Is Calvinism a heresy?

[Xeno.of.athens]

Speaking of Romans 8, our liturgical bible text has an interesting choice of words for some verses in that chapter. If you have a Jerusalem Bible, the one from the 1960s, then read Romans 8:24-25

For we must be content to hope that we shall be saved -- our salvation is not in sight, we should not have to be hoping for it if it were -- but, as I say, we must hope to be saved since we are not saved yet -- it is something we must wait for with patience.​

The passage containing those verses is read at the Pentecost vigil mass.

One had hoped for a reply

 

[jameslouise]

One had hoped for a reply

Hi xeno, I find those two verses difficult and I am a 99% KJV man. I am open to suggestions as to their meaning in layman's terms?

 

[jameslouise]

Why does it need the words if it has the meaning of the words? I didn't argue that it has the words. I argued that it has the principles the words refer to. What else is dead made alive, if not 'regenerated', or 'born again'?

I could not disagree more, every letter is significant, every yot and tittle, the same God who wrote your DNA code wrote the bible and there is no redundant data in either. Each term carries a specific meaning, this is God we are talking about ? why would He use different terms otherwise? When you interchange them all sorts of problems occur, you assign gifts/attributes relating to being born again with being associated with regeneration. Very sloppy exegesis and that cap does not fit me.

(Italicized bit quoting jameslouise ) Or maybe simpler we have to be regenerated before we can accept Christ-we are not regenerated until we do.", demonstrates that even you recognize that is what it is talking about —regeneration.

You even say "this regeneration", which demonstrates that you agree with me it is talking about the regenerated will, because you said that referring back to the sentence before, where you say that I define a 'regenerated will

You even say "this regeneration", which demonstrates that you agree with me it is talking about the regenerated will, because you said that referring back to the sentence before, where you say that I define a 'regenerated will'.

‘I most certainly do not use regeneration as you do I am just using it as you do to show obvious inconsistencies. To be clear
Regeneration-the reforming of something that was there before and is now remade. In consistency with its use in Tit 3:5, the remake of a tangible, measurable, 'weighable' entities depending on the realm you are in. The regeneration of man's tohuw and bohuw spirit Tit 3:5 or the regeneration of man's body to a glorified body. Mat 19:28
Thoughts and thought processes are not and cannot be regenerated-they can only be presented information and the owner of the 'mind' interpret them, act on them etc
Born once-the original birth of man's spirit into his body Psa 139:13
Born again- a rebirth of a spirit(s) into man's body together with the in-dwellings (both of these containing a 'dry' spirit' and living waters. The living waters seem to have some functionality by and along with The Holy Hence these water are needed to if you are to be an acting part of God's Kingdom (enter into) and just born of the spirit to see (be saved) Joh 3:3-8

I don't know, and I don't really care, but I have read several that sound very much like this: that logically, regeneration, being the Work of the Spirit of God upon indwelling the elect, directly CAUSES the faith by which we believe. You are THEREFORE saved, not by an act of human will, nor by human decision, but of God.

You seem to be distancing your self here and saying this is what Calvinists say but you are not really saying what your position is but I repeat, there stance seems to be we have to be regenerated before we can accept Christ-we are not regenerated until we do accept Christ. (according to Romans 8 )?
Being born again is a completely different 'state' to being acted upon by The Holy Spirit. Is it your position that The Holy Spirit can regenerate by making us live 'in the spirit ' before we are born again?
I can find no biblical evidence to support that.

Sorry. Does not parallel.

I am very happy with the parallel.

A regenerated person is reborn —all of him, mind, will, soul, whatever

And there it is, the point of inflection to eisegesis-suddenly regeneration means born again, and 'mind' (of Rom 8) means all of him, mind and soul. In reality all mean different things.

So if a person is born again, so is his will. Not so complicated.

Makes no sense at all, it is either under my dominion or it is not. If it is not it is more like a possession. You cannot regenerate my will but only try and influence or persuade it. Regenerate make no sens applied to will. See my previous definition below.

Mind being literal in what 'is in our thinking' both present and past.
I suggest my soul is my mind. my will and my emotions. I suggest what comes into my mind will be processed. The processing will be influenced by everything I have ever said, I have ever done, I have ever heard, I have ever seen together with my emotions and with the base 'me; that God created, The result of this process may be nothing and just a 'musing but may lead to an expression of my volition. Be that an inclination and appetite action or whatever. Will and mind not being interchangeable. One playing a role with forming the other.
In addition, if we accept Jesus then He will indeed be the light of our life and the Holy Spirit will also guide us right from wrong, like magnet drawing us to the light -living in the spirit. But at the same time there is still a magnet drawing us to the flesh. Both will affect our will. If we get it right then we may end up 'without spot or wrinkle' living entirely in the spirit. Eph 5:27

I like this summary of mind and will

False. It is just as 'you' as the 'you' that you were born as. You are quite literally born again, but not physically, but of the Spirit. I know that grates against you intuition, because YOU think if you are changed, it had to be as a result of YOUR decision. But it does not

Yes it does, I can see no scripture that says otherwise.
All of this for the stance that God predestines to salvation only a select few? What a mess? Yet you keep digging.

