you understand passage-A, then you will understand passage-B". It would be much more helpful if you make your reasoning explicit. It's hard to respond if we are not 100% sure what your logic is.

...(2) From what I've seen, you occasionally "decide" upon a particular unjust reading of a verse as the ONLY possible interpretation, and then use THAT injustice as a basis for defending another injustice (such as Calvinism itself). Here again, that's why we need explicit information from you, to check your logic. Which leads to point 3.

....(3) Since God is holy, there is NO EXCUSE for an unjust reading of a passage. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY - your homework - to find a fair and just interpretation of Ex 4:21-22. To get the ball rolling, I'll start with my own reading of it. In my view, each of us is a physical piece of Adam's soul. As such, we lost our rights in the Fall. Therefore God is at liberty to harden my heart, causing me to do evil, as long as He stays within particular boundaries:
....(A) He cannot punish me beyond what I, by free will, merited in Adam and thereafter. In other words the extra hardening doesn't COMPOUND my total guilt since that part is HIS doing.
...(B) The evil that He causes me to do also cannot inflict/compound suffering beyond what my victims themselves already merited in Adam.

Ok now that we've seen Ex 4:21-22 to be perfectly fair and just, could you please clarify your point? How specifically are you comparing it to 1Ti 2:1-6?

 

[Clare73]

Classic Clare-style posting.

Indeed!. . .presenting you with Scripture itself to deal with.
And I note your criticism of its "style" to divert from addressing the Scriptures presented.

A couple of problems with your style, at least now and then.

Seems civil enough. . .is it the style. . .or is it the Scriptures with which you have problems?

...(1) Please don't speak to us in riddles. Please don't tell us, "If you understand passage-A, then you will understand passage-B". It would be much more helpful if you make your reasoning explicit. It's hard to respond if we are not 100% sure what your logic is.

God "contradicted" himself with Pharaoh. . .but was it really a contradiction?

You see Scriptural contradiction between 1Ti 2:4 and 1Pe 1:2. . .but is it really a contradiction?

I'm suggesting if you were actually more familiar with the infinite divine nature, these things would be apparent to you.

...(2) From what I've seen, you occasionally "decide" upon a particular unjust reading of a verse as the ONLY possible interpretation

You object because it does not agree with your human sentiments, but I note your failure to provide Biblical demonstration of any other interpretation.

and then use THAT injustice as a basis for defending another injustice (such as Calvinism itself). Here again, that's why we need explicit information from you, to check your logic. Which leads to point 3.

I defend Paul in the NT, not Calvin.
That puts you saying they are the same. . .I have no objection to that.

....(3) Since God is holy, there is NO EXCUSE for an unjust reading of a passage. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY - your homework - to find a fair and just interpretation of Ex 4:21-22.

Who made that rule?
Fair and just according to whom, you. . .or God?

And you have just made my point. . .and which is where we differ.
You assume what Scripture states can be unjust. . .based on your finite view of infinite justice.
I submit that it is you who is in error, that God is both correct and just in those Scriptures, just as they are stated.
I submit that God addresses that issue in Isa 55:8-9.
Ours is to accept and believe, not to judge it.

To get the ball rolling, I'll start with my own reading of it. In my view, each of us is a physical piece of Adam's soul. As such, we lost our rights in the Fall. Therefore God is at liberty to harden my heart, causing me to do evil, as long as He stays within particular boundaries:

Scriptural basis for these "rights"?
Another one of your self-authorized notions.

....(A) He cannot punish me beyond what I, by free will, merited in Adam and thereafter. In other words the extra hardening doesn't COMPOUND my total guilt since that part is HIS doing.

Scriptural basis for "free will" as a divine governing principle?
Please provide Scriptural support for "free will" being the basis of guilt or innocence with God.

...(B) The evil that He causes me to do also cannot inflict/compound suffering beyond what my victims themselves already merited in Adam.

Another self-made finite human notion by which you seek to govern the infinite God.

Ok now that we've seen Ex 4:21-22 to be perfectly fair and just, could you please clarify your point? How specifically are you comparing it to 1Ti 2:1-6?

You have not Biblically demonstrated it to be "fair and just". . .nor is "fair" a Biblical concept. . .nor "just" to be judged by man.
You have simply constructed your own rationale for such.

