Predestination??

[calidog]

Reformationist.

this whole thing is mute. When one has to redefine kosmos and desregard supporting scripture:

1Ti 4:10 With a view to this we toil and strive, [yes and] suffer reproach, because we have [fixed our] hope on the living God, Who is the Savior (Preserver, Maintainer, Deliverer) of all men, especially of those who believe (trust in, rely on, and adhere to Him).

1Jo 2:2 And He [that same Jesus Himself] is the propitiation (the atoning sacrifice) for our sins, and not for ours alone but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

It is time for me to break away.

 

[Reformationist]

Reformationist.

this whole thing is mute. When one has to redefine kosmos and desregard supporting scripture:

1Ti 4:10 With a view to this we toil and strive, [yes and] suffer reproach, because we have [fixed our] hope on the living God, Who is the Savior (Preserver, Maintainer, Deliverer) of all men, especially of those who believe (trust in, rely on, and adhere to Him).

Two things. First, it's not a moot point because I am not "redefining kosmos." I am merely applying the proper definition in light of God's sovereign government of history. Secondly, nothing in the passage you cite indicates that God serves as Savior to all people in the same way, which, ironically, you acknowledge by the different definitions of Savior. There are numerous ways the properly understand the "especially," i.e., malista, in that passage. The most likely way is either that malista means, "that is," or "namely." Or, that the passage is relaying that Christ saves all people from the full wrath of God to some degree and that His work of atonement is especially and eternally benefical to those who believe.

1Jo 2:2 And He [that same Jesus Himself] is the propitiation (the atoning sacrifice) for our sins, and not for ours alone but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

Unless you mean to contend that Christ actually atones for sins which are later in need of a second atonement because of a person's unbelief this passage, also, should be looked at differently. The Apostle is simply telling his audience, who were primarily Jews, that the grace of God in salvation is not confined solely to them but is applied to people from every nation on earth. This does not mean, however, that the propitiatory work is dispensed to those who are never redeemed by it.

It is time for me to break away.

I pray that it is to study Scripture.

God bless

 

[calidog]

thanks Reformationis for the exchange of ideas etc. And "I pray that it is to study Scripture", this prayer shall be answered, always. God bless.

 

[Jedi]

Thanks for elaborating. One little thing....you didn't answer my question. I said, "why are some people willing to accept the Cross and some not?"

I have already answered this question on numerous accounts and have given quotes from others answering this question. Once again, in a nutshell, it is because there are some people who will never have it any other way than themselves.

didn't offer it to explain the still present desire of regenerate man (believer) to sin. What I provided to support was the truth that natural man, i.e., he with a carnal mind, is incapable of submitting to God's authority and obeying Him because he sees God as the enemy.

Again, you have no scriptural basis for this. You may say that the man whose mind is entirely set on the flesh is opposed to God, but you have yet to demonstrate that all men have their minds entirely set on the flesh.

This view of God effectively incapacitates him in the area of fiducia, personally trusting God unto salvation. Long story short, natural man is inherently incapable of attaining any good unto righteousness because natural man never desires to do the things pertaining to God and righteousness. He is a sinful creature that serves only the lusts of his flesh. Until and unless that is changed, he cannot change.

Then case closed: you cannot hold man responsible for his sins. He has no choice in the matter, he cannot change, thus he is not responsible for his own actions any more than water is in forming currents. Ultimately, you have just taken away the sinfulness of sin. Congratulations.

Scripture is not a sufficient basis for you?

Romans 14:23
for whatever is not from faith is sin.

Please tell me you’re joking. The way you abuse this text would have everyone who so much as goes to the restroom without thinking “I shall do this from faith” be guilty of sinning. That is not what the passage is saying at all; when you rip things out of context, you often get meanings the author never intended to convey. The context is making your brother stumble by doing things that he mistakenly believes to be wrong (like eating meat sacrificed to idols). The person doubting in this instance is the person who doubts the legitimacy of what Paul has been talking about (and the implied result is that he would eat regardless of whether or not it caused his brother to stumble). The phrase “from faith” in this verse is a clear reference to the sort of behavior that lines up with God, not meaning that a person has to have the correct doctrinal ideas on his mind in doing every action. “Faith” in this verse is used not as a reference to thinking theological thoughts every time you do something, but a reference to having your actions line up with the very nature of God.

This being so, even a nonbeliever can do good things. An agnostic saving Billy Graham by pushing him out of the way of a speeding car isn’t “sin,” because it lines up with the nature of God. Once again, you have no basis on which to stand to say that man is completely incapable of doing good of his own accord.

His act is not "good" in the eyes of God because it wasn't predicated by faith. Paint as selfless an act as you can think of. It doesn't change the fact that the "good deed" wasn't motivated by faith in God.

Whenever someone does a “good” deed simply because it is good, they are in fact choosing God. They are choosing to carry out his very nature, that is, goodness. Thus in a very real sense, everyone who does something good is doing so “from faith,” not in a doctrinal sense but a spiritual, moral sense.

I don't deny that God gives all men a measure of grace such that even the non-believer is capable of these acts of civic righteousness. However, these things, as nice as we may think they are, are not righteous in God's eyes because God, who can see the heart of man, knows that the motivation for the act was never based on faith in God.

See above.

So your contention, however ridiculously unbibical[sic – unbiblical] it is, is that our motivation for our actions is of little value when considering the external appearance of the act?

No, but thanks for the straw man. I did not say, “as long as it appears good, it must be morally good.” On the contrary, motivation is the hinge on which morality rests. What I did say is that a non-believer may do good for good’s sake and when he does so, he is choosing God (that is, goodness itself). Thus his actions are, in a very real sense, “from faith.”