Maybe I did, concerning the depth of knowledge, wisdom, understanding, integrity, dedication, love, strength and so many other things we do not have to make such a decision in any worthy

We disagree, we just need to love God the others do not matter Roma 8:28

The facts are even more compelling than that! "In him we live and move and have our being", so it is ONLY by God's decree that our decisions mean anything

I have a contention with you over the use of Acts 17:28. I have previously pointed out that in this verse the 'him' must be God the Father and the time frame must be well before in-dwellings of' Jesus us in him and Him in u's were available to man. How then can you still use it? You should have fallen on your knees and asked The Holy Spirit to reveal its true meaning to you- he would not have let you down. It is a gross misuse of biblical text with this knowledge you now have. if you used other texts to confirm our new creation in Christ and said see how this matches the Father's position described in Acts 17;28, now that would have got my attention.

Consider just this one way a person is 'changed'. To me, if a person suffers catastrophic brain damage, such that, while most of his faculties work well, he remembers pretty much nothing from before the injury, that is still the same person. His personality may be completely different. He may have been given a different name, and began a new life, but he is still the same person. Also note that he did not choose to be injured! What is it that makes humans so majestic that it has to be insisted upon they THEY decide such things concerning themselves.

You parallel God's salvation for the Human spirit with catastrophic brain damage?? There is no workable parallel there whichever way you look at it imo.

Your notion of being led to salvation, if it includes your part as an improvement to God's part of the matter, is bogus,

Your assumption that my decision somehow improves Gods work is not logical to me. God presents the perfect case to all either way, some accept, some not, the choice is theirs it reflects them not God .By the same token do those who reject Gods advances then make his work rubbish? Joh 12:48

I'm not saying that the Holy Spirit brings ALL things about suddenly. He can do as he pleases

Whenever i see you use the term 'God can do as he pleases' , it seems to mean you are referring to something not in the bible? You agree?

I flip flop a bit over this man made doctrine of reformed theology, I used to thinks it was an intellectual 'trip,' as it seems to be favored by the highly intellectual, presenting concepts almost too difficult for the average person (me) to grasp ( an un-free free will). But now I am starting to believe it is just pseudo-intellectualism. None of the arguments stack up, all of the scripture quoted is at best open to other interpretations and at worst frank eisegesis, An intellectual journey down Eisegesis lane-a tortuous, fruitless hairpin bend off the main highway. And one that shamefully portrays God as an uncaring Father to some of His offspring.
I am about to start another thread that shows that the book of Genesis completely refutes the reformed theology viewpoint, i have been holding back on this but boy am i looking forward to seeing you answer it

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Hi xeno, I find those two verses difficult and I am a 99% KJV man. I am open to suggestions as to their meaning in layman's terms?

This fulfills your request: For we must be content to hope that we shall be saved -- our salvation is not in sight, we should not have to be hoping for it if it were -- but, as I say, we must hope to be saved since we are not saved yet -- it is something we must wait for with patience.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If I may use two analogies to deal with the bifurcation in the logic of your posts.

1. God creates an intricate play and builds a device to act it out. The device is made with cogs, a wind-up spring to actuate the cogs, and a box to contain the hidden mechanism. Atop the box is the stage where the intricate play is acted out by players. God winds up the spring, and when he is pleased to start it running he does so. And the play is acted out with perfection exactly as he wrote it.
2. God creates an intricate play and constructs actors to act it out. He builds a stage for the players to act out the play. He attaches strings (invisible) with which he actuates the players. The play is acted out as God uses the strings to make each player do exactly what is written in the intricate play. The entire play is acted out with perfection exactly as he wrote it.

These two methods achieve the same net result but by different means. You see this do you not?

• In the first the eternal decree has logical priority and the mechanism is hidden yet certain; the mechanism plays out according to the order established in its creation and that is that.
• In the second the eternal decree has logical priority and the means is hidden yet certain; the players play everything out according to the order imposed by their creator and that is that.

The point of view argument in your post is about the invisible mechanism (or invisible strings). The timeless 'realm' that you posited (see earlier post) reveals that the play is acted out in perfection exactly as God intends because God acts it out, the players merely make it visible. This is not freedom of the will in any sense, yet it is what the explanations you've proposed and offer.

Your mechanical notion of the logic is postulated in very human terms. But God is First Cause with intent. A mind. Nor is this simply a deistic mind that caused chains of cause-and-effect through all time resulting in what we see today. Cause-and-Effect is not a machine God built. It is not a machine at all. It is our way of describing what God does, because we don't know how to describe God in his totality. (Take another look at "The Simplicity of God".)

But to play the game your way, your two sides of the "bifurcation" are not actually in contrast. To be sure, the players —if by players you mean to refer only to moral agents— are used by God to play out the intricate play, but they are no more causes than any one cause within the "play". In #2 you seem to give them priority over "the mechanism" you propose in #1. If there is a 'mechanism', the players are part of it. Thus, no birfurcation.

Edit: It occurs to me to say —if it helps to see more clearly what I mean here, think of your #1 and #2 as being one and the same thing. It is only you that separates them. The 'mechanisms' are actors.

