One Died For All

[Mark Quayle]

Standard Calvinist debating tactic. My objections apply to the larger context of freedom, that is, the question as to whether Lucifer, Adam, and Eve ever had free will to begin with. Strategically Calvinists shift the debate to a narrower context - the question whether fallen man can obey - on the assumption that total depravity triumphs in this debate.
(1) It's a bit of a strawman, relative to the larger debate on freedom.
(2) Even in the narrower debate, total depravity doesn't trump. First Calvinists need to fix their self-contradictory view of regeneration - after all how does a monergistically holy heart continue to sin? Doesn't make sense. Once Calvinists admit that God can and does deal differently with different parts of the heart, free will cannot be positively ruled out. PART of the heart is depraved, but we cannot assume that ALL of it is, nor even that the depraved parts are ALWAYS depraved, consider for example 1Jn 1:9:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness".

You conflate "free will" with "choice", I think. Calvinism also believes in choice. Calvinism doesn't deny that Satan, Adam and all the rest of us, have choice. In fact, we demand it. But FREE? What does that even mean? Certainly Adam was not a slave to sin before he first sinned, nor for that matter, do we have any reason to say Lucifer was a slave to sin before he first sinned. Yet both did precisely as God planned, or there was no reason to create this People (the born again, Elect, Bride of Christ) for himself, to the glory and praise of Christ.

Here I would like to walk you through the logic of causality. Like it or not, with all the freedom to decide at your disposal, everything you are, have and do is still the result of cause. Same with Lucifer, same with Adam.

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness".

What part of the heart is God purifying here? The monergistically regenerated, cleansed part? It didn't need cleansing! It was already purified! (See 2 Cor 5:17). Is He cleansing the part that is still depraved, that is, the remainder of the sinful nature? Perhaps - but all of it? Then we no longer have a sinful nature! This too contradicts Scripture!

Essentially, then, the Calvinistic arguments against free will boil down to a hermeneutically unsustainable eisegesis, conveniently ignoring all the verses that flatly contradict those assumptions.

I love 1 Jn 1:9. My Greek scholar/ professor/ author of reference books father said the Greek tense implies "to have already forgiven us our sins" (completed action in the past), though yes, contingent on the confession. Calvinism doesn't deny that if one is not confessing, his sins are not forgiven. Bit in spite of all your constructions, we are said in Scripture to be still at war with the "old man" within us. THAT needs purification, and it is being done, as a result of confession. And if you demand that if the forgiveness is already done, so is the confession, then I say, yes, just as you said, we are already purified.

You want to take a principle of continuous action and extrapolate it to completed, and take a completed action and make it continuous. If you hold Calvinism to apparent contradictions between 1 Jn 1:9 and 2 Cor 5:17, then you too, must answer it. So how do you say we are already clean, if he will cleanse us upon confession? It is no worse for Calvinism than for you.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You haven't shown that YOUR understanding of "First Cause" is biblical. In fact your usage of the term extrapolates to double-predestination, which CANNOT be biblical since it contradicts God's impeccable kindness.

It most certainly does not contradict God's kindness, except in the mind of those who want God to fit their notion of Kindness. You elevate man to God's level, that he must act according to their mind.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You haven't shown that YOUR understanding of "First Cause" is biblical.

"All things were made by him, and without him was nothing made that was made." John 1

But have you forgotten the law of causality? Do you reject logic in favor of your interpretation of Scripture?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Let me get this straight. Allowing your bride some freedom of choice is a sign of weakness on your part? You're a "real man" if, and only if, you're a control-freak who dictates her every thought, move, and intent? And then throws her into a pit of fire as her reward for faithfully fulfilling your behests?

That's a "real man" by your definition?

Let me get this straight. Your god is like US?

You cannot judge God according to our virtues.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Exactly. Puppet on a string. You've just confirmed the five tenets that I listed. As for "contrariness", by that you mean the following. Even when the devil's behavior APPEARS to be contrary to divine intent, he is behaving EXACTLY as the divine Engineer preprogrammed him to walk (he is essentially an unwitting victim of God's evil machinations).