And so to the homework. . .the MY RESPONSIBILITY to explain. . .which you so emphatically require of me.
You will recognize the "classic Clare-style posting" therein (criticized because of your inability to address the Scriptures it employs).

The solution to your dilemma lies in Dt 29:29. . .God's secret will and God's revealed will.
God's revealed will for Pharaoh ("Let my people go") was not his secret will for Pharaoh (to "harden his heart so that he will not let the people go," Ex 4:21).

Because God is sovereign (Da 4:35),
he can ordain in his secret will (Ex 9:12, Jdg 9:23, 1 Sa 18:10, 1 Kgs 22:23, Eze 14:9, Mt 18:7, Mk 14:21, Jn 13:27, Ac 2:23, Ac 4:28)
that which is contrary to his revealed will (Ex 9:13, Eze 18:32, Mk 1:15, Ac 17:30, 1Ti 2:4, 1Ti 4:10, 2Pe 3:9).

That God's revealed will to repent, to believe, to be saved (Eze 18:32, Mk 1:15, Ac 17:30, 1Ti 2:4, 2Pe 3:9, etc.) is disobeyed
does not mean God's secret will is not done (Mt 18:7, Mk 14:21, Jn 13:27, Ac 2:23, Ac 4:28, Ac 13:48).

When Scripture indicates that something happens contrary to God's will (Ex 9:17), it is contrary to God's revealed will (Ex 9:13).
Nothing is contrary to God's secret will (Ex 4:21, Ps 33:10, Pr 20:24, Isa 8:10, Isa 14:24, Lam 3:37, Ac 4:28) .

When Scripture speaks of God acting unwillingly (Lam 3:33, Eze 18:23, Eze 18:32, Eze 33:11, Hos 11:8, 1Ti 2:4, 2Pe 3:9),
that is not saying that God does what he does not wish, but is saying that he does not do it from the heart (which is what the word is).
That is, he does not dispense his discipline and judgment as he dispenses his favor--for his mere pleasure (Lk 1:21, Lk 1:32, Jn 3:8,
Jn 5:21, Eph 1:5, 9, Rev 4:11), but he chastens because we need it and judges because men deserve it.

And when Scripture reveals what God has forbidden men to do, that is not to say God is forbidden to do it.
Man is forbidden to take revenge (Lev 19:18), to judge (Mt 7:11), and to retaliate (Lk 6:29),
while God revenges (Ro 12:19), judges (1Pe 4:5) and retaliates (1 Sa 15:2-3).

While Scripture shows that God's secret will for men (Ex 10:1-2, Ex 11:9-10, Ex 14:4, Ex 14:17) is not always the same as
his revealed will for men (Ex 9:13-16), it is his revealed will that is to govern men's actions. His secret will governs his actions.
Sometimes these will coincide, as they did for Paul (Ac 9:15-16); sometimes they do not, as they did not for Pharaoh (Ex 4:21-23).
But mankind will be judged by the revealed will of God, and not by the secret will of God (Dt 29:29).

And now you have a Biblical reading of Ex 4:21-23, demonstrating its "justness" in the sovereignty of God who "does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the people of the earth." (Da 4:35)

 

[GodsGrace101]

Classic Clare-style posting. A couple of problems with your style, at least now and then.

...(1) Please don't speak to us in riddles. Please don't tell us, "If you understand passage-A, then you will understand passage-B". It would be much more helpful if you make your reasoning explicit. It's hard to respond if we are not 100% sure what your logic is.

...(2) From what I've seen, you occasionally "decide" upon a particular unjust reading of a verse as the ONLY possible interpretation, and then use THAT injustice as a basis for defending another injustice (such as Calvinism itself). Here again, that's why we need explicit information from you, to check your logic. Which leads to point 3.

....(3) Since God is holy, there is NO EXCUSE for an unjust reading of a passage. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY - your homework - to find a fair and just interpretation of Ex 4:21-22. To get the ball rolling, I'll start with my own reading of it. In my view, each of us is a physical piece of Adam's soul. As such, we lost our rights in the Fall. Therefore God is at liberty to harden my heart, causing me to do evil, as long as He stays within particular boundaries:
....(A) He cannot punish me beyond what I, by free will, merited in Adam and thereafter. In other words the extra hardening doesn't COMPOUND my total guilt since that part is HIS doing.
...(B) The evil that He causes me to do also cannot inflict/compound suffering beyond what my victims themselves already merited in Adam.