But, as I said, your descriptions of what I believe are wrong because they are both mechanistic. I use 'mechanistic' terminology because I don't have a better way to describe cause-and-effect. God is not "imposing" anything. The notion smacks of human limited thinking and of a self-deterministic worldview. The notion that God is 'imposing' anything is to spread out a sheet of 'what is going on' like a huge, temporal, surface relief map, upon which God must interject himself to control what is going on. You seem to think also that we are part of that map. But that is not the way of things. "In him we live and move and have our being." The map itself is God's doing.

I leave it to the reader to decide if the document quoted below proposes either model or offers some other and if after the fall any human has free will to do anything.

---

Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian; protestant)​

Chapter 9 – Of Free Will​

1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.a​

aMatt 17:12; James 1:14; Deut 30:19.​

2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good, and well pleasing to God;b but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it.c​

bEccl 7:29; Gen 1:26. cGen 2:16-17; Gen 3:6.​

3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:d so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,e and dead in sin,f is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.g​

dRom 5:6; Rom8:7; John 15:5. eRom 3:10,12. fEph 2:1,5; Col 2:13. gJohn 6:44,65; Eph 2:2-5; 1 Cor 2:14; Tit 3:3-5.​

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin;h and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;i yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.k​

hCol 1:13; John 8:34,36. iPhil 2:13; Rom 6:18,22. kGal 5:17; Rom 7:15,18-19,21,23.​

5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.l​

lEph 4:13; Heb 12:23; 1 John 3:2; Jude 1: 24.​

The Westminster does not own me, but if it is what you wish to argue against, yes, it does claim man has free will, but it is not the free will posited by arminianistic systems. Nor does it bifurcate, (nor do I).

 

[Mark Quayle]

I could not disagree more, every letter is significant, every yot and tittle, the same God who wrote your DNA code wrote the bible and there is no redundant data in either. Each term carries a specific meaning, this is God we are talking about ? why would He use different terms otherwise? When you interchange them all sorts of problems occur, you assign gifts/attributes relating to being born again with being associated with regeneration. Very sloppy exegesis and that cap does not fit me.

Where do I imply that every letter is not significant? I really don't appreciate your misrepresenting me. But remember, that like I will be measured, so will you be measured by whatever standard you use against others.

I most certainly do not use regeneration as you do I am just using it as you do to show obvious inconsistencies. To be clear
Regeneration-the reforming of something that was there before and is now remade. In consistency with its use in Tit 3:5, the remake of a tangible, measurable, 'weighable' entities depending on the realm you are in. The regeneration of man's tohuw and bohuw spirit Tit 3:5 or the regeneration of man's body to a glorified body. Mat 19:28
Thoughts and thought processes are not and cannot be regenerated-they can only be presented information and the owner of the 'mind' interpret them, act on them etc
Born once-the original birth of man's spirit into his body Psa 139:13
Born again- a rebirth of a spirit(s) into man's body together with the in-dwellings (both of these containing a 'dry' spirit' and living waters. The living waters seem to have some functionality by and along with The Holy Hence these water are needed to if you are to be an acting part of God's Kingdom (enter into) and just born of the spirit to see (be saved) Joh 3:3-8

Once again, you assume man in his depraved state is capable of doing a spiritually living thing.

You seem to be distancing your self here and saying this is what Calvinists say but you are not really saying what your position is but I repeat, there stance seems to be we have to be regenerated before we can accept Christ-we are not regenerated until we do accept Christ. (according to Romans 8 )?
Being born again is a completely different 'state' to being acted upon by The Holy Spirit. Is it your position that The Holy Spirit can regenerate by making us live 'in the spirit ' before we are born again?
I can find no biblical evidence to support that.

Are you saying that born-again is a state accomplished and maintained by some source and cause apart from the Spirit of God? It amazes me, the gall of the self-determinist.

I am very happy with the parallel.

Yes, I can imagine you are!

And there it is, the point of inflection to eisegesis-suddenly regeneration means born again, and 'mind' (of Rom 8) means all of him, mind and soul. In reality all mean different things.

No. I said that Romans 8 is speaking of the mind, which is intrinsically tied to the will. I don't dispute that they are not one and the same thing, to our comprehension, at least. But they are the same person.

Makes no sense at all, it is either under my dominion or it is not. If it is not it is more like a possession. You cannot regenerate my will but only try and influence or persuade it. Regenerate make no sens applied to will. See my previous definition below.

To me it is amazing, the gall of the self-determinist.

I like this summary of mind and will

Yes, no doubt you do!

Yes it does, I can see no scripture that says otherwise.
All of this for the stance that God predestines to salvation only a select few? What a mess? Yet you keep digging.

Are you asking, "what a mess?"? No, not a mess at all; simple. Read my last paragraph below, where I quote from a post to someone else.

We disagree, we just need to love God the others do not matter Roma 8:28

You say, "we just need to love God the others do not matter Roma 8:28". What?? I don't know if that is 1) your use of the verse, or if you are saying that is 2) my use of the verse, or 3) just what. But 4) the notion that "others do not matter" is false. But if you mean 4a) that the verse is not about them —i.e. not about those God has not called— I agree. But if your notion is that 4b) "the others do not matter", then you are wrong. They very much matter. They are not randomly placed here on earth.