You make me think of those who want to say that God regenerating the Elect by the sole council of his will, not by permission granted, is "forcing". (Did God force us to be born as the people we are --and they complain at being changed for the better??)

We in our contrariness do indeed accomplish exactly what God had in mind, or do you have him flying by the seat of his pants, somehow completing his plan by amazing wisdom and occasional intervention?

How does this make us puppets? Do we not WILL to do everything we do? Do we not WILL to sin? Did the Devil have no choice? He most certainly did choose! You are letting your dialogue push your mind around.

 

[JAL]

Yet both [Lucifer and Adam] did precisely as God planned, or there was no reason to create this People (the born again, Elect, Bride of Christ) for himself, to the glory and praise of Christ....Here I would like to walk you through the logic of causality. Like it or not, with all the freedom to decide at your disposal, everything you are, have and do is still the result of cause. Same with Lucifer, same with Adam..

Yes you hold to a determinism bereft of libertarian freedom, whereby we are puppets on God's string. I thought we already established that. And? (Newsflash: regurgitating your position is not a rebuttal).

I love 1 Jn 1:9. My Greek scholar/ professor/ author of reference books father said the Greek tense implies "to have already forgiven us our sins" (completed action in the past), though yes, contingent on the confession. Calvinism doesn't deny that if one is not confessing, his sins are not forgiven. Bit in spite of all your constructions, we are said in Scripture to be still at war with the "old man" within us. THAT needs purification, and it is being done, as a result of confession. And if you demand that if the forgiveness is already done, so is the confession, then I say, yes, just as you said, we are already purified.

You apparently didn't understand a word I said. My argument really had nothing to do with forgiveness in the sense of forensic justification. You're confusing the concept of "cleansing" (sanctification) with justification (being declared righteous).

You want to take a principle of continuous action and extrapolate it to completed, and take a completed action and make it continuous. If you hold Calvinism to apparent contradictions between 1 Jn 1:9 and 2 Cor 5:17, then you too, must answer it. So how do you say we are already clean, if he will cleanse us upon confession? It is no worse for Calvinism than for you.

I already DID address it, in a way that Calvin's metaphysics will not allow. Calvin (and the whole church) fell prey to DDS (Doctrine of Divine Simplicity), a metaphysics where a spiritual substance (e.g. a human heart/soul/mind) is an immaterial substance indivisible into parts. Thus Calvin would never be able to say that PART of the heart was clean, and thus awaiting the REST of the heart to be cleansed gradually/incrementally (my position). Thus Calvin is left with an unresolved contradiction surfaced, for example, at 1John 1:9. You've done nothing to resolve it.

 

[JAL]

It most certainly does not contradict God's kindness, except in the mind of those who want God to fit their notion of Kindness. You elevate man to God's level, that he must act according to their mind.

That's the upshot of Calvinist doctrine, and I don't think Charles Hodge expressed it any better than you did. Basically Hodge admitted that the Reformed God behaves like an evil monster (by human standards), but we have to suck it up, classify it as "kindness", and praise Him for it just because He is God. Lovely. The irony of his concession is that he repeatedly objects to worldly views and religions as unethical or, in his terms, a "shock to the moral sense". Frankly I can't think of anything more shocking than double-predestination.

The real problem here is three unresolved contradictions.
(1) If God can do anything that we'd consider evil and call it "loving kindness", then our future hope is undermined. You can no longer claim hope ON THEOLOGICAL GROUNDS.
(2) The biblical promises are now logically self-contradictory because they PURPORT to convey hope. When a bible verse promises us God's kindness for all eternity - and your claim is that it doesn't mean "kindness" as we humans understand it - that is NOT consoling, it is rather UTTERLY TERRIFYING, it is CAUSE FOR ALARM. The LAST thing I want is God's kindness if it could mean something other than what I understand kindness to be (e.g. cruelty).
(3) The Bible is supposed to be an ACCURATE TRANSLATION of authorial intent. You claim that God deviates from our human definitions of virtues. Okay so let's translate that into English - accurately. How would I describe someone who deviates from my human definition of the following virtues: just, loving, kind, honest, patient, unselfish, diligent, self-controlled, morally pure ??? I would properly describe that person (in English) as unjust, cruel, unkind, dishonest, lazy, and immoral. Therefore if I really viewed God this way, I should be lobbying for a correction to the English translations - a correction that describes God in such immoral terms.