Ok now that we've seen Ex 4:21-22 to be perfectly fair and just, could you please clarify your point? How specifically are you comparing it to 1Ti 2:1-6?

Re your number 3:
Just to add for your consideration:

Exodus 4:21
21And the LORD told Moses, “When you arrive back in Egypt, go to Pharaoh and perform all the miracles I have empowered you to do. But I will harden his heart so he will refuse to let the people go.

Exodus 7:3
3But I will make Pharaoh’s heart stubborn so I can multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in the land of Egypt.

Exodus 8:32
32But Pharaoh again became stubborn and refused to let the people go.
or
32But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and he did not let the people go.

So did God make Pharaoh's heart hard,
or did he make his own heart hard?
I compare this to,
Romans 1:24
24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.


In Exodus God gives Pharoah over to his own lusts (of power) to show that God is powerful (with the curses).
In Romans this is allowed by God to dishonor those that were sexually immoral.

In each case, it's the person himself that CAUSES the hardening of the heart...
God just allows it to happen and declares that it is done,
much as God declares that we are justified by a judicial act, and so it is with the hardening of the heart.
It's a judicial act based on the free will of the person.

 

[Brother-Mike]

BM,,,why do we have to hear from James White and Charles Spurgeon?

I can't speak about James White - I haven't referred to him (yet ).
If in the course of discussion one stumbles upon some text from a third-party that quite precisely matches my sentiment is it not acceptable to quote or link them? Am I expected to hand-craft exactly the same message? I don't expect you too, for what it's worth.

Would you agree with me that the ONLY men we should pay any attention to would be the Early Church Fathers?
That would be the early theologians up till 325AD.

I disagree. To me the Bible has final authority over anything produced by any third-party. Calvin has no special privilege over Augustine. Augustine has no special privilege over The Buddha. All claims and argumentation by any third-party are measured against scripture, and it might be that SOME claims by The Buddha ring true while (presumably) the vast majority do not. I can "eat the fruit and spit out the seeds".

Why would anyone now know more than them??

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them." - Romans 1:19

Origen has no special claim to insight, and frankly is handicapped by missing out on the millennia of deep scholarly analysis and access to breadth of knowledge that a modern scholar has.

 

[JAL]

Indeed!. . .presenting you with Scripture itself to deal with.

Seems civil enough. . .is it the style. . .or the Scriptures?

God "contradicted" himself with Pharaoh. . .but was it really a contradiction?

You see Scriptural contradiction between 1Ti 2:6 and Jn 3:18. . .but is it really a contradiction?

I defend Paul in the NT, not Calvin.
That puts you saying they are the same. . .I have no objection to that.

Who made that rule?

And you have just made my point. . .and which is where we differ.
You assume what Scripture states can be unjust. . .based on your view of justice.
I submit that it is you who are in error, that God is both correct and just in those Scriptures, just as they are stated.
I submit that God addresses that issue in Isa 55:8-9.
Ours is to accept and believe, not to judge it.

Scriptural basis for these "rights"?

Scriptural basis for "free will" as a governing principle?

How did this get to be about you?
The Scripture is about Pharaoh.

You have not Biblically demonstrated such. . .nor is "fair" a Biblical concept. . .nor "just" to be judged by man.
You have simply constructed your own rationale for such.

And so to the homework. . .the MY RESPONSIBILITY to explain. . .which you so emphatically require of me.
You will recognize the "classic Clare-style posting" therein.

The solution to your dilemma lies in Dt 29:29. . .God's secret will and God's revealed will.
God's revealed will for Pharaoh ("Let my people go") was not his secret will for Pharaoh (to harden his heart so that he would not let them go).

Because God is sovereign (Da 4:35),
he can ordain in his secret will (Ex 9:12, Jdg 9:23, 1 Sa 18:10, 1 Kgs 22:23, Eze 14:9, Mt 18:7, Mk 14:21, Jn 13:27, Ac 2:23, Ac 4:28)
that which is contrary to his revealed will (Ex 9:13, Eze 18:32, Mk 1:15, Ac 17:30, 1Ti 2:4, 1Ti 4:10, 2Pe 3:9).