I have a contention with you over the use of Acts 17:28. I have previously pointed out that in this verse the 'him' must be God the Father and the time frame must be well before in-dwellings of Jesus us in him and him in is were available to man. How then can you still use it? You should have fallen on your knees and asked The Holy Spirit to reveal its true meaning to you- he would not have let you down. It is a gross misuse of biblical text with this knowledge you now have. if you used other texts to confirm our new creation in Christ and said see how this matches the Father's position described in Acts 17;28, now that would have got my attention.

I can still use it because it applies, and because, in fact, your objections to my use of it are a form of "red herring". I agree with you that "the 'him' must be God the Father and the time frame must be well before in-dwellings of Jesus us in him and him in is were available to man"; although, in fact, I take it to mean more than only some time in the past, and more than just God the Father.

Your remonstrance is rather like boxing the air, or worse, like thinking you are seeing a dead horse on the side of the road, that you suppose you killed, you have stopped your vehicle to get out and go kick it. If there even IS a dead horse, it has nothing to do with where we are going on this road. But, like will be done to me someday, you will be measured by the standard you hold against me.

You parallel God's salvation for the Human spirit with catastrophic brain damage?? There is no workable parallel there whichever way you look at it imo.

No, I am not comparing the one to the other, as if they are equal in some sense. I am trying to get you to look at the notion you posit, that it is not the same person, or the same will, if he, or his will, is reborn. Indeed, the fact that "the old man remains" is evidence that it is still the same person and the same will, but nevertheless, reborn, if indeed the Spirit of God has taken up permanent residence within.

Your assumption that my decision somehow improves Gods work is not logical to me. God presents the perfect case to all either way, some accept, some not, the choice is theirs it reflects them not God .By the same token do those who reject Gods advances then make his work rubbish? Joh 12:48

I do not assume "that [your] decision somehow improves God's work". What I assume is that your theology assumes that your decision somehow improves or completes God's work. In fact, in some cases, it even assumes that God's work is not even a factor.

Whenever i see you use the term 'God can do as he pleases' , it seems to mean you are referring to something not in the bible? You agree?

—I agree with what? With "you are referring to something not in the bible"? No, I do not agree. Ha! or are you asking if I agree with your, "it seems to mean you are referring to something not in the bible"? Yes, I can see that it seems so to you.

Nevertheless, so you can know it is in the Bible: Psalm 115:3 "But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases."

I flip flop a bit over this man made doctrine of reformed theology, I used to thinks it was an intellectual 'trip,' as it seems to be favored by the highly intellectual, presenting concepts almost too difficult for the average person (me) to grasp ( an un-free free will). But now I am starting to believe it is just pseudo-intellectualism. None of the arguments stack up, all of the scripture quoted is at best open to other interpretations and at worst frank eisegesis, An intellectual journey down Eisegesis lane-a tortuous, fruitless hairpin bend off the main highway. And one that shamefully portrays God as an uncaring Father to some of His offspring.

Assertion. Perhaps, though, you could demonstrate that it is eisegesis. Admittedly, for the sake of brevity I often take shortcuts (but I am not "Reformed Theology"). But, the shame is that your view of it "portrays God as an uncaring Father to some of His offspring."

I am about to start another thread that shows that the book of Genesis completely refutes the reformed theology viewpoint, i have been holding back on this but boy am i looking forward to seeing you answer it

I'm thinking I can answer it already. I can pretty confidently bet that you are going to do it the way you do all Scripture —submitting it to your arminianistic worldview.

(A quote from a response to a different poster: "But, as I said, your descriptions of what I believe are wrong because they are both mechanistic. I use 'mechanistic' terminology because I don't have a better way to describe cause-and-effect. God is not "imposing" anything. The notion smacks of human limited thinking and of a self-deterministic worldview. The notion that God is 'imposing' anything is to spread out a sheet of 'what is going on' like a huge, temporal, surface relief map, upon which God must interject himself to control what is going on. You seem to think also that we are part of that map. But that is not the way of things. "In him we live and move and have our being." The map itself is God's doing.")

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Your mechanical notion of the logic is postulated in very human terms. But God is First Cause with intent. A mind. Nor is this simply a deistic mind that caused chains of cause-and-effect through all time resulting in what we see today. Cause-and-Effect is not a machine God built. It is not a machine at all. It is our way of describing what God does, because we don't know how to describe God in his totality. (Take another look at "The Simplicity of God".)

The explanation you offer here adds nothing whatever to your previous efforts at explanation and it carries in it the same seeds of its own demise. To be specific, the mechanistic element in the analogies that I provided is "very human" because it is an analogy and analogies are intended to offer a very human level of depiction of something more complex than the analogy.

But you are right to mention deism because the first analogy is like deism's absentee creation that plays out the creator's intentions by means of laws which dictate the end results without any need for further action by God to ensure that all plays out according to God's intended plan.