 

[JAL]

I forgot one of the contradictions.
(4) The Bible describes sinful man in immoral terms - immoral terms that we humans DO understand - and it claims that God's behavior is PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE of that behavior. Therefore you are simply dead wrong to claim that God's virtues are different than the human understanding of virtue.

 

[JAL]

Let me get this straight. Your god is like US?

You cannot judge God according to our virtues.

See my last two posts.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's the upshot of Calvinist doctrine, and I don't think Charles Hodge expressed it any better than you did. Basically Hodge admitted that the Reformed God behaves like an evil monster (by human standards), but we have to suck it up, classify it as "kindness", and praise Him for it just because He is God. Lovely. The irony of his concession is that he repeatedly objects to worldly views and religions as unethical or, in his terms, a "shock to the moral sense". Frankly I can't think of anything more shocking than double-predestination.

Then of course, you can explain how God can make all things, yet somehow escape the causality of our decisions. Or do you not admit that Sovereignty is his alone?

Meanwhile, Double Predestination, according to some, implies that the ultimately condemned were God's primary creation just as surely as the Elect are. That is not so. They are but

The real problem here is three unresolved contradictions.
(1) If God can do anything that we'd consider evil and call it "loving kindness", then our future hope is undermined. You can no longer claim hope ON THEOLOGICAL GROUNDS.
(2) The biblical promises are now logically self-contradictory because they PURPORT to convey hope. When a bible verse promises us God's kindness for all eternity - and your claim is that it doesn't mean "kindness" as we humans understand it - that is NOT consoling, it is rather UTTERLY TERRIFYING, it is CAUSE FOR ALARM. The LAST thing I want is God's kindness if it could mean something other than what I understand kindness to be (e.g. cruelty).
(3) The Bible is supposed to be an ACCURATE TRANSLATION of authorial intent. You claim that God deviates from our human definitions of virtues. Okay so let's translate that into English - accurately. How would I describe someone who deviates from my human definition of the following virtues: just, loving, kind, honest, patient, unselfish, diligent, self-controlled, morally pure ??? I would properly describe that person (in English) as unjust, cruel, unkind, dishonest, lazy, and immoral. Therefore if I really viewed God this way, I should be lobbying for a correction to the English translations - a correction that describes God in such immoral terms.

(1) You have here presented a strawman. God doesn't do anything evil, whether we consider it so or not. Our consideration of evil is not ours to judge. Our hope is in HIM, not in our judgement. We already know that the judge of the whole world will do what is right. Why build a theology to prove it, excusing him from blame? He WANTS people to know what he is like (see Romans 9).
(2) No it is not terrifying. Your strawman nothwithstanding, it is my greatest satisfaction to know that God will accomplish everything he set out to do, and that, for his own sake. It is even more satisfying than to know that I am a beneficiary of his kindness.
(3) No, God does not deviate from anything. God is what he is. It is we who think backwards, supposing ourselves to approach his level. Your hyperbole doesn't show logical sequence, but mere irateness.

 

[JAL]

You make me think of those who want to say that God regenerating the Elect by the sole council of his will, not by permission granted, is "forcing". (Did God force us to be born as the people we are --and they complain at being changed for the better??)

Again, I already called you out on this facade. Standard Calvinistic debating tactic. You're shifting away from the larger context of freedom to the narrower question of whether fallen man can repent and obey. Worth discussing, but a bit of a strawman here. Tell you what. Resolve the larger issue first, and then we'll debate the smaller issue later.