That God's revealed will to repent, to believe, to be saved (Eze 18:32, Mk 1:15, Ac 17:30, 1Ti 2:4, 2Pe 3:9, etc.) is disobeyed
does not mean God's secret will is not done (Mt 18:7, Mk 14:21, Jn 13:27, Ac 2:23, Ac 4:28, Ac 13:48).

When Scripture indicates that something happens contrary to God's will (Ex 9:17), it is contrary to God's revealed will (Ex 9:13).
Nothing is contrary to God's secret will (Ex 4:21, Ps 33:10, Pr 20:24, Isa 8:10, Isa 14:24, Lam 3:37, Ac 4:28) .

When Scripture speaks of God acting unwillingly (Lam 3:33, Eze 18:23, Eze 18:32, Eze 33:11, Hos 11:8, 1Ti 2:4, 2Pe 3:9),
that is not saying that God does what he does not wish, but is saying that he does not do it from the heart (which is what the word is).
That is, he does not dispense his discipline and judgment as he dispenses his favor--for his mere pleasure (Lk 1:21, Lk 1:32, Jn 3:8,
Jn 5:21, Eph 1:5, 9, Rev 4:11), but he chastens because we need it and judges because men deserve it.

And when Scripture reveals what God has forbidden men to do, that is not to say God is forbidden to do it.
Man is forbidden to take revenge (Lev 19:18), to judge (Mt 7:11), and to retaliate (Lk 6:29),
while God revenges (Ro 12:19), judges (1Pe 4:5) and retaliates (1 Sa 15:2-3).

While Scripture shows that God's secret will for men (Ex 10:1-2, Ex 11:9-10, Ex 14:4, Ex 14:17) is not always the same as
his revealed will for men (Ex 9:13-16), it is his revealed will that is to govern men's actions. His secret will governs his actions.
Sometimes these will coincide, as they did for Paul (Ac 9:15-16); sometimes they do not, as for Pharaoh (Ex 4:21-23).
But mankind will be judged by the revealed will of God, and not by the secret will of God (Dt 29:29).

And now you have the Biblical reading of Ex 4:21-22 demonstrating its "justness" in the sovereignty of God.

Your argument seems to be:
...(1) God commanded Pharoah to obey
....(2) but secretly it was His will for Pharoah to disobey.

That's a pretty reasonable conclusion. However, Pharoah wasn't a believer standing in God's favor. As a reprobate man, he was an excellent candidate to be used as an instrument of divine judgment. You can't convincingly apply the same principles to the Pauline epistles.
....(1) Those epistles are addressed to believers who generally ARE standing in God's favor.
....(2) You can't convincingly argue that God "secretly" wanted believers to disobey Paul's commands.

If I misunderstood your logic, please advise.

 

[Clare73]

Your argument seems to be:
...(1) God commanded Pharoah to obey
....(2) but secretly it was His will for Pharoah to disobey.

That's a pretty reasonable conclusion. However, Pharoah wasn't a believer standing in God's favor. As a reprobate man, he was an excellent candidate to be used as instrument of divine judgment. You can't convincingly apply the same principles to the Pauline epistles.
....(1) Those epistles are addressed to believers who generally ARE standing in God's favor.

You can if they refer to anyone who is not a believer at the time.

....(2) You can't convincingly argue that God "secretly" wanted believers to disobey Paul's commands.

You can if they refer to anyone who is not a believer at the time.

If I misunderstood your logic, please advise.

My logic is you contradict your own argument when you limit Paul's statements to believers.

 

[JAL]

You can if they refer to anyone who is not a believer at the time.

You can if they refer to anyone who is not a believer at the time.

My logic is you contradict your own argument when you limit Paul's statements to believers.

By all accounts, Paul's epistles express God's will for the church, and thus for believers. So when Paul says he wants men to intercede for everyone, we can safely presume he wants - and God wants - all believers to pray.

Apparently your argument is, "As for the unbelievers prayed for, God secretly wants them to remain unsaved."

Let me start with this. God's standards often require a LOT of intercessory prayer to get one man saved. And the harder the heart, the more prayer needed. In my opinion, God knew that much prayer was never going to happen for Pharoah in his lifetime. Pharoah was a lost cause. You cannot reliably use Pharoah, then, to conclude that secretly God wants all unbelievers to remain in their sin.

Accordingly, God didn't express optimism in this regard. God didn't say, "Pharoah will release Israel with such softness of heart that they will never have to face him again."