In his unregenerate state, absolutely not.

Then once again, it makes no sense whatsoever to hold humans accountable for sin when they have no choice in the matter: they could have done nothing else. If this is so, the sinfulness of sin has vanished.

What you fail to take into account is that they could have done nothing else because they want nothing else. Their inability to do good springs forth from the fact that they are corrupted at their core. Their heart, i.e., their seat of reason, is sinful thus they want to serve only the lusts of their flesh.

If they are corrupted at their core, infiltrating even their desires, then again, you cannot hold them accountable for their actions: they have no choice in the matter and could do nothing else. You cannot condemn a man for desiring evil when that is the only thing he can possibly desire since by your words, men are “corrupt at their core” and incapable of even desiring good. This being so, you’re still left back at square one: there’s no sense in condemning someone for desiring something when they could have desired nothing else.

Water is not a volitional creation and, as I said, man has a choice. It's just that in his unregenerate state his desires are only and always sinful, thus his choices are sinful.

Haha, so we’re back to that old Calvinist game, eh? “On his own, man has a choice between good and evil, but he can only choose evil.” This really isn’t difficult to understand: when you can only do one particular thing, you have no choice at all. You might as well have an election with only one candidate and when he turns into a tyrant, you point the finger at the people and say, “You chose him!” Once again, if humans can only desire sin, then they cannot be held accountable for desiring sin.

I am not a Calvinist. I am a reformed Christian. But again, I do not think one need agree with Calvin's choice to have someone burned at the stake for heresy to rightfully wear the mantle of Calvinist.

Ah, so we don’t have to completely adhere to every teaching of a teacher to be called an adherent of his teachings. Hmmm. Interesting.

Please, for my edification, show me from my own words where I've claimed that "God can do anything." What I know to be true is that God is bound by His nature. I've not purported anything contrary to that. I look forward to you supporting this accusation or, as will hopefully be the case, withdrawing it.

Your assertions and objections hinge upon this understanding of omnipotence. You seemed quite shocked that I would suggest there are limitations to God in that He cannot save everyone, but only everyone possible. Your shock is expressed in the phrase “He's God. Maybe you forgot that. Who is it that God could not save were He to purpose it? Oh that's right....according to you, it's anyone who simply refuses Him. So much for a sovereign God that accomplishes all that He purposes,” which heavily implies that you reject any notion of limitation of God. If you believe God is only able to do anything possible, how is it that you see God as “pitiful” being only able to save everyone possible (and not just flat out everyone), as if He were too weak for your tastes?

Well, I am glad to burst your bubble. I've never claimed that sovereignty means that God can do anything. I simply acknowledge that sovereignty means that God can do anything that is consistant[sic – consistent] with His nature.

Wonderful – that leaves you with a few less problems to deal with.

I wasn't aware that I missed this question. First off, God has both the power and authority to save every person He ever creates. He simply does not choose to do so.

This is quite untrue. God cannot possibly have this power for as long as people truly are people. In other words, if God has to contort and twist the wills of people in order to save them, he is not saving them themselves, but a contortion of who they are. In essence, He turns them into someone else in order to save them (though He is really not saving “them” at all).

Secondly, the reason that this does not make Him unjust is because salvation is by the graciousness of God. In case you missed it, salvation is something we don't deserve. God doesn't become a bad God for not giving unworthy man what he doesn't deserve.

It is not a matter of deserving salvation, but how God can be completely good and not save all He can. No one has even touched this question, which doesn’t surprise me. It is a question that glares Calvinists straight in the face: How can their God, who is supposedly all-good, not be good enough to save everyone He can? A wholly good God would never refrain from helping those in need whom He is able to help and that is exactly what the God of Calvin does.

I have not clue. Neither I, nor any learned Calvinist I've ever encountered, purports that God does any such thing so I would not be qualified to answer that question.

But you have purported this very thing: that God forces people to Himself by making them desire Him (i.e. irresistible grace, that those God chooses cannot reject Him). Since this is what you have stated, you need to face the problems that cling to that statement.

 

[Jedi]

LOL! You know, I was reading this part of your post and, all the while, saying, "Hey, I totally agree with that, and that, and that, and that, and that, and...uh...um...what in the world....gives everyone a fair shot???"

You’ll notice that I typed it word for word until that point.

What in the world could you possibly mean? Where does the Bible say a single thing about man having "a fair shot at salvation?"

It’s really quite simple. If God is just, then He will treat humans justly. If He is going to give some humans a chance at salvation, and this chance is not warranted by these individuals, then to be fair, He needs to give everyone the same opportunity. As I wrote earlier, we are told that “God does not show favoritism” (Romans 2:11) and that “God is not willing that any perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Based on these two bits of insight to God’s character, it follows that everyone will be given the same opportunity to go to Heaven.

Is salvation now some sort of clay bird after which man strives? The nature of fallen man as expressed in the Bible is one of enmity against God, deceit, sinfulness, self-righteousness, immorality, wickedness in thought and deed. Who is it that avails themselves of this "fair shot" of which you speak?

You’re missing the point here. It is not a matter of man deserving it but if God is going to give it to some regardless of themselves, then to be fair, He has to give that same opportunity to everyone.

The ridiculous part of such a view is that we already have an example of what man does with a "fair shot at salvation." He blows it. He loses for himself, and all his progeny, salvation.

Ah, yes, you take “original sin” to mean “original guilt;” that before I even do anything, I am already guilty. No one can answer the question “What did I do,” because the fact is I didn’t do anything. Sin is not a disease passed down from generation to generation but a choice made by an individual to knowingly do things contrary to God (if it were a disease, people could not be condemned for it any more than for having allergies or the common cold).