We in our contrariness do indeed accomplish exactly what God had in mind, or do you have him flying by the seat of his pants, somehow completing his plan by amazing wisdom and occasional intervention?

Strawman. Here you use the caricature "flying by the seat of his pants" to insinuate that anyone who allows free is by definition incompetent and wrecklessly so. Non-sequitur.

How does this make us puppets? Do we not WILL to do everything we do? Do we not WILL to sin? Did the Devil have no choice? He most certainly did choose! You are letting your dialogue push your mind around.

Again, superficial language. I laid out five tenets helping to clarify the distinction between real libertarian freedom versus merely nominal freedom (determinism).

The very existence of animals flies in the face of nominal freedom. Bear in mind that apes are very intelligent mammals:

"It is now generally accepted that apes can learn to sign and are able to communicate with humans."

So why won't apes stand before the judgment throne of God, having murdered someone? Because the primary force driving their will and intent is indelible animal instinct. Animals are presumed to be incapable of transcending their natural instincts and thus are not morally culpable for their behavior. BY CONTRAST stand human beings. Every chapter of the bible resonates with the intimation that human beings CAN choose differently, that they are NOT completely bound by some innate causality.

What's interesting is that you clearly don't believe that God is bound by causality - you agree He has libertarian free will. Yet you seem to insist that:
(1) Such is impossible for humans. Their behavior is causally predetermined.
(2) God is so evil as to blame them for inexorable behavior.

On top of that, you ignore a glaring contradiction in your thinking. What does it mean to admit that God has free will? What exactly is free will? It is flying by the seat of your pants - which you just disparaged! Specifically it contradicts infinite foreknowledge. How so? Free will is a period of deliberation where the final outcome is not foreknown because the mind has not yet decided yet.

At this juncture in my life, I am literally in awe of how many logically incoherent tenets are required for someone like you to reconsider his position. As yet I can find no cap on it.

 

[JAL]

(1) You have here presented a strawman. God doesn't do anything evil, whether we consider it so or not.
Our consideration of evil is not ours to judge. Our hope is in HIM, not in our judgement. We already know that the judge of the whole world will do what is right. Why build a theology to prove it, excusing him from blame? He WANTS people to know what he is like (see Romans 9).
(2) No it is not terrifying. Your strawman nothwithstanding, it is my greatest satisfaction to know that God will accomplish everything he set out to do, and that, for his own sake. It is even more satisfying than to know that I am a beneficiary of his kindness.
(3) No, God does not deviate from anything. God is what he is. It is we who think backwards, supposing ourselves to approach his level. Your hyperbole doesn't show logical sequence, but mere irateness.

You've abolished the distinction between good and evil with respect to God and hence are speaking complete gibberish. Scripture itself preserves those distinctions. For example David pleaded:

"I am in deep distress. Let us fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into human hands."

We all know what this means. Men are capriciously, unwaveringly, limitlessly cruel without mercy whereas God's behavior is defined as the opposite. These are clear contrasts, clear distinctions, clear definitions of virtue. The biblical God doesn't abide in an oblivion to morality that abolishes the distinction between good and evil, an indifference prone to random acts of cruelty while calling it "good". The prophets continually rebuked Israel and other nations for their evil ways - their selfishness, their cruelty, their genocide, their racism - and made it clear that God's behavior is the polar opposite.

(1) You have here presented a strawman. God doesn't do anything evil, whether we consider it so or not.
Our consideration of evil is not ours to judge.

Newsflash: It is ONLY ours to judge. Theology is a human endeavor. It is YOU and I who must choose, for example, between Calvinism and Arminianism. It is WE HUMANS who must decide which theology, among them all, properly and accurately represents God's kindndess and virtue, and we must reject any teaching that casts false aspersions on God's character. And the only way we can do that is if the terms related to virtue have a meaning common to us and God.

(2) No it is not terrifying.