Whereas 1 Tim 2 IS INDEED an explicit expression of optimism. It clearly implies that virtually anyone (with the exception of lost causes like Pharoah) CAN be saved. It's asking us to pray with optimism. You cannot convincingly argue that "secretly" God renders all these prayers futile by ignoring them.

 

[JAL]

@Clare73,

When you have to go so far as to appeal to God's "secret" will to defend Calvinism (a clandestine/esoteric agenda contrary to the explicit agenda), it makes Calvinism seem like a bit of a reach/stretch, to put it mildly.

 

[Brother-Mike]

@Mark Quayle,
@Brother-Mike,

Imagine a scientist who genetically pre-engineered 7 of his 10 kids to perform evil atrocities unleashing catastrophic suffering upon humanity. He engineered the remaining 3 kids to be model citizens. He does this for his own glory.

When all is said and done, you are appointed, as a human judge or juror, to pass sentence on both:

...(1) The 7 evil kids. You will need to restrain them, to protect society, but would you consider them (A) evil or (B) criminally insane and thus effectively innocent?

...(2). The geneticist himself. Are his actions praiseworthy? Or reprehensible?

As much as possible, let's try to leave Christianity and the Bible out of this analogy so I can get a more objective sense of your personal feelings and ethics. Obviously I am trying to find out if there is a double-standard in your views of divine ethics versus human ethics.

Thanks in advance for any candor on this topic.

I appreciate your taking the time to write this and applaud extracting the issue from a proof-text artillery duel to something like a thought experiment

So, some thoughts:

1. Let me start by stating what I believe to be the obvious: the Bible, especially in matters of freedom, the nature of evil and the Divine Plan (and maybe 87 other topics), is complex and nuanced. Someone who insists on holding on to a "God controls every single atom" view must face and contend with the vast number of verses that point in the other direction. And vice-versa. In the same way that The Trinity can have no 100% real-world analogy I would suggest that the nature of God's judgement and interrelation with creaturely-freedom (would it help if I defined this? I'm presuming anyone Calvinist or arguing-against-a-Calvinist understands this concept, albeit maybe disagrees) doesn't quite map perfectly to your scenario. Some of my points are documenting the areas of misfit.
2. You say "let's try to leave Christianity and the Bible out", which I agree is a noble intent.
3. By stating that the 7 performed "evil" atrocities however, you are importing God. Without God, an action has no standard to be measured "evil", in the same way that later you say the 3 were "model". Minor point - maybe I just like doing my Greg Bahnsen impersonation - but goes to show how hard it is to extract God from the picture.
4. "He does this for his own glory" - again, an importation of Christianity. But I get the point.
5. The "evil" kids are neither evil nor insane. They are robots.
6. But the "model" kids are likewise not good. They are robots too.
7. The scientist is guilty of building 7 harmful robots and praiseworthy for building 3 beneficial robots.
8. But points 5+6, about the nature of the kids, is not reflective of my belief. I don't believe in robot people. I have been granted enough creaturely-freedom to convincingly and effectively present a reality to me where I seem to have choice. I can believe, or not. I can do evil, or good. The pervasiveness of this freedom, shared by us all, is enough to imbue responsibility on my actions. If someone steals my wallet I experience anger and seek justice. I don't shrug my shoulders and say "Robots... just following their programming."
9. i.e. your entire scenario presupposes beings that are purely robots, so to that extent any findings you may derive risk being implicitly tainted.
10. So the hinge point really underlying my belief is that the following two are both simultaneously true: 1) God foreordained the entire movie from before Creation. Every actor, every falling bird, every subatomic particle. He wrote the script for the Holocaust, and it's demise. But writing the end of Abel and actually crushing his head with a rock are not the same - and 2) God created us as creatures to have our own freedom to make decisions, to act within this world with a sense of agency that seems to banish any possibility of predestination. But at the end of time, in the New Earth, if you travelled to the great crystalline archives and found your part of the script, you'd find that it was written before Creation, and it contained every little step and action that you were so sure was only yours.
11. All of this is partly why I'm reticent to be too critical of the Arminians. They're not wrong in any way other than excluding that a Sovereign predestinating God could have scripted the whole show.
12. Finally, my own little scenario (I'm sure I'm not the first to think it but danged if I can't find an earlier citation) would go something like this: You're part of a science experiment. The scientist implants a device in your brain, allowing him to change any of your decisions at his discretion. When he uses the device you cannot tell - it still feels like it was your decision. So the scientist puts an apple and a banana in front of you and asks you to choose one. You choose the banana. Did you really? Are you just a robot now? Certainly some of your own choices would be genuine, and the ones that were changed still feel genuine. You never feel violated or thwarted. What if discovering your script in the New Earth is a bit like finding out that the implant was there all along, from before you were delivered?