The second analogy is along the lines of a puppet show under the complete control of the puppet master who causes each player (puppet) to move according to the puppet master's intended plan. The second analogy is closer to the explanations offered in your posts. You, quite rightly, include words like "freedom" and notions like "action according to the will" of the one acting yet you maintain that each and every action is a consequence in a chain of cause and effect fully determined by God. Thus the strings are firmly attached to the actors and every thought is indeed captive to a kind of obedience and yet "appears to be free" and "willing" obedience to the intended purpose of God.

Absolute sovereignty over every act and thought in creation yields a puppet show or a music box creation where everything plays out exactly as planned by the creator. This is the model your posts is premised upon.

Edit: It occurs to me to say —if it helps to see more clearly what I mean here, think of your #1 and #2 as being one and the same thing. It is only you that separates them. The 'mechanisms' are actors.

In the first analogy the mechanism plays itself out without any further action by the maker, in the second the play is played out as the maker directly plays it out through the puppets. Surely you can see that there is a significant difference.

But, as I said, your descriptions of what I believe are wrong because they are both mechanistic. I use 'mechanistic' terminology because I don't have a better way to describe cause-and-effect. God is not "imposing" anything. The notion smacks of human limited thinking and of a self-deterministic worldview. The notion that God is 'imposing' anything is to spread out a sheet of 'what is going on' like a huge, temporal, surface relief map, upon which God must interject himself to control what is going on. You seem to think also that we are part of that map. But that is not the way of things. "In him we live and move and have our being." The map itself is God's doing.

I see the objection but it stems from an inadequate grasp of the two analogies - as is evident by your claim that they are in fact the same. What is the same in both analogies is that the maker's play is played out perfectly, and is that not what the notion of absolute sovereignty and the chain of cause and effect in your posts inevitably leads to? There is, in the system that your posts proposes, an eternal decree - in the analogies this is the intricate play written by the maker - and the decree is acted out in creation, perfectly without any 'surprises'. This system has no freedom in it but you choose to label some element as "free" and some actors as "moral agents" yet the play will be acted out perfectly and no player in it can stop it, change it, react to it, or in any way object to what is to happen in it.

The Westminster does not own me, but if it is what you wish to argue against, yes, it does claim man has free will, but it is not the free will posited by arminianistic systems. Nor does it bifurcate, (nor do I).

But both the Westminster confession of Faith and your posts do bifurcate words such as freedom, moral agent, choice, and so on because they both have a meaning for the word that is the general definition common to the languages in which they are written, English in this case, and an obscure meaning that is hinted at rather than spelled out in the posts and in the confession; freedom in the confession is "freedom to do what God's eternal decree decrees will be done" which is, of course, no freedom at all, and "moral agent" is in the confession "a person who appears to make free choices to do evil and act wickedly, unless God wills otherwise", this too is not freedom nor an action of a free moral agent. And "choice" is in the confession "always to choose what God foreordained would be chosen".

I am inclined to think that perhaps this post is foreordained to be read, and not understood as it is written, but rather to be understood according to some hidden meaning of the words used in it that will inevitably mean that this post will be part of the eternal decree, and mean something essentially Calvinistic

 

[Mark Quayle]

The explanation you offer here adds nothing whatever to your previous efforts at explanation and it carries in it the same seeds of its own demise. To be specific, the mechanistic element in the analogies that I provided is "very human" because it is an analogy and analogies are intended to offer a very human level of depiction of something more complex than the analogy.

But you are right to mention deism because the first analogy is like deism's absentee creation that plays out the creator's intentions by means of laws which dictate the end results without any need for further action by God to ensure that all plays out according to God's intended plan.

The second analogy is along the lines of a puppet show under the complete control of the puppet master who causes each player (puppet) to move according to the puppet master's intended plan. The second analogy is closer to the explanations offered in your posts. You, quite rightly, include words like "freedom" and notions like "action according to the will" of the one acting yet you maintain that each and every action is a consequences in a chain of cause and effect fully determined by God. Thus the strings are firmly attached to the actors and every thought is indeed captive to a kind of obedience and yet "appears to be free" and "willing" obedience to the intended purpose of God.

Absolute sovereignty over every act and thought in creation yields a puppet show or a music box creation where everything plays out exactly as planned by the creator. This is the model your posts is premised upon.


In the first analogy the mechanism plays itself out without any further action by the maker, in the second the play is played out as the maker directly plays it out through the puppets. Surely you can see that there is a significant difference.


I see the objection but it stems from an inadequate grasp of the two analogies - as is evident by your claim that they are in fact the same. What is the same in both analogies is that the maker's play is played out perfectly, and is that not what the notion of absolute sovereignty and the chain of cause and effect in your posts inevitably leads to? There is, in the system that your posts proposes, an eternal decree - in the analogies this is the intricate play written by the maker - and the decree is acted out in creation, perfectly without any 'surprises'. This system has no freedom in it but you choose to label some element as "free" and some actors as "moral agents" yet the play will be acted out perfectly and no player in it can stop it, change it, react to it, or in any way object to what is to happen in it.


