Talbott's Triad

[Clare73]

I agree with that (I think!). I think God would know what decisions we make in advance but I don't think foreknowledge necessarily entails predestination.

Biblically, foreknowlege is not God knowing in advance what men are going to do,
but God knowing in advance what he is going to do.

Acts 15:18 - "Known to the Lord for ages is his work."

God knows in advance what is going to happen because he has decereed that it shall happen.

Acts 2:23 - "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge."

Acts 4:28 - "They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen."

See Isaiah 48:3, Isaiah 37:26.

 

[Saint Steven]

... the natural man loves their sin and hates God...

I would like to challenge this doctrinal mantra.

If a person "hates" God, I don't think this is the cause. A person's life circumstances may push them into a state of resentment (hate) toward God. Typically the loss of a loved one, or other life tragedy. "Why me God?" (which I think is a reasonable response)

The idea that "the natural man loves their sin and hates God" leads to the "blame the victim" mentality of divine retribution. As if God is taking vengeance on those who "hate" him. Thus eternal conscious torment is both "reasonable" and "deserved". Framed as God's divine justice. IMHO

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I would like to challenge this doctrinal mantra.

If a person "hates" God, I don't think this is the cause. A person's life circumstances may push them into a state of resentment (hate) toward God. Typically the loss of a loved one, or other life tragedy. "Why me God?" (which I think is a reasonable response)

The idea that "the natural man loves their sin and hates God" leads to the "blame the victim" mentality of divine retribution. As if God is taking vengeance on those who "hate" him. Thus eternal conscious torment is both "reasonable" and "deserved". Framed as God's divine justice. IMHO

Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Cognate: 2189 éxthra – properly, enemy (hatred, hostility); enmity. See 2190 (exthros).

 

[Clare73]

I would like to challenge this doctrinal mantra.

If a person "hates" God, I don't think this is the cause. A person's life circumstances may push them into a state of resentment (hate) toward God. Typically the loss of a loved one, or other life tragedy. "Why me God?" (which I think is a reasonable response)

The idea that "the natural man loves their sin and hates God"
leads to the "blame the victim" mentality of divine retribution.

1) You disagree with the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:7 and 1 Corinthians 2:14.

2) Blaming man for his sin does not make him the "victim" of anything in regard to God.

As if God is taking vengeance on those who "hate" him. Thus eternal conscious torment is both "reasonable" and "deserved". Framed as God's divine justice. IMHO

 

[Saint Steven]

Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Cognate: 2189 éxthra – properly, enemy (hatred, hostility); enmity. See 2190 (exthros).

I agree.
Maybe what is throwing me here is the "natural man" (the flesh/the carnal mind) being referred to (in your quote below) as if it is the person rather than the state. (of fleshly desires) Certainly the carnal mind is not a person that can choose to love, or hate. Obviously the state of mind is at enmity to God. (or his desires for us)

Jesus is YHWH said: ↑
... the natural man loves their sin and hates God...

 

[hedrick]

1) You disagree with the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:7 and 1 Corinthians 2:14.

2) Blaming man for his sin does not make him the "victim" of anything in regard to God.

I agree with Stephen. Paul was dealing with different people in a very different culture, and he learned about God as a Pharisee. Most of my non Christian friends would be happy to find out that there’s really a God as described by Jesus. To say that their reason for not believing is sin is to put ideology above an honest evaluation of people. Of course maybe you are around different people.

 

[Clare73]

I agree with Stephen. Paul was dealing with different people in a very different culture, and he learned about God as a Pharisee.

I dunno'. . .Paul received his revelation directly from Jesus Christ, personally (Galatians 1:11-12)
in the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:1-7), where he heard things man is not permitted to tell.

That's all the authority I can handle.
If he doesn't have it staright, no one does.

Most of my non Christian friends would be happy to find out that there’s really a God as described by Jesus.

There is really a God as described by Jesus. . .and as described by Paul.

It's one and the same God, both loving and just.

To say that their reason for not believing is sin is to put ideology above an honest evaluation of people.

Unless maybe we don't know them as well as we think we do, and how unwilling they would be to give up their own notions of what God, his truth and his ways should be, to receive, believe and trust what God reveals himself and his truth to be.

Of course maybe you are around different people.

No, we're around the same as you are around.

 

[hedrick]

I agree.
Maybe what is throwing me here is the "natural man" (the flesh/the carnal mind) being referred to (in your quote below) as if it is the person rather than the state. (of fleshly desires) Certainly the carnal mind is not a person that can choose to love, or hate. Obviously the state of mind is at enmity to God. (or his desires for us)

You can understand the term “natural man” as referring to people who are i enlightened, i.e who don't appreciate the spiritual aspect of life. But in the quotations cited I think Paul really does attribute that to sin. Of course you need to understand that for him the term sin really connotes a force in opposition to God more than specific sinful actions. Still, I think Clare73 probably does represent Paul’s meaning.