Further still, you said that unregenerated man is completely incapable of doing good, so I’m presuming you’re taking the Augustinian approach here and implying that Adam and Eve were the only two humans to have free will and they blew it for the rest of us. If this is so, then there is still a very serious question: If God could give Adam and Eve a choice, why couldn’t He do the same for their offspring? If Adam and Even had a fair shot, why isn’t that same opportunity given to others?

Good luck with the "fair shot" model of salvation. That's gonna carry you all the way to a very heated climate.

Haha, so understanding God to be fair in giving everyone an equal opportunity to go to Heaven is now going to send me to hell? Truly, you have some very odd ideas of personal eschatology.

 

[Normann]

Well then, for we who are blinded by the magnificence of your intellect, tell us who the "whosoever" is that we are trying to explain away.

Normann, please, lend your amazing deductive powers to this statement that I, too, may understand it. The part that is throwing me off is that whole, sticky CONTEXT thing. I know to someone of your stature such petty things as context would mean very little. After all, why consider anything that may actually affect the meaning of Scripture, right. So, when the Peter says that the Lord is not slack concerning His promise TOWARD US, of what promise was He referring?

Please oh wise one. Lend me your knowledge. I wouldn't want you thinking I was trying to explain anything away.

I have not one time made an attack against a person on this thread. I have attacked the false teaching and the organization that promotes the false teaching. However you have attacked me and I accept this with honor.

Matthew 10:25
It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

I shall wear this attack as a badge of honor.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[cygnusx1]

This is nothing more than a straw man. Jesus’ death on the cross was for all who are willing to be with Him, the paying of a debt for those who would let Him pay it. The cross is simply the means to forgive people who wish to be forgiven. It never fails, there are no fingers being crossed.

On the other hand, you are left with a myriad of problems in clinging to your Deterministic God: a God who does not do all He can to save people (negligent and thus not all good), who has to force people to be with Him (a rapist), who ironically doesn’t even get what he wants (for if he has to contort someone’s will to be with Him, it is not really them He is getting at all, but at best a mere shadow of who they really are).

Several things need pointing out with your comments .
First Jesus did die for the whosover will .......... ie , Believe ........ just what would be the point in paying a ransom for those who will never believe ?
Secondly , you say
"the paying of a debt for those who would let Him pay it."
this is soooooooooo typical of man centered thinking , you have elevated man to a point where he is permitting Almighty God to do something !!!! Blasphemy!
Have you taken leave of your senses , when does man allow , permit , grant God to do anything ? Much less to die for him.
When did you give Jesus permission to Love you and die in your place ............ and you then have the unfortunate thinking to describe this as rape ......... how sad for you that you have a god who is at your whim , who can do nothing unless you permit it , lest you charge Him with sin!!!!

 

[seekingpurity047]

It’s really quite simple. If God is just, then He will treat humans justly. If He is going to give some humans a chance at salvation, and this chance is not warranted by these individuals, then to be fair, He needs to give everyone the same opportunity. As I wrote earlier, we are told that “God does not show favoritism” (Romans 2:11) and that “God is not willing that any perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Based on these two bits of insight to God’s character, it follows that everyone will be given the same opportunity to go to Heaven.

Umm... concerning God's justice... Is everyone a sinner? Every evangelical/non-evangelical should agree with "Yes".

Do we all, therefore, deserve hell? Every evangelical/non-evangelical should agree with a big "Yes" and perhaps even...an Amen ?

Now.. since God is just, we should all be burning in eternal fires including gnashing of teeth, etc etc.

Allow me to tell you one thing. What is the most unjust thing that God can do? You would say "Show favoritism", but in reality, the most unjust thing that God can do is "Save Sinners"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't question God's justice, for He is a self-exalting God seeking only to be glorified either through vessels of wrath or vessels of mercy (Romans. 9).

I agree, God doesn't show favoritism, which would explain why His election is UNconditional.

To the glory of God,

Randy

 

[cygnusx1]

I agree, God doesn't show favoritism, which would explain why His election is UNconditional.

Amen Brother!!!!!!

I have been saying as much for ages .......... you hit the nail right on the bonce!

 

[Reformationist]

thanks Reformationis for the exchange of ideas etc. And "I pray that it is to study Scripture", this prayer shall be answered, always. God bless.

Thank you as well and I pray that God blesses you too calidog.

 

[Jedi]

First Jesus did die for the whosover will .......... ie , Believe ........ just what would be the point in paying a ransom for those who will never believe ?

And this is very close to what I’ve been saying all along: He died for “whosoever will.” Well then, one less thing to argue about.

this is soooooooooo typical of man centered thinking , you have elevated man to a point where he is permitting Almighty God to do something !!!! Blasphemy!

Oh, please. It’s simple logic: if you have free creatures, you cannot force them to be with you or accept your gift (else they would not be free). It is a freedom given by God to man, so man is not preventing God from doing anything that God Himself has not allowed them to choose to prevent.

Have you taken leave of your senses , when does man allow , permit , grant God to do anything ?

When God gives man a choice of choosing between Heaven or Hell, God cannot force that choice: the freedom He has given does not permit Him to force them into either location.

how sad for you that you have a god who is at your whim , who can do nothing unless you permit it , lest you charge Him with sin!!!!

This is a terrible straw man you’ve concocted here. Simply because God cannot force free creatures to choose Him or accept His gifts does not mean that all of God’s actions are magically bound by man’s choices.