Yes it is. You have a promise in your heart from the Inward Witness that God will treat you with kindndess - kindness as YOU understand it - for all eternity. That's what prevents you from being terrified. But on THEOLOGICAL GROUNDS, the claim that God doesn't hold to our definitions of virtue is ABSOLUTELY TERRIFYING. How do you know that you will be saved? Your God is a liar, right? I mean, you just intimated that He is not bound to the human definition of honesty! So how can you trust His "promise" of salvation?

You're not making any sense here. It's absolute gibberish.

(3) No, God does not deviate from anything.

Word games. Semantic games. The reality is that your God does not comply with my definition of virtue. And that's cause for alarm. On theological grounds, it undermines hope (setting aside the Inward Witness who gives hope to us all).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Again, I already called you out on this facade. Standard Calvinistic debating tactic. You're shifting away from the larger context of freedom to the narrower question of whether fallen man can repent and obey. Worth discussing, but a bit of a strawman here. Tell you what. Resolve the larger issue first, and then we'll debate the smaller issue later.

Merely showing your mindset.

Strawman. Here you use the caricature "flying by the seat of his pants" to insinuate that anyone who allows free is by definition incompetent and wrecklessly so. Non-sequitur.

Do you have a God who can move a rock he made immovable? You are arguing as though chance actually can determine. It is logical nonsense. Or are you saying that each man is in and of himself better or worse than others somehow (to be able to choose what others do not), that is not by God's causation? God allows choice, which is ALWAYS according to what the chooser wants at the moment of choice. He does not create an envelope in which somehow, nothing is predetermined and each chooser is autonomous. God does not remove anything from causality --that would be self-contradictory to his own Sovereignty.

Every chapter of the bible resonates with the intimation that human beings CAN choose differently, that they are NOT completely bound by some innate causality.

No, it resonates with the intimation that we do indeed choose and are responsible for our choices. It does not imply at all that causality is somehow suspended for them to be able to really choose or to be responsible for their choices.

On top of that, you ignore a glaring contradiction in your thinking. What does it mean to admit that God has free will? What exactly is free will? It is flying by the seat of your pants - which you just disparaged! Specifically it contradicts infinite foreknowledge. How so? Free will is a period of deliberation where the final outcome is not foreknown because the mind has not yet decided yet.

God's free will IS Sovereignty. He is under no obligation except in our mind, to his such things as faithfulness and his own nature. He does what he does because he is what he is. He is not obliged to be so, though we may consider it an obligation on his part. He freely does what he does, by the counsel of his own will. It does not contradict specific foreknowledge, particularly if I am right that he foreknows because he forecauses. Where do you get the notion that free will is a period of deliberation? God is not like us.

What's interesting is that you clearly don't believe that God is bound by causality - you agree He has libertarian free will. Yet you seem to insist that:
(1) Such is impossible for humans. Their behavior is causally predetermined.
(2) God is so evil as to blame them for inexorable behavior.

Right and very badly wrong. God is not bound by any principle from outside himself.
(1) You are correct, yet they will to be so.
(2) I do not insist God is evil in any way. That is your take. The are at enmity with him, and will to oppose him in all they think and do. You think God is unjust merely because they are slaves to their nature? You elevate them to his level. WE ARE WORMS compared to his Majesty and Being. It is not unjust to step on us if he chooses. Have you no concept of the huge difference between our morality and his predetermination? You should be thanking him for his patience with sinners --have you no concept of the enormity that is sin? yet him drinking it up like water for our sake, not disparaging us for our foolish ignorance-- Worms rebelling against their maker. Yes, this was his plan.

At this juncture in my life, I am literally in awe of how many logically incoherent tenets are required for someone like you to reconsider his position. As yet I can find no cap on it.

I echo that for you, but add, how can a person possibly think he needs to excuse God who wants no excuse, without himself being set on self-determination like the lost are. God causes all things, whatsoever come to pass The fact you see sin there is against you.

 

[JAL]

This says it all:

God is not like us.

Mark, if God is not like us, THEN SHUT UP. What I mean is, your every post is a methodological contradiction. Let me summarize how debates with you ALWAYS GO:

(1) Mark lays out his Calvinistic view of God.
(2) Dissenters layout an alternative view of God.
(3) Mark responds, "You have no right to make assertions about God, He is not like us, we can't comprehend Him, we can't even understand His virtues."