But both the Westminster confession of Faith and your posts do bifurcate words such as freedom, moral agent, choice, and so on because they both have a meaning for the word that is the general definition common to the languages in which they are written, English in this case, and an obscure meaning that is hinted at rather than spelled out in the posts and in the confession; freedom in the confession is "freedom to do what God's eternal decree decrees will be done" which is, of course, no freedom at all, and "moral agent" is in the confession "a person who appears to make free choices to do evil and act wickedly, unless God wills otherwise", this too is not freedom nor an action of a free moral agent. And "choice" is in the confession "always to choose what God foreordained would be chosen".

I am inclined to think that perhaps this post is foreordained to be read and not understood as it is written but rather to be understood according to some hidden meaning of the words used in it that will inevitably mean that this post will be part of the eternal decree and mean something essentially Calvinistic

Haha! your last paragraph! A friend of mine says that his concept of Calvinism goes, "You slam your finger in the door. The first cogent words you can come up with are, 'Well, I'm glad that's over with!'"

Perhaps I shouldn't have said your two analogies are the same. My point is they are drawn on two points of view that ignore the fact that the 'players' are also 'mechanism' and God is in control of the whole play. To me, both analogies are faulty, as is the whole notion of this all being "a play", ignoring the position or person of God, or his way of doing things, "so there's that". I tried to explain that fact by my admission that I too must use human language to get at the thing.

You say, "This system has no freedom in it". You also say, "But both the Westminster confession of Faith and your posts do bifurcate words such as freedom, moral agent, choice..." I'd say they only do so if looked at from a self-deterministic POV. It is true that when I say that I believe in Free Will, it is only as an observation of the fact that our choices are real, with real, even eternal, consequences, so I can easily be misunderstood at first. My logic says that absolutely everything descends causally from First Cause, to include our wills and our choices, and, of course, the consequences of our choices. While to me, that is not a deistic statement, it not deistic in that God as first cause is not bound by time, nor does he only begin things. The very structure of cause-and-effect is by HIS doing, as is the existence of the means he uses to produce each effect. I'm hoping that gives you some notion of what I mean by "God's decree", and some of what I mean when I say that in fact the very reality of our choices is established by God. But even the naturalist that believes in awful fate, nevertheless considers himself to make choices, and even if he thinks he choices are not real and he is just a puppet, he continues to choose nonetheless, fulfilling his "fate". I don't believe in impersonal 'fate', but in the heart of God accomplishing what he set out to do. I'm just thrilled I'm allowed to watch!

You seem to me to propose that the "reality" you observe is in and of itself something. I say it is not, but is only 'real' by what God is doing by it. That does not diminish its reality, but establishes it. There is no contradiction between the notion of God being in absolute control of all things, and man having real choice.

Notice that God says we are all slaves, either to sin or to Christ, yet even so one who sins (chooses to sin) is a slave to sin, and that we the redeemed must yield our members to God, and reject sin. There is no two-part harmony there. What we choose to do is precisely what God decreed. We really do choose, and God really has said what we will choose.

You may notice that I am deterministic in somewhat of a different color from most other Reformed/Calvinists. Some don't go as far as I do; they simply recognizing that God does decree and all things follow, so forget notions of libertarian freewill. I see this as a whole 'realm' question, and therefore caused. Other Calvinists/Reformed concentrate on the matter of Regeneration being not of the will of the regenerated, but that what follows their descriptions seem to me synergistic, which I cannot agree with. We are "in Christ" and our real choices are the work of God in us. Therefore, real. He is the integrity of those choices. But already you may see me merging into another conversation, as to how this works that we also have the "old man" still with us, yet our sins are decreed. It is too long a conversation for now, but yes, the reality of those choices is also by God's decree. I agree there is a difference between God's decree and God's particular work in us, yet that too is within God's decree.

 

[jameslouise]

I'm thinking I can answer it already. I can pretty confidently bet that you are going to do it the way you do all Scripture —submitting it to your arminianistic worldview

Not even close, you will not have heard this before, watch,

. I agree with you that "the 'him' must be God the Father and the time frame must be well before in-dwellings of Jesus us in him and him in is were available to man"; although, in fact, I take it to mean more than only some time in the past, and more than just God the Father.

Well i think we have made good progress.
So, logically if we were in God the Father in some tangible form as you now admit then could it be that Eph 1:4 :According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
the choosing is taking place in God the Father at some previous time?
Could it be that there is a beautiful symmetry between God the Father and Jesus? That God chose man in this pre-existent form before the foundation of the world (Genesis 6 day) but God chooses man again this time in Jesus before the Foundation of the world(FOTW) ( being born again) remember as i pointed out (katabole kosmos) has a literal meaning of breaking down and reestablishing an harmonious arrangement.
I had hoped to lead you to this on our discussion of.the FOTW. But you dismissed it out of hand. The term does i believe have three meanings Check out my web page here foundation of the world

 

[Mark Quayle]

So, logically if we were in God the Father in some tangible form as you now admit then could it be that Eph 1:4 :According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
the choosing is taking place in God the Father at some previous time?

Slow your roll there, man. Where did I "admit" that we were in God the Father in some tangible form? What does that even mean, there —"tangible form"?