What’s ironic is that Calvinists are so drunk with their desire for power that they make their God very weak: Calvinists present Him in such a way that He cannot even refrain from exerting His power on His subjects.

Now.. since God is just, we should all be burning in eternal fires including gnashing of teeth, etc etc.

I knew you might try this, but this point misses the mark entirely. Would this be just? Certainly. IF this were everyone’s fate. It is not (at least we can agree on that). This being true, either everyone is saved (Universalism) or everyone is given the same, fair opportunity to choose between Heaven and Hell (Arminianism). Calvinism presents a scenario in which a rich parent of two children, both guilty of the same crime, chooses to bail one out of jail and not the other. A fair parent would do no such thing. A fair parent would offer them both bail and if one simply wanted to stay in jail, the parent would honor his choice.

I agree, God doesn't show favoritism, which would explain why His election is UNconditional.

Problem: if God doesn’t show favoritism, and He is able to save everyone regardless of their wills, and if we know He saves at least some people, then ALL people should be saved (else He has done nothing more than show favoritism to those He saved and neglect for those He did not). The only other option is to give everyone the same opportunity concerning whether or not to be with God and then honor the choice they make.

Once again, if God has to twist and contort people's wills in order to force them to Himself, it is not them He is saving at all, but a mere shadow of who they are. The only way God can truly save people is to leave them the choice of whether or not they wish to be saved.

 

[seekingpurity047]

Problem: if God doesn’t show favoritism, and He is able to save everyone regardless of their wills, and if we know He saves at least some people, then ALL people should be saved (else He has done nothing more than show favoritism to those He saved and neglect for those He did not).

Read Romans 9 again.

To the glory of God,

Randy

 

[Reformationist]

I have already answered this question on numerous accounts and have given quotes from others answering this question. Once again, in a nutshell, it is because there are some people who will never have it any other way than themselves.

This doesn't answer the question. It just begs another question. You see, now I have to simply ask, "Why will some people never have it any other way than themselves and some are willing to submit to the Lord?" I'm trying to get to what you see as the root reason as to why some come to the Lord and some don't. It isn't enough to simply acknowledge that it happens or even that it happens "because that's what they want." I want to know what you believe determines what they want. You see, I have absolutely no problem answering this question. I am well aware that man is born in a state of rebellion against God and will gladly remain that way, never seeking God, never having faith, never submitting to God's authority unless God changes their nature. When He does so, their spiritual polarity is changed as well. Where before they lived according to the spirit of disobedience, they now live as sons and daughters of God, striving to serve their new Father in obedience because they no longer view Him with enmity but, rather, love. So, in a nutshell, I agree that people come to God because they want to. I also acknowledge that those that want to, want to because God has given them the desire to do so when He regenerates them from death in their trespasses and sins to life in the Lord Jesus.

Again, you have no scriptural basis for this.

Really? I said that carnal man is at enmity against God and is incapable of submitting to His law. You claim that I have no Scriptural basis for this. What then, is this:

Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

Carnal mind...enmity against God...cannot be subjected to the law...yup, all there. Guess you're wrong again.

You may say that the man whose mind is entirely set on the flesh is opposed to God, but you have yet to demonstrate that all men have their minds entirely set on the flesh.

I needn't demonstrate any such thing. I merely need to show that Scripture describes that man is naturally that way. When the Lord is gracious enough to regenerate man and give him a new nature, he is no longer opposed to God but, instead, strives to obey Him because he loves him and desires to serve his new Master. Do you need to see Scriptural support for the notion that man is naturally opposed to God and that this corruption yields only sinful desires?

Then case closed: you cannot hold man responsible for his sins. He has no choice in the matter, he cannot change, thus he is not responsible for his own actions any more than water is in forming currents. Ultimately, you have just taken away the sinfulness of sin. Congratulations.

Ultimately, you have just shown yourself to be unwilling to think before you speak. Not uncommon for one who holds themselves and their free will in such high regard. What's I've said, for those who are not too blind to see, is that man's inability to choose any good pertaining to righteousness stems from the corruption of his heart. He chooses, as is a necessity for volitional creatures. However, his choices, which are predicated by his desires, are always sinful because his desires are always sinful.

Please tell me you’re joking. The way you abuse this text would have everyone who so much as goes to the restroom without thinking “I shall do this from faith” be guilty of sinning. That is not what the passage is saying at all; when you rip things out of context, you often get meanings the author never intended to convey. The context is making your brother stumble by doing things that he mistakenly believes to be wrong (like eating meat sacrificed to idols). The person doubting in this instance is the person who doubts the legitimacy of what Paul has been talking about (and the implied result is that he would eat regardless of whether or not it caused his brother to stumble). The phrase “from faith” in this verse is a clear reference to the sort of behavior that lines up with God, not meaning that a person has to have the correct doctrinal ideas on his mind in doing every action. “Faith” in this verse is used not as a reference to thinking theological thoughts every time you do something, but a reference to having your actions line up with the very nature of God.

My apologies for assuming that you were willing to use that big old brain for something other than trying to impress others. When I posted Romans 14:23 I had assumed that you were aware that the passage deals with moral choices, which "going to the restroom" surely is not. Additionally, I never once stated that the verse had anything to do with one having the correct doctrinal ideas about what they were doing. My point, which obviously flew over your head, was simply that the actions of non-believers are never predicated by a desire to do the will of God because they never have such a desire. So, for the cheap seats, this means that every moral choice they make, no matter how outwardly compliant it appears to be, is not a righteous choice because it is never motivated by the righteous desire to obey God.