EDIT: PS @Clare73 and @Mark Quayle - be honest, how many heresy-points did I just commit? 17 is my all time single-post record!

 

[Clare73]

@Clare73,

When you have to go so far as to appeal to God's "secret" will to defend Calvinism (a clandestine/esoteric agenda contrary to the explicit agenda), it makes Calvinism seem like a bit of a reach/stretch, to put it mildly.

Silly me. . .I thought the word of God was always a legitimate appeal. . .particularly when the Bible indicates both that
God would have all men to be saved (1Ti 2:4) and
God chooses only some (not all) people to be saved (1Pe 1:2).

Imagine that! . . .appealing to God's word to explain the seeming disparity . . .outrageous! . . tsk, tsk, tsk.

 

[JAL]

Silly me. . .I thought the word of God was always a legitimate appeal.

As I see it, you and I have no direct access to Scripture - only to our fallible translations and interpretations. Some interpretations are more plausible than others.

 

[Fervent]

1. But points 5+6, about the nature of the kids, is not reflective of my belief. I don't believe in robot people. I have been granted enough creaturely-freedom to convincingly and effectively present a reality to me where I seem to have choice. I can believe, or not. I can do evil, or good. The pervasiveness of this freedom, shared by us all, is enough to imbue responsibility on my actions. If someone steals my wallet I experience anger and seek justice. I don't shrug my shoulders and say "Robots... just following their programming."

The trouble with this is your being responsible for your actions hinges on the choice being available to you. That cannot simultaneously be held with Total Inability/Total Depravity or whatever you want to call the Augustinian anthropology. If there is in reality no choice available to you, you are not responsible for failing to make the choice, instead whoever rendered you incapable is culpable. Whether that be God or Adam, I suppose is an open question, but then how could Adam be faulted if he had no knowledge of good and evil? By its very nature the doctrinal system posits a God that punishes individual's for lacking a critical capacity He denied them, and makes a mockery of all those passages you mention that speak of creaturely freedom.

 

[Brother-Mike]

To begin with the text says "all men" and not "all types of men". Assuming that Paul who wrote half of the NT had a lapse in precision and meant "all types of men" in 1 Timothy 2:4, then that would also need be the context in surrounding verses 1 Timothy 2:1, 1 Timothy 2:2, and 1 Timothy 2:6. In particular, how much sense does it make for Paul to tell Timothy to pray for "all types of men" in 1 Timothy 2:1? It would sound like mush. The whole passage of 1 Timothy 2:1-6 makes much more sense if Paul was telling Timothy is to pray for "all men".

John,

See here if you already haven't for perhaps a bit of background on my overall perspective. But to this topic at hand:

1. As already stated I'm not hugely in love with "all types of men". I'm much more inclined to go with Spurgeon/MacArthur who directly face "all men".
2. However, even with an "all men" perspective, the "for kings and all who are in high positions" clause is odd. Why clarify if you've already stated "all men"? I like all fruit and apples? How do you understand that clause?
3. Cognitively I have to have space for something like "God's desire may be different than his actual execution of his will". The writer-director of the movie very much loves his characters (they were his creation after all and he's intending to party with the actors after the film is wrapped) but he's also focused on good storytelling. Paul is saying to Timothy "Pray for all people" because "Pray just for some" doesn't work. And it's "Pray for all people because God wants them all to be saved" without needing to state that still it's clear that not all WILL be saved, lest you descend into universalism.
4. Spurgeon: "It is God’s wish that the sick should not suffer. Do you doubt it? Is it not your own wish? And yet the Lord does not work a miracle to heal every sick person. It is God’s wish that his creatures should be happy. Do you deny that? He does not interpose by any miraculous agency to make us all happy, and yet it would be wicked to suppose that he does not wish the happiness of all the creatures that he has made."
5. MacArthur: "The Greek word for desires is not that which normally expresses God’s will of decree (His eternal purpose), but God’s will of desire. There is a distinction between God’s desire and His eternal saving purpose, which must transcend His desires. God does not want people to sin. He hates sin with all His being (Pss. 5:4; 45:7); thus, He hates its consequences—eternal wickedness in hell. God does not want people to remain wicked forever in eternal remorse and hatred of Himself. Yet, God, for His own glory, and to manifest that glory in wrath, chose to endure “vessels … prepared for destruction” for the supreme fulfillment of His will (Rom. 9:22)."