Could it be that there is a beautiful symmetry between God the Father and Jesus? That God chose man in this pre-existent form before the foundation of the world (Genesis 6 day) but God chooses man again this time in Jesus before the Foundation of the world(FOTW) ( being born again) remember as i pointed out (katabole kosmos) has a literal meaning of breaking down and reestablishing an harmonious arrangement.

Apparently there is something you take to be self-evident here, that I'm not seeing. I don't know what you are saying here. Your words don't hang together for me. There is a pre-existent "form"?

I had hoped to lead you to this on our discussion of.the FOTW. But you dismissed it out of hand. The term does i believe have three meanings Check out my web page here foundation of the world

If I can't make sense of your wording here, and see no scriptural basis for the constructions you make nor for what I hear you conclude here, why should I bother to read your constructions on some web page? I don't have time for this.

 

[FredVB]

Not even close, you will not have heard this before, watch,


Well i think we have made good progress.
So, logically if we were in God the Father in some tangible form as you now admit then could it be that Eph 1:4 :According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
the choosing is taking place in God the Father at some previous time?
Could it be that there is a beautiful symmetry between God the Father and Jesus? That God chose man in this pre-existent form before the foundation of the world (Genesis 6 day) but God chooses man again this time in Jesus before the Foundation of the world(FOTW) ( being born again) remember as i pointed out (katabole kosmos) has a literal meaning of breaking down and reestablishing an harmonious arrangement.
I had hoped to lead you to this on our discussion of.the FOTW. But you dismissed it out of hand. The term does i believe have three meanings Check out my web page here foundation of the world

We were in the knowledge that God has entirely, that we who respond and come to God are known (personally) to be predestined to conform

 

[bbbbbbb]

There is a very significant difference between foreknowledge and destining something or some action prior to its occurrence (aka predestination).

 

[jameslouise]

Firstly, Mark says in message 426

I agree with you that "the 'him' must be God the Father and the time frame must be well before in-dwellings of Jesus us in him and him in is were available to man"; although, in fact, I take it to mean more than only some time in the past, and more than just God the Father. (itlaics added by me as quoting me.

Then in message 430

Where did I "admit" that we were in God the Father in some tangible form?

Please clarify this apparent blatant contradiction of your position?

 

[jameslouise]

(A quote from a response to a different poster: "But, as I said, your descriptions of what I believe are wrong because they are both mechanistic. I use 'mechanistic' terminology because I don't have a better way to describe cause-and-effect. God is not "imposing" anything. The notion smacks of human limited thinking and of a self-deterministic worldview. The notion that God is 'imposing' anything is to spread out a sheet of 'what is going on' like a huge, temporal, surface relief map, upon which God must interject himself to control what is going on. You seem to think also that we are part of that map. But that is not the way of things. "In him we live and move and have our being." The map itself is God's doing.")

Your misuse of Acts 17:28 again concerns me greatly. You appear to be saying now that God is somehow the 'world' and if we are in it we are in 'him'. There is absolutely no scripture to confirm this. Acts 17:28 has a clear and obvious meaning.
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

In him-The preceding text is Paul describing God’s attributes making this ‘Him ‘ as applying to God the Father only
we live,-we have an existence and are alive. The ‘we’ meaning all mankind or the people who were in Paul’s vicinity.
and move- we move around
and have our being; we are a person, an entity and not a prophetic projection
as certain also of your own poets have said,- a time frame is set- this time frame being the time of your ‘old poets’ and this being well before Jesus’ time and so confirms the ‘in him’ cannot be referring to Jesus indwellings as it is before his time on Earth.
For we are also his offspring- why did we have this existence ? Because we were His offspring. Note the way it does not say we were created or we were made. This is . I believe , an indication that we were made from God Himself. A ‘copy and paste’ of his ‘tissue’ just as our indwellings are a ‘copy and paste’ of Jesus and The Holy Spirit’s. ‘In his image’ being satisfied in all cases

The whole rest of your answer just looks like yet another euphemism for a' no choice choice'. hidden in the usual highly intellectual ramblings.

We listened to the The Holy Spirit presenting the Lord Jesus Christ to us and we did not reject him but we chose to accept Him, then and only after then our tohuw and bohuw spirit was regenerated and the indwelling package added. (not our mind not our will but all spiritual.) then our mind could be directed towards the spirit and live in the spirit and ignore the flesh and then if we get good at this we can be without spot or wrinkle. You have not shown me any scripture that contradicts this position.