This being so, even a nonbeliever can do good things. An agnostic saving Billy Graham by pushing him out of the way of a speeding car isn’t “sin,” because it lines up with the nature of God. Once again, you have no basis on which to stand to say that man is completely incapable of doing good of his own accord.

As I previously stated, God's grace rains on the just and the unjust alike. However, no action of the non-believer is righteous because no action of the non-believer is completely selfless and God centered.

Your assertions and objections hinge upon this understanding of omnipotence. You seemed quite shocked that I would suggest there are limitations to God in that He cannot save everyone, but only everyone possible. Your shock is expressed in the phrase “He's God. Maybe you forgot that. Who is it that God could not save were He to purpose it? Oh that's right....according to you, it's anyone who simply refuses Him. So much for a sovereign God that accomplishes all that He purposes,” which heavily implies that you reject any notion of limitation of God. If you believe God is only able to do anything possible, how is it that you see God as “pitiful” being only able to save everyone possible (and not just flat out everyone), as if He were too weak for your tastes?

Jedi, the reason that I call such an idea, i.e., God is only able to save everyone possible, a pitiful view of God is because it is God's eternal choice to save someone, and His subsequent and monergistic work of regeneration, that makes it not only "possible" that someone be saved, but ensures that they be saved. The limitation you put upon God isn't imposed by God, which would be a perfectly acceptable limitation. Your claim is that God is incapable of saving someone simply because they reject Him. This, unfortunately and invariably leads one to ask, why are they inclined to reject Him when others, who He is apparently able to save, are inclined to accept Him. Your insufficient answer to this question is, "there are some people who will never have it any other way than themselves," again begging the question, why are some willing to have it another way and these people are not? What makes them willing Jedi? Is there any part of your philosophy that is not centered around the wellspring of goodness you seem to believe inherent to natural man?

This is quite untrue. God cannot possibly have this power for as long as people truly are people. In other words, if God has to contort and twist the wills of people in order to save them, he is not saving them themselves, but a contortion of who they are. In essence, He turns them into someone else in order to save them (though He is really not saving “them” at all).

So tell me, who is it that regulates God's ability to save a person? Is it the person? Is the person created for their own glory? When created, do they become the masters of their own destiny?

It is not a matter of deserving salvation, but how God can be completely good and not save all He can.

Everyone that God has, in eternity, purposed to save, end up saved. This isn't coincidence. It's the reality of a sovereign God. There is no such thing as a person created by God that God is incapable of saving. There are, however, people that are created by God that God chooses, for His own reasons, to not redeem.

No one has even touched this question, which doesn’t surprise me.
It is a question that glares Calvinists straight in the face: How can their God, who is supposedly all-good, not be good enough to save everyone He can?

On the contrary. I, myself, have addressed it numerous times, and do so again. Your self serving error is that you assume that God's attribute of goodness is established by the number of people He manages to save. It simply isn't so. In truth, God is just as glorified in condemning the wicked and exacting His wrath against unrighteousness as He is in the dispensation of His mercy and grace. You, like many others, simply cannot stomach the idea that God is not a care bear. He is glorified in all that He does, even in the destruction of the wicked, for it pronounces His holiness.

A wholly good God would never refrain from helping those in need whom He is able to help and that is exactly what the God of Calvin does.

And here is a poignant example of your man centered notions of goodness. God's goodness isn't defined by whether He helps those in need, no matter how badly you wish it to be so. I do not shy away from what reformed doctrine says on the matter because it is merely a reflection of what the Bible says on the matter. God chooses to refrain from redeeming those He reprobates and He is glorified in doing so. You attack reformed doctrine because you are too spiritually immature to acknowledge that God's authority is not regulated by what you deem "good."

But you have purported this very thing: that God forces people to Himself by making them desire Him (i.e. irresistible grace, that those God chooses cannot reject Him). Since this is what you have stated, you need to face the problems that cling to that statement.

Yeah. Sure. Well, I'll simply reiterate that I do not contend that God does that, and I know that I do not do so no matter how vehemently you claim otherwise. I'm not going to engage in your silly little game of "yes you do say that, no I don't say that" because, well, I'm not a child. Who knows. Maybe you are.

 

[Jedi]

Read Romans 9 again.

Not only do you still not answer the question, I've already posted an exegesis over Romans 9 not too long ago. I've read, studied, analyzed, researched, etc. Romans 9 and there is nothing in it that supports such a deterministic God as Calvin's.

I'll get to your post in a little bit, Reformationist. Very predictable, some aspects of it are. But for now, lunch time.

 

[cygnusx1]

And this is very close to what I’ve been saying all along: He died for “whosoever will.” Well then, one less thing to argue about.



Oh, please. It’s simple logic: if you have free creatures, you cannot force them to be with you or accept your gift (else they would not be free). It is a freedom given by God to man, so man is not preventing God from doing anything that God Himself has not allowed them to choose to prevent.



When God gives man a choice of choosing between Heaven or Hell, God cannot force that choice: the freedom He has given does not permit Him to force them into either location.



This is a terrible straw man you’ve concocted here. Simply because God cannot force free creatures to choose Him or accept His gifts does not mean that all of God’s actions are magically bound by man’s choices.

What’s ironic is that Calvinists are so drunk with their desire for power that they make their God very weak: Calvinists present Him in such a way that He cannot even refrain from exerting His power on His subjects.



I knew you might try this, but this point misses the mark entirely. Would this be just? Certainly. IF this were everyone’s fate. It is not (at least we can agree on that). This being true, either everyone is saved (Universalism) or everyone is given the same, fair opportunity to choose between Heaven and Hell (Arminianism). Calvinism presents a scenario in which a rich parent of two children, both guilty of the same crime, chooses to bail one out of jail and not the other. A fair parent would do no such thing. A fair parent would offer them both bail and if one simply wanted to stay in jail, the parent would honor his choice.