Um...please review #1? If we can't comprehend God, then YOU have no right to make YOUR assertions. You bring out your favorite debating tactic (i.e. #3) whenever we object to YOUR view of God.

Mark, if God is incomprehensible in your view, THEN KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. You have no right to assert a Calvinistic God if God isn't something that we humans can comprehend.

 

[Fervent]

2 Corinthians 5:
14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all,
then all died;
15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves,
but for Him who died for them and rose again.

Where does it say that all of humanity "died in Christ", and where does it say "he made the provision for them all". In the verse above, the use of "all" is to designate that there is no other way, or it is a reference to "both Jew and Gentile". Take your pick --either way, If any is to be saved, it is through Jesus Christ.

My question is this: Did Christ actually pay the sins of "all" (in which case he died in vain for most), or only of the Elect?

I understood what you were getting at, and as the verse reads all died. The all in 14 refers to all. All died, no exceptions. 15, on the other hand, limits the group to "those who should live," which is not all. Ultimately, though, this requires a much deeper study on what the Biblical understanding of atonement is, beginning with an Old Testament perspective since when it is explained in the NT it's through Old Testament sacrifices. From my study, the idea that Christ "paid the sin" is a misunderstanding of what was accomplished on the mercy seat as the primary imagery is a cleansing from the corruption of sin not a repayment, so the question of whether the "payment" is only for the Elect or humanity at large is inappropriate.

 

[JAL]

You make a philosophical rebuttal of free will.

You are arguing as though chance actually can determine.

Thus you limit the possibilities to two:
(1) Inexorable causality (determinism).
(2) Random chance
and thus do not believe in a third possibility:
(3) Real libertarian freedom.
You continue reasserting this philosophical argument:

It is logical nonsense. Or are you saying that each man is in and of himself better or worse than others somehow (to be able to choose what others do not), that is not by God's causation? God allows choice, which is ALWAYS according to what the chooser wants at the moment of choice. He does not create an envelope in which somehow, nothing is predetermined and each chooser is autonomous. God does not remove anything from causality --that would be self-contradictory to his own Sovereignty.

First off, your position is a contradiction in terms. You DO, with respect to God, acknowledge #3 as a real possibility. Conveniently you INSIST that such freedom is not possible for men. But assuming what is to be proven is NOT an argument.

I'll admit that free will seems to have an aura of impenetrable mystery. But so does matter! The Atomists were a group of Greek philosophers who existed 2500 years ago. They thought that matter consists of irreducibly small particles called atoms. 2500 years later, we still can't seem to find irreducible particles! No one really knows for sure what matter is. Particles? Energy? What exactly is energy? But we all EXPERIENCE matter, and therefore the RATIONAL thing to do is to acknowledge its existence.

Same is true of free will. All of us, at one point or another, experience REGRET. Meaning we did something and then regretted doing it. Why do we feel regret? Because we feel we could have chosen differently. At that moment we feel that we had free will. Like matter, we may have difficulty DEFINING free will, but we seem to EXPERIENCE it on a regular basis.

Determinists like yourself want to insist that this feeling is a deceptive illusion, that real libertarian freedom doesn't exist, that we can never self-transcend causality. The PROBLEM with that position is that the Bible becomes nonsense, because it has God punishing us for behavior beyond our ability to tame.

It resonates with the intimation that we do indeed choose and are responsible for our choices. It does not imply at all that causality is somehow suspended for them to be able to really choose or to be responsible for their choices.

That doesn't make sense. You don't pronounce an animal morally culpable for yielding to its instincts. You don't hold it "responsible" in a moral sense. Only in the context of real libertarian freedom does the term "responsible" make sense.