 

[John Mullally]

When you understand Ex 4:21-22; i.e., God both commanded Pharaoh to "Let my people go," and likewise hardened his heart so that he would not obey, then you will understand 1Ti 2:1-6.

When will you understand to be explicit in your reasoning. As is frequently the case I am left guessing as to the connection you are making as you frequently post scripture without explanation. I don't see any connection here: In Exodus 4:21-22, the text shows that God is not desiring that Pharoah willing let God's people go. On the other hand, in 1 Timothy 2:4 God desires that all men be saved. 2 Corinthians 4:4 says that the god of this world works to blind men to the Gospel.

 

[Brother-Mike]

You're too much!

I'm qualified to address only #12.

This whole shootin' match is the grand design of a spirit God so enthralled with his own glorious material creation that he wants it to be part of him permanently.
He accomplishes his purposes to this end with this infinite divine wisdom choosing the best means to the best end.
And that's where we come in. . .we are not always in agreement with this infinite divine wisdom, which in our finite view sometimes falls short of the mark.
But be that as it may, things go as the infinite divine wisdom has determined they will, and they will result in the ends which that wisdom has determined.

Clare you have the charm of Princess Leia and the wisdom of Master Yoda

Agreed 99.2% To me even the times that "we are not always in agreement with this infinite divine wisdom" are really, finally, ultimately just little staged flourishes in His Script. He's cheeky like that. He wrestled with Jacob just for fun and let him win.

 

[JAL]

You're trying to stand on both sides of the fence. You're both asserting real libertarian freedom and denying its efficacy, when you say:

10. The following two are both simultaneously true: 1) God foreordained the entire movie....[but].... 2) God created us as creatures to have our own freedom.

That ambivalence isn't the Calvinist view of absolutely sovereignty dictating and micro-managing every detail. The Calvinistic God is a control freak who only allows the APPEARANCE of real freedom.

Since you're evidently not a real Calvinist, I'll wait for someone else to respond. (Actually Calvinism has a problem beyond double predestination, namely an unjust view of the Fall, but that wasn't my topic here).

Admittedly you come back in point 12 and take a more deterministic view of things, but overall it's hard to see where you stand. You seem to vacillate on freedom.

3. By stating that the 7 performed "evil" atrocities however, you are importing God.

Not really. I was using the term "evil" loosely there. Later I implied that I view them as criminally insane. I was asking for your view on the matter.

Without God, an action has no standard to be measured "evil".

Incorrect. There is only one plausible standard of righteousness, and it doesn't even mention God. I call it the rule of conscience:

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

There are no possible exceptions to this rule. Even God Himself is subject to it.

5. The "evil" kids are neither evil nor insane. They are robots.

Perhaps robots, but no more so than the depraved kids of Calvinism. Pre-engineered to have evil desires (a sinful nature). Total depravity. Admittedly, in my analogy, the intensity of the desires is raised to an inevitably catastrophic degree, whereas in Calvinism some men somehow manage to be model citizens.

6. But the "model" kids are likewise not good. They are robots too.
8. I don't believe in robot people.
9. i.e. your entire scenario presupposes beings that are purely robots, so to that extent any findings you may derive risk being implicitly tainted.

I have defined depravity in a Calvinistic sense. Please do not call my analogy robotic if you are unwilling to apply the same term to Calvinism.

7. The scientist is guilty of building 7 harmful robots and praiseworthy for building 3 beneficial robots.

Well this is the crux of the issue - the double standard. You don't apply that same moral standard to God, which seems hypocritical. Let me understand you better: Does God play by any (internal) rule book? Or does He make up His own rules as He goes along? Meaning, does He see Himself as licensed to do whatever He wants with impunity? For example, if He chose to take the shape of a man and then rape innocent human children, would you be fine with that?

 

[JAL]

I don't like the new site changes either. It has become needlessly difficult to add carriage returns and spaces. And where are the search-thread tools?