Problem: if God doesn’t show favoritism, and He is able to save everyone regardless of their wills, and if we know He saves at least some people, then ALL people should be saved (else He has done nothing more than show favoritism to those He saved and neglect for those He did not). The only other option is to give everyone the same opportunity concerning whether or not to be with God and then honor the choice they make.

Once again, if God has to twist and contort people's wills in order to force them to Himself, it is not them He is saving at all, but a mere shadow of who they are. The only way God can truly save people is to leave them the choice of whether or not they wish to be saved.

"God cannot" God cannot " "God cannot"

doesn't compute!!!

 

[Reformationist]

It’s really quite simple. If God is just, then He will treat humans justly.

And what, Jedi, is the "just" thing for God to do to sinners? You sure you want God to do what is just to you? You justly deserve to burn in hell for your transgressions.

If He is going to give some humans a chance at salvation, and this chance is not warranted by these individuals, then to be fair, He needs to give everyone the same opportunity.

The problem with such a notion, other than the fact that it is ridiculously centered on all men getting what no man deserves, is that it makes the appropriation of salvation the product of man availing himself of an "opportunity." Nothing in the Gospel even comes close to intimating such a repugnant and unrealistic notion of redemption. You see Jedi, no one has the "chance" to be saved for "chance," in a theological discussion, is a non-entity. Were we speaking of mathematics, something in which I'm sure your knowledge surpasses my own, we could rationally speak of "chance" as it relates to probability in an unchanging environment. In a discussion about salvation, however, a person's "chance" to be saved is dependant upon God working in them by regenerating them and then, the probability that they will be in Heaven is 100%, for God does not lose a single one that He gives to the Son.

As I wrote earlier, we are told that “God does not show favoritism” (Romans 2:11) and that “God is not willing that any perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Based on these two bits of insight to God’s character, it follows that everyone will be given the same opportunity to go to Heaven.

Well, you have simply read into these verses that which you want it to say. If you're actually interested in applying these verses properly I would be happy to assist. If, however, any exegetical work I may offer is simply going to fall on deaf ears, well, I'll save us both some time. Let me know.

You’re missing the point here. It is not a matter of man deserving it but if God is going to give it to some regardless of themselves, then to be fair, He has to give that same opportunity to everyone.

Again I reiterate, salvation is not the product of man availing himself of an opportunity. However, God does give every man the "opportunity" to serve Him as Lord and Savior. The problem is that man is a sinner by nature and, in his natural state, sees God as the enemy and His Word as foolishness. It is not until God regenerates a person and gives him a heart that seeks to do God's will, one with faith in the risen Lord, that he will ever do so and even then, imperfectly, for sin still pervades his flesh, though he be of a righteous soul.

Ah, yes, you take “original sin” to mean “original guilt;” that before I even do anything, I am already guilty. No one can answer the question “What did I do,” because the fact is I didn’t do anything. Sin is not a disease passed down from generation to generation but a choice made by an individual to knowingly do things contrary to God (if it were a disease, people could not be condemned for it any more than for having allergies or the common cold).

Ah yes, the ridiculous notion that man is not born a sinner but becomes a sinner when he sins. Found nowhere in the Bible, purported all throughout the world.

Further still, you said that unregenerated man is completely incapable of doing good, so I’m presuming you’re taking the Augustinian approach here and implying that Adam and Eve were the only two humans to have free will and they blew it for the rest of us. If this is so, then there is still a very serious question: If God could give Adam and Eve a choice, why couldn’t He do the same for their offspring?

He cannot now because He has decreed that the first Adam will serve as a federal representative for his progeny.

If Adam and Even had a fair shot, why isn’t that same opportunity given to others?

It doesn't really matter because the very idea that "I shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of Adam because I would have done differently" shows that you would rather call into question the holiness of God in appointing for you a representative before Him for either salvation or damnation. I acknowledge that were anyone ever to be created inclined to do other than what Adam and Eve did it would be unrighteous of God to hold them accountable for the sins of Adam. However, it simply isn't so. I'd rather acknowledge the implicit teaching that I would have chosen just as did Adam than live my life believing that God was wrong. You seem to feel differently.

Haha, so understanding God to be fair in giving everyone an equal opportunity to go to Heaven is now going to send me to hell? Truly, you have some very odd ideas of personal eschatology.

I have no clue where you'll end up. Maybe God will release you from this bondage of self-centeredness in which you are clearly caught up. However, claiming that man's salvation is the product of man's choice shows a lack of dependence upon the only One who will reconcile His people to God. Without the merit of the Lord one is left to justifying themselves by their own works, an undertaking I would wish on no one.

 

[Reformationist]

I have not one time made an attack against a person on this thread.

I am not aware that I have accused you of doing so.

However you have attacked me and I accept this with honor.

I have? Where?

Matthew 10:25
It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

I shall wear this attack as a badge of honor.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

LOL! Normann, um..., being attacked doesn't make you the servant of the Lord. It simply makes you the victim of an attack.

So, care to address my questions? I'll post them again for your convenience:

• Who is the "whosoever" that we are trying to explain away?
• When the Peter says that the Lord is not slack concerning His promise TOWARD US, of what promise was He referring and to whom was the promise made?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Reformationist]

I'll get to your post in a little bit, Reformationist. Very predictable, some aspects of it are. But for now, lunch time.