God's free will IS Sovereignty. He is under no obligation except in our mind, to his such things as faithfulness and his own nature. He does what he does because he is what he is. He is not obliged to be so, though we may consider it an obligation on his part. He freely does what he does, by the counsel of his own will. It does not contradict specific foreknowledge, particularly if I am right that he foreknows because he forecauses. Where do you get the notion that free will is a period of deliberation? God is not like us.

First of all, you're rambling. You're making a series of unclear, disjointed statements as to make a show of declaring something profound about God, but in reality you're just playing a dancing game - your statements are not entirely clear on whether God is bound by His innate nature, on the one hand, or free to mutate Himself, on the other. For the most part I will ignore such facade-responses. I call it linguistic camouflage - hiding behind statements too nebulous to be comprehended - and I personally don't stoop to that nonsense.

Where do you get the notion that free will is a period of deliberation?

Without a period of deliberation, free will doesn't make sense. If my mind is already made-up on all issues from the moment of my existence - such that I never took the time to make up my mind - then I have never made a free choice.

 

[JAL]

You think God is unjust merely because they are slaves to their nature?

Yes. If God, from the outset, architected Lucifer, Adam, and Eve as slaves to their nature, it would be unjust to punish them for their behavior. Again, theology is a human endeavor conducted with HUMAN VOCABULARY. It is therefore irrational, when faced with two competing theologies, for us to embrace the one that construes God as "unjust", "cruel", "dishonest", and so on. In terms of human vocabulary, it is infinitely more rational to vote for a theology that depicts God as "kind", "loving", "fair", "just", and "merciful".

It is not unjust to step on us if he chooses. Have you no concept of the huge difference between our morality and his predetermination? You should be thanking him for his patience with sinners --have you no concept of the enormity that is sin? yet him drinking it up like water for our sake, not disparaging us for our foolish ignorance-- Worms rebelling against their maker. Yes, this was his plan.

At least for yourself, you've heralded the end of theology. You've claimed that God doesn't share our human vocabulary, He doesn't share our virtues, the words in the Bible don't necessarily mean what we think they mean, and thus exegesis is a pointless endeavor. The Bible is therefore useless - it certainly can't be identified as a source of hope. And that nullifies every statement that YOU would like to make about God. At this point, it would only make sense for you to SHUT UP.

I don't see where you responded to my earlier challenge. How do you have confidence in His promises, if He is not bound to the human concepts of virtue such as honesty? Why would you have confidence in a liar?

You should be thanking him for his patience with sinners....

Er...um...come again? What was that? I'm misbehaving in your view? As though I had free will to do otherwise? Someone has said, "Determinists are rarely consistent." This is of course true.

 

[JAL]

[God] does not create an envelope in which somehow, nothing is predetermined and each chooser is autonomous. God does not remove anything from causality --that would be self-contradictory to his own Sovereignty...he foreknows because he forecauses....God causes all things, whatsoever come to pass.

Puppets on a string. Even when you don't use the philosophical term "First Cause", you IMPLY it in all your comments on causality, therefore I still cannot help but feel that you're shoving a non-biblical term down my throat. To create a domino-effect, your God lines them all up, tips over the first one, and then a chain of causality inexorably capsizes each domino in turn. That much I understand of you - what I don't understand is this:
(1) Do you believe this because, in your view, no other type of reality is logically or logistically possible?
(2) Or do you believe it because a Calvinistic God of absolute sovereignty (a control-freak) leads to this conclusion?

Before I continue, have you ever toyed with dominos? When the dominos fell over in turn, did you ever become boiling angry with them? Throw them into a pit of fire to punish them? No? Only an idiot would behave that way, right? I mean, if I deliberately "forecaused" (to use your term) the dominos to fall, wouldn't it be idiotic of me to burn with anger? "Then the Lord’s anger burned against Moses" (Ex 4).

And if God is merely pushing dominos, why did He test Abraham? If Abraham is essentially a puppet on a string, there was nothing for Yawheh to test, unless He was suffering doubts about His own puppeteering skills, and thus needed to verify them to His own satisfaction.