 

[hedrick]

I dunno'. . .Paul received his revelation directly from Jesus Christ, personally (Galatians 1:11-12) in the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:1-7), where he heard things man is not permitted to tell.

That's all the authority I can handle.
If he doesn't have it staright, no one does.

Paul was in no position to judge people I know, or Americans in general, no matter how much he understood about God. I certainly hope he didn’t believe that everyone is alike, or that there is only one obstacle to faith.

In the first century, just about everyone believed in the supernatural world. I think we have problems in evangelism that are different from his. There are things he could take for granted with people he talked to that we can’t.

 

[Clare73]

Paul was in no position to judge people I know, or Americans in general, no matter how much he understood about God. I certainly hope he didn’t believe that everyone is alike, or that there is only one obstacle to faith.

Human nature hasn't changed since the Fall.
We're blinded by that unregenerate nature.

Paul knew human nature by divine revelation.

In the first century, just about everyone believed in the supernatural world. I think we have problems in evangelism that are different from his. There are things he could take for granted with people he talked to that we can’t.

 

[Clare73]

.

 

[Saint Steven]

You can understand the term “natural man” as referring to people who are i enlightened, i.e who don't appreciate the spiritual aspect of life. But in the quotations cited I think Paul really does attribute that to sin. Of course you need to understand that for him the term sin really connotes a force in opposition to God more than specific sinful actions. Still, I think Clare73 probably does represent Paul’s meaning.

As I understand it, the carnal mind is driven by fleshly desires that are contrary to God's best for us. The lust of the eyes (covetousness), the lust of the flesh (sexual desires), the pride of who we are and what we do (social status).

When you meet someone socially, once they know your name, they want to know what you do. We are wired to identify ourselves this way.

 

[Hmm]

You're gonna' measure just/righteous divine infinity by sinful human finiteness?

Get off the throne. . .he's God, you're not.

We are able to know whether certain things are true about God or not because He has revealed Himself to be as He is in Jesus. I don't believe Jesus would consign anyone to eternal conscious torment but this is not me judging God, it's simply believing what God has told us about Himself.

 

[Dave L]

The Reformers say man has limited free will, not complete free will.

He is able to make some choices, but not all; to wit, to control his tongue.

You make God a spectator basing all on the whims of sinners who control him.

 

[Dave L]

Is any of that biblical? It's very inventive but nothing I've come across before.

“For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” Philippians 2:13 (KJV 1900)

“Lord, thou wilt ordain Peace for us: For thou also hast wrought all our works in us.” Isaiah 26:12 (KJV 1900)

“In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:” Ephesians 1:11 (KJV 1900)

Question? Have you ever made a choice not based on a reason? One that God works after the counsel of His own will?

 

[Hmm]

Question? Have you ever made a choice not based on a reason?

I don't think so. There's always a reason, and usually more than one for every choice, we make. Making a choice means choosing between alternative options so how can you do this without having a preference for the one you choose? Having a preference means that you have a good reason, at least in your eyes, for preferring it.

Again, this is all extremely abstract. Can you give me a concrete example from your own life to illustrate what you mean?

 

[Dave L]

I don't think so. There's always a reason, and usually more than one for every choice, we make. Making a choice means choosing between alternative options so how can you do this without having a preference for the one you choose? Having a preference means that you have a good reason, at least in your eyes, for preferring it.

Again, this is all extremely abstract. Can you give me a concrete example from your own life to illustrate what you mean?

And God works ALL, including the reasons you base your choices on, after His will.

 

[Hmm]

And God works ALL, including the reasons you base your choices on, after His will.

There's no use repeating myself but unless all this is made real with examples from real life it becomes a discussion about abstract ideas where we'll just be talking past each other because we won't know what the other person is saying or what they mean by words like "free-will".

 

[Saint Steven]

You make God a spectator basing all on the whims of sinners who control him.

You make God a cosmic tyrant who demands moral perfection from us but can't live up to the standard he saddled us with. We are commanded to love our enemies while he plans to incinerate his. So-called enemies who he designated and predestined as such. Pre-selected for eternal punishment. Human souls created for cruel and senseless destruction.

 

[Saint Steven]

And God works ALL, including the reasons you base your choices on, after His will.

Wouldn't that be "cart before the horse" in Calvinism?