Oh yeah. I'm so thrilled. It's clear that you approach it with such a humble heart. I'm sure your response will be worth reading....

Seriously, we NEED that rolling eyes smilie back.

 

[Jedi]

This doesn't answer the question. It just begs another question.

Actually, it does answer the question. Simply because it leads to an additional question doesn’t mean that the former wasn’t answered.

You see, now I have to simply ask, "Why will some people never have it any other way than themselves and some are willing to submit to the Lord?" I'm trying to get to what you see as the root reason as to why some come to the Lord and some don't.

I knew this might be coming. What you’re essentially asking is “How are souls made? What makes people people?” Why do I like pizza, why do I feel it’s worthwhile to debate with flaming Calvinists, why do I choose God instead of Satan, etc.? You’re getting now into the realm of psychology of what makes a person themselves, the great nature versus nurture debate (in this case, “nature” including any design intended by God). To this I have a partial, though not complete, answer. It seems there are perimeters in the creation of each individual (nature) while there is some space for the environment in which they grow up to influence who they are (nurture). Imagine a coloring book: part of the picture is a predetermine design but the picture varies depending on the kid you give that design to (they color it different colors, some inside the lines, some not, etc). The same seems to be true with humans: there is a basic outline to start with, but there is significant formation of that individual through whatever environment they grow up in.

Now the question arises “what determines whether or not a person chooses God?” It is essentially asking, “How does God create persons who are freely able to choose Him?” Understandably, I have yet to figure out how, exactly, God creates people. Though we may not know what the answer is, we can mark off some possibilities it most certainly is not. If God merely makes people as men create computers, with only a predetermined program of who you are and what decisions you’ll make, then you are no more “alive” than the computer in front of me (What you call “you” would merely be a program, whether determined entirely by God or by a combination of God and your environment). In a nutshell, to be people, we can’t merely be programs following whatever we’re programmed to do, but how to create something that makes neither random nor predetermined decisions, I can only leave that bit of creation up to God.

Really? I said that carnal man is at enmity against God and is incapable of submitting to His law. You claim that I have no Scriptural basis for this.

You’ve missed the reference entirely. I did not say “You have no scriptural basis for saying the carnal mind is opposed to God,” but pointed out that you saying that natural man has only a carnal mind and is thus incapable of responding positively to God is completely baseless.

I needn't demonstrate any such thing. I merely need to show that Scripture describes that man is naturally that way.

And it doesn’t. Nothing you’ve provided here describes man as being completely incapable of responding to God in a positive way on his own. And if he was, the only thing God could do to be fair, short of leaving everyone to their own devices, is to give everyone a sort of “reanimation” grace whereby everyone is again able to respond to God (as you believe, from what I can tell, Adam and Eve were). Then again, this would only be returning men to their truly “natural” state (uncontaminated by sin).

When the Lord is gracious enough to regenerate man and give him a new nature, he is no longer opposed to God but, instead, strives to obey Him because he loves him and desires to serve his new Master.

So God doesn’t save the actual person, but instead, mind-controls them and twists their wills so that they are someone else who has no choice but to serve God. What a lovely picture.

Do you need to see Scriptural support for the notion that man is naturally opposed to God and that this corruption yields only sinful desires?

This is what is referred to as “original sin” (not to be mistaken for “original guilt”). It is the concept that sin has contaminated the world and, as such, everyone has this tendency to sin (though they are not forced to, since if they were forced, it would not be their fault). To this I have no objection.

Ultimately, you have just shown yourself to be unwilling to think before you speak. Not uncommon for one who holds themselves and their free will in such high regard.

Thank you for yet another mindless flame that contributes nothing to the conversation. Well done.

man's inability to choose any good pertaining to righteousness stems from the corruption of his heart. He chooses, as is a necessity for volitional creatures. However, his choices, which are predicated by his desires, are always sinful because his desires are always sinful.

AGAIN, if man can only do evil, he cannot be held accountable for doing evil. Let me spell this out for you: If he can only do evil, then good is not an option for him, thus he does not have any choice. For there to be real choice involved, the subject must be able to choose either option. You have already said that is not the case, so there is no choice in the matter. If man can only desire evil, then you cannot hold him accountable for not desiring (and choosing) good.

My apologies for assuming that you were willing to use that big old brain for something other than trying to impress others.

Thank you for yet another mindless flame that contributes nothing to this discussion. Perhaps you’ll be able to use your fingers to refrain from flaming others and type something constructive instead, but this is something I’ve noticed Calvinists seem to have a very difficult time doing.

When I posted Romans 14:23 I had assumed that you were aware that the passage deals with moral choices, which "going to the restroom" surely is not. Additionally, I never once stated that the verse had anything to do with one having the correct doctrinal ideas about what they were doing.

Considering you said no matter how self-sacrificial someone’s actions are, it’s sin if not done “from faith,” you very clearly supported a contorted view of morality: calling even good moral acts “sin” if not done “from faith” (implying that the correct doctrinal thoughts had to be on the person’s mind).

My point, which obviously flew over your head, was simply that the actions of non-believers are never predicated by a desire to do the will of God because they never have such a desire.

And this is where you’re dead wrong. What I typed, which obviously flew well over your head, pointed out that these people DO desire to do the will of God (that is, goodness) even if they are not thinking (or even accepting) the doctrinal aspects of Christianity. For anyone who does good for the sake of good does, in a very real sense, the will of God.

As I previously stated, God's grace rains on the just and the unjust alike. However, no action of the non-believer is righteous because no action of the non-believer is completely selfless and God centered.