But I digress. I want to paint a picture of reality alternative to your "First Cause" domino-effect. To do this most effectively, I really need to tell you who Yahweh is, and how He created us, because I'm pretty sure the church still doesn't know. Perhaps I'll provide some links to my cosmogony.

Setting aside that background information, just imagine that your son walks up to you and punches you in the face. Who is to blame? What propelled his fist? If you possess textbooks on human anatomy and physiology, you might be inclined to believe that our food is the principal domino here. Our metabolism digests our food, helps to convert it into muscle, and helps to unleash muscular energy in the thrown punch. When your children misbehave - even punch you in the face - do you get angry with their food? Their metabolism? Their muscular physiology?

If so, I propose to you a different anthropology. All the data points to our soul being physical in nature (although a full demonstration of this fact is off-topic). In my opinion, this soul is spread throughout the entire human body. It is self-propelling, and the force that propels it is exactly the same in KIND (albeit not in quantity) as God's power. That force/power is called free will. When God reaches out to push a domino, He doesn't need mechanical energy (fuel, combustion, metabolism, and so on) to propel His hand. His free will propels it. In the same way, my soul's free will self-propels it. Thus when your son punches you in the face, the PRIMARY impetus is a self-propelling soul that, by sheer choice, drags his hand toward your face. (I'm not denying that muscles lend additional energy to that primary impetus). In such an ontology, God is not the only domino-pusher. Each of us is a mover and a shaker.

This post isn't primarily for your benefit - you've made it clear that you refuse to consider an alternative point of view. It's primarily for the benefit of everyone monitoring this thread, to expose them to an alternative world view.

 

[JAL]

Then of course, you can explain how God can make all things, yet somehow escape the causality of our decisions. Or do you not admit that Sovereignty is his alone?

Wow. I thought I was clear about this at the outset. Here's what I said at post 34:

Look, God had a couple of options - the following is Theology 101 (duh). Either:
(1) Allow some degree of human freedom.
(2) OR, exercise absolute sovereignty, preengineering man's every thought, move and intent.

You can't have both. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't make 2 + 2 = 5. That's simple logic, it is NOT a sign of weakness. Again, duh.

In other words, option 2 is where God exercises 100% sovereignty, as the quintessential control-freak. Option 1, therefore, is where He relinquishes just enough of His sovereignty to facilitate a modicum of human freedom.

Are we still stuck on Theology 101 here? Really?

 

[Fervent]

You conflate "free will" with "choice", I think. Calvinism also believes in choice. Calvinism doesn't deny that Satan, Adam and all the rest of us, have choice. In fact, we demand it. But FREE? What does that even mean? Certainly Adam was not a slave to sin before he first sinned, nor for that matter, do we have any reason to say Lucifer was a slave to sin before he first sinned. Yet both did precisely as God planned, or there was no reason to create this People (the born again, Elect, Bride of Christ) for himself, to the glory and praise of Christ.

Here I would like to walk you through the logic of causality. Like it or not, with all the freedom to decide at your disposal, everything you are, have and do is still the result of cause. Same with Lucifer, same with Adam.



I love 1 Jn 1:9. My Greek scholar/ professor/ author of reference books father said the Greek tense implies "to have already forgiven us our sins" (completed action in the past), though yes, contingent on the confession. Calvinism doesn't deny that if one is not confessing, his sins are not forgiven. Bit in spite of all your constructions, we are said in Scripture to be still at war with the "old man" within us. THAT needs purification, and it is being done, as a result of confession. And if you demand that if the forgiveness is already done, so is the confession, then I say, yes, just as you said, we are already purified.

You want to take a principle of continuous action and extrapolate it to completed, and take a completed action and make it continuous. If you hold Calvinism to apparent contradictions between 1 Jn 1:9 and 2 Cor 5:17, then you too, must answer it. So how do you say we are already clean, if he will cleanse us upon confession? It is no worse for Calvinism than for you.

Functionally, what's the difference between "choice" and "free will?" If we are able to choose without compulsion, it seems to me that that's the definition of free will. If there is compulsion, it seems to me it is not valid to say we have a choice.