 

[jameslouise]

We were in the knowledge that God has entirely, that we who respond and come to God are known (personally) to be predestined to conform

Although I agree that God knows everything that is going to happen He lets everyone choose their path, He just knows what that choice will be. The 'foreknown ' of Romans 8:29 thus having a plain and obvious meaning of God actually knowing everyone He sends to earth. Predestination to accept salvation ends with that knowledge as the meannig of roman's passage becomes clear.
See message 434 Acts 17:28 above for the main evidence that man's base spirit's existence precedes his arrival on earth but there is also much more evidence for this summarized here:

(Acts17:28) Here Paul describes a time of old when we had our existence inside God (before this was available in Christ) and also refers to us as offspring (genos) which may hint at a similarity in structure/components. Proof enough on its own? Concepts do not have an existence.
(Ephesians 1:3) We (Paul and all of us) received gifts (past tense) in heavenly places in Christ. When? Concepts or prophetic projections do not get gifts?
(Ephesians 1:4) Describes us (all of us) chosen in Christ (or God the Father)before a time called the Foundation of the world. Concepts cannot be chosen? And that was along time ago when we apparently must all have existed.
(James 1:16) Describes a father of lights, who are these lights?
Isaiah 14:12-14) Describes Lucifer being near a congregation (mowed) of people well before earth was created. Who are these people?
Isaiah.40:21) Raises a question as to why men had not understood something from a time called the foundation earth. So they must have been around at that time?
(Job.26 4) / (Job 33:4) / (Genesis2:7) / (Isaiah.42:5) Describe a spirit already there and God breathing out/sending forth this existing spirit.
(Zechariah 12:1) ‘formeth’ (yatsar) is used like a potter forms clay and not created. Form/Fashion/Frame hints that, at least, the constituents already existed.
(2.timothy1:9) Describes a time called ‘before the world began’ we (all of us) were given gifts in Jesus/God the Father when were we and Jesus/ God the Father together?
(Proverbs 8:21-30,) Describes a time before the earth (and even at a time called ‘everlasting’ which sounds a lot like eternal to me and is the same word ‘olam’) when a spirit lived in an ‘habitable part’ of ‘His earth’ (God Himself?) and was with the (other) sons of men delighting God in the process. Is this a spirit of wisdom or one of us as spirits or even Solomon himself being linked to wisdom in general earlier in the passage? Not sure but the ‘sons of men’-us-were there.
(Psalm 139:15) Appears to describes us as being ‘wrought’ (existing materials shaped) a different process from being ex-nihilo created and in a location that may tie with ‘Earth’ in Proverbs 8.

 

[jameslouise]

@Mark Quayle @DialecticSkeptic
I have a question, given we are all God's offspring in Acts 17:29. How would you qualify God's treatment of the offspring he chooses not to predestinate to accept Christ and be saved ?
1. Very loving and caring
2. Loving and caring
3. Neutral
4 .Not loving or caring
5. Very unloving and uncaring

Please choose the answer that is the closest approximation to your stance.

 

[Dan1988]

@Mark Quayle @DialecticSkeptic
I have a question, given we are all God's offspring in Acts 17:29. How would you qualify God's treatment of the offspring he chooses not to predestinate to accept Christ and be saved ?
1. Very loving and caring
2. Loving and caring
3. Neutral
4 .Not loving or caring
5. Very unloving and uncaring

Please choose the answer that is the closest approximation to you stance.

4. Because God hates sin. He doesn't cast billions of people into hell because He loves them. God makes is very clear that He hates certain people and He loves others.
We are not all off spring of God. God said some of us are the children of the Devil.

 

[jameslouise]

4. Because God hates sin. He doesn't cast billions of people into hell because He loves them. God makes is very clear that He hates certain people and He loves others.
We are not all off spring of God. God said some of us are the children of the Devil.

because of their behavior or because of how they were made because they were made in God 's image?
So which number would you go for to summarise His treatment of the unsaved from a predestination viewpoint. No 5 very unloving and uncaring then? You comfortable with that?
I do not think God ''sends' them to hell, btw they send themselves there by rejecting Christ. God is the post man- man does the addressing.
God just follows the deep and just rules/laws.

 

[QvQ]

Why me, Lord?
There is a puzzle because some people cannot, no matter what, no matter why, simply cannot believe.
Some people cannot Not believe.
I could no more deny the truth of God than an atheist could affirm the truth of God.
Affirming a fact that I am absolutely convinced is the truth is not an act of will. I don't will myself to believe the sun comes up in the morning. It is not an intellectual or emotional argument with a maybe yes, maybe no.
Yet, there are people who do not affirm that truth, who cannot see the sun. Do they will themselves to blindness?
I didn't give myself the capacity to believe. I didn't will myself to belief. I don't claim superior intellect to prove my faith.
I didn't create the circumstances. In times and places without Bibles, what then?
IT is humility to respect the fact that it isn't lack of reason or will that lead some to reject God.
The capacity to believe is given to some and not to others.
The concept of Election is not an arrogance, a pride or superiority. It is a humble question, Why?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

@Mark Quayle @DialecticSkeptic

I have a question. Given [that] we are all God's offspring in Acts 17:29, how would you qualify God's treatment of the offspring he chooses not to predestinate to accept Christ and be saved?

1. Very loving and caring
2. Loving and caring
3. Neutral
4. Not loving or caring
5. Very unloving and uncaring

Please choose the answer that is the closest approximation to your stance.

I don’t quite know how to answer this question because I reject the premise on which it’s based, namely, that all human beings are God’s offspring. However, I think I might have a workaround.

If I assume that we’re all God’s “offspring” insofar as God produced or generated all of us, then I can answer your question: “Very loving and caring.”

But if it means that we are all God’s children, then I cannot answer your question because I don’t accept the premise. I stand by my answer that God is very loving and caring to everyone, but we are not all his children.