I’d suggest you interact with more nonbelievers then. Your perspective of them is completely upside down. If what you said were true, we should find no moral non-Christians. As it is, there are plenty who do good for good’s sake and anyone who does good for good’s sake does the will of God.

The limitation you put upon God isn't imposed by God, which would be a perfectly acceptable limitation.

And this is the rub, isn’t it? The limitation upon God concerning the matter of saving people is imposed by God, because the limitation is this: free creatures cannot have their decisions forced, else they cease to be free. God has given freedom to people, so by necessity, He cannot force them into either Heaven or Hell.

Your claim is that God is incapable of saving someone simply because they reject Him.

Quite right, and God has given them the choice to reject or accept Him. He has given them freedom and because of that, He cannot force them either way.

This, unfortunately and invariably leads one to ask, why are they inclined to reject Him when others, who He is apparently able to save, are inclined to accept Him. Your insufficient answer to this question is, "there are some people who will never have it any other way than themselves," again begging the question, why are some willing to have it another way and these people are not? What makes them willing Jedi?

Refer to the first part of my post in response to the question “How does God create free-will in people.”

Is there any part of your philosophy that is not centered around the wellspring of goodness you seem to believe inherent to natural man?

Certainly: the fairness of God in giving everyone the same, fair opportunity to give a final answer as to whether or not we wish to be with Him or be left to ourselves.

 

[Jedi]

So tell me, who is it that regulates God's ability to save a person? Is it the person? Is the person created for their own glory? When created, do they become the masters of their own destiny?

(A) God and the person, for the person cannot save themselves, and God cannot save a free creature if he is not willing to be saved, (B) in part, (C) nope, but the glory of God is man fully alive and there is no glory in mind-controlling someone in forcing them to love you, (D) No, but they do have say in where their destiny ultimately leads.

Everyone that God has, in eternity, purposed to save, end up saved. This isn't coincidence. It's the reality of a sovereign God. There is no such thing as a person created by God that God is incapable of saving. There are, however, people that are created by God that God chooses, for His own reasons, to not redeem.

This simply restates the problem: How can God be completely good and not save everyone He can? A good parent would save as many sick children as he could, a good lifeguard would save as many drowning civilians as he could, but the Calvinist God does not save as many people as he could. The Calvinist God is therefore not entirely good.

Your self serving error is that you assume that God's attribute of goodness is established by the number of people He manages to save.

Not quite. Numbers don’t matter: it’s principle that takes hold in this situation. The question “Did God do all He could to save people” is answered “no,” by the Calvinist. He is therefore not all good.

In truth, God is just as glorified in condemning the wicked and exacting His wrath against unrighteousness as He is in the dispensation of His mercy and grace.

Where is the glory in having to mind-control people by twisting their wills to force them to yourself? Where is the glory in not doing all you could to save people? These things don’t give glory but shame.

You, like many others, simply cannot stomach the idea that God is not a care bear. He is glorified in all that He does, even in the destruction of the wicked, for it pronounces His holiness.

Destruction of the wicked is one thing, but God has already chosen to save the wicked and if He was truly good, He would save as many as He could. Further still, your understanding of sin and how people can’t help but desire sin leads to the conclusion that they are not responsible for their actions and, if so, are not truly wicked. In the Calvinists’ scenario, God is not destroying the wicked but the sick.

God's goodness isn't defined by whether He helps those in need, no matter how badly you wish it to be so.

God’s goodness is defined by exactly that. If He refuses to help someone in need, then He is not entirely good, for an entirely good being would wish to promote goodness as best he can. The Calvinists’ God fails to do this.

I do not shy away from what reformed doctrine says on the matter because it is merely a reflection of what the Bible says on the matter.

I have yet to see this demonstrated, but okay.

God chooses to refrain from redeeming those He reprobates and He is glorified in doing so.

This is pure nonsense. You might as well say that you heard a baby crying in a dumpster and refused to redeem him from his fate and are glorified in doing so.

You attack reformed doctrine because you are too spiritually immature to acknowledge that God's authority is not regulated by what you deem "good."

There you go with more personal flames (which indicates you only have lack of real material to go on, else are too immature yourself to refrain). God’s authority might not be regulated by goodness (power is not always linked with goodness), but for God to be entirely good, He must want to further goodness as much as He can, which would mean saving everyone in need as best He could.

I'm not going to engage in your silly little game of "yes you do say that, no I don't say that" because, well, I'm not a child. Who knows. Maybe you are.

For someone accusing the other party of being a child, you sure do use a lot of flames and personal attacks in your post that contribute nothing to the discussion (very childish behavior). Simply saying “no I don’t purport that” at one point and then asserting it the next simply isn’t acceptable. You affirm all five points of Calvinism and one of those points is irresistible grace: that once God chooses you, you cannot resist Him. In this very post, you wrote, “When the Lord is gracious enough to regenerate man and give him a new nature, he is no longer opposed to God but, instead, strives to obey Him because he loves him and desires to serve his new Master.” God mind-controlling someone and forcing them to come to Him is exactly what you’ve asserted time and time again. This being true, saying “No I didn’t say that” rings hollow.

"God cannot" God cannot " "God cannot"

doesn't compute!!!

A perfect example of the Calvinist idea of God’s omnipotence meaning “being able to do anything.” As soon as you say it is impossible for God to do something, it falls on deaf ears (even though scripture itself says “for it is impossible for God to lie” as I pointed out earlier).

Oh yeah. I'm so thrilled. It's clear that you approach it with such a humble heart. I'm sure your response will be worth reading....

This coming from the person who can't control himeslf from slinging mud... heh, right.

I'll get to the other post of yours in a bit.