Why do Calvinists....

[Boxmaker]

In chapter 3 of Classic Christianity, Bob George says



Well....that's the big issue, isn't it? Just what is 'free will'? George doesn't really defend his position here, either from Scripture or logic...he merely states it as a given and then moves on. I hope he comes back and addresses it later.

In chapter 4, George says something that, while technically true concerning his illustration, could be taken farther than George might intend...and it frequently is taken pretty far. On pages 60-61, George talks about Edward,the guy who had liven his entire Christian life feeling condemned over a particular sin from the far past. I think George states well that that sin was paid for on the cross and says "What He wants you to do is to rest in what He has done through the cross--to put it to bed once and for all--so that you can begin to expereince what He has done through the resurrection." Then Edward at the end of his prayer, Edward says "You have heard me ask You to forgive my sin for the last time. I won't insult You and Your grace again." Now...if Edward is talking about this particular sin that had been troubling him through most of his adult life, fine. If Edward...and Bob George...mean that we don't have to ask forgivness any longer for any sin...we have a problem there. One thing that leads me to beleive that this really is what George is talkikng about is the canning analogy that follows...which I think is a poor analogy. George seems to be talking about achieving sinless perfection in this life. If he is not, then he is leaving himself open to misinterpretation here. I know this for a fact, because I know Christians who believe that we can achieve sinless perfection in this life who would interpret this chapter in this way.

Bob is not saying that we can achieve a sinless life. He is saying that there is no sin apart from the law.

Romans 7:8
But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead.

This was one of the hardest teachings for me to come to understand. What Bob is saying is that when Christ died on the cross He completed the Old Testament law. When Jesus said, "It is finished." He meant it is finished. When the curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple was torn in half it signified that the wall of sin that had separated men from God was torn down for the remainder of time. Christ’s death on the cross forgave all men for all time forgiveness for all there sins under the law. That is so hard to grasp because it means that even the vilest of sinners (like Hitler) died without a sin under the law counted against them. I found that exceedingly hard to deal with. But the Old Testament is completed so what is sin under the New Testament? It is a sin that will send a person to the lake of fire forever.

It is the sin of rejections. When we die, we will stand before God and He will ask each of us, “What did you do with my Son?” If you loved His Son and accepted Him as Lord of your life you are welcomed Home. If not, you are not welcome.

Mr. George does a better job of explaining it but that is the gist of it.

1 Corinthians 10:23
[ The Believer's Freedom ] "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive.

 

[Boxmaker]

Well, maybe I should ask a couple of questions at this point.

What is sin? Is it an attribute of a particular action in Creation? That is, say I shoot someone with a bow and arrow. Am I at fault? How about the arrow manufacturer? How about the bow manufacturer?

I don't think so. I see actions and events as less definitive of sin than the motives and will that underlies them.

I also see sin as a gap -- something missing, due to our limitations. It's real (just like the Grand Canyon is real, but a real gap!). But it's a lack.

So at this point you might see how Calvinists view sin from their respective positions. Sin isn't an attribute of physical things or phenomena or events. Sin is a state of a person's heart in attempting to defy the truth or what's right.

So with Westminster God ordains everything that comes to pass -- even those acts we see caused by a person's sin. But God does not thereby become sinful, for He has placed it in a right purpose and plan in which that sinfulness is absolved, corrected, and atoned-for.

So what is sin? If it is sin under the Law of the Old Testament then Jesus died for nothing on the cross. When He said, "It is finished." He was lying. Far too many Christians today circumcise themselves t the Law of the Old Testament. That is an error that denies Christ’s sacrifice for our sins.

Galatians 5:2-4
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

So what is sin?

As for the Westminster, I still have a problem with that. If God ordains all that happens, God is responsible for all that happens. Charles Manson ordained that some folks should die and his followers made it happen for him. They are all in jail now because they were all equally responsible. You have yet to convince me how God cannot be responsible for sinful acts if God has ordained all that will happen.

 

[heymikey80]

So what is sin?

Sin is any lack of conformity to what's right. That includes our lack of reliance on the One Who knows what's right.

If it is sin under the Law of the Old Testament then Jesus died for nothing on the cross.

Eh? Sins have to be atoned-for. If all sin were abolished ontologically at the Cross then there's no room for faith in Christ. Because sin doesn't exist.

When He said, "It is finished." He was lying.

Jesus wasn't referring to the destruction of the Law when He said, "The goal has been reached" (another translation of "tetelestai"). That's what the word means. Don't conclude Jesus is lying when people attribute to much to "it". Conclude the people are lying.

"No, we establish the Law!" (Rom 3:31)

Far too many Christians today circumcise themselves t the Law of the Old Testament. That is an error that denies Christ’s sacrifice for our sins.

In your view.

As for the Westminster, I still have a problem with that. If God ordains all that happens, God is responsible for all that happens.

Yes. God has appointed a day to settle these accounts throughout His creation, too.

Charles Manson ordained that some folks should die and his followers made it happen for him. They are all in jail now because they were all equally responsible. You have yet to convince me how God cannot be responsible for sinful acts if God has ordained all that will happen.

Manson is responsible because he had evil intent in doing these actions, and he had no intention of correcting that evil intention. Manson is also an equal, not a superior. Finally, Manson attacked people who had done nothing offensive against him.

Tell me how you propose to accuse God of evil intent. Then tell me how you deny God will settle accounts. Third, tell me how you will judge God, your inherent superior. And finally, tell me how we have done nothing wrong.

Then I'll tell you how God absolves Himself of the charge of guilt for our sin.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

This was one of the hardest teachings for me to come to understand. What Bob is saying is that when Christ died on the cross He completed the Old Testament law. When Jesus said, "It is finished." He meant it is finished. When the curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple was torn in half it signified that the wall of sin that had separated men from God was torn down for the remainder of time. Christ’s death on the cross forgave all men for all time forgiveness for all there sins under the law. That is so hard to grasp because it means that even the vilest of sinners (like Hitler) died without a sin under the law counted against them. I found that exceedingly hard to deal with.

I can certainly see why you would find that exceedingly hard to deal with...but all I'll do right now is ask two questions...

1. When the disciples asked Jesus how to pray, why did He tell them to ask forgiveness for their sin? Do you consider this 'prayer model' a valid model for Christians today?

2. Who is Paul talking about in Romans 7?


And I can't help but make one comment....if Jesus' death forgave all sins for all men for all time, but all men are not going to heaven...then his death didn't actually accomplish anything, did it? It only made salvation possible for all men, right? (You'll find that Sproul develops this with much greater facility than I can.)

 

[GrinningDwarf]

As for the Westminster, I still have a problem with that. If God ordains all that happens, God is responsible for all that happens. Charles Manson ordained that some folks should die and his followers made it happen for him. They are all in jail now because they were all equally responsible. You have yet to convince me how God cannot be responsible for sinful acts if God has ordained all that will happen.

Allow me to let Wayne Grudem respond (he's a lot more interesting to read that anything I might write!):

Against the Calvinistic view of God's providence (which allows that He decrees to permit sin and evil) Arminians would say that God is not responsible for sin and evil because He did not ordain them or cause them in any way. This is indeed one way of absolving God from responsibility and blame for sin, but is it the biblical way?

The problem is whether the Arminian position can really account for many texts that clearly say that God ordains that some people sin or do evil...The death of Christ is a prime example of this, but there are many others in scripture (Joseph's brothers, Pharaoh, the Egyptians, the Canaanites, Eli's sons, David's census, and the Babylonians, to mention a few). The response could be made that these were unusual events, exceptions to God's ordinary way of acting. But it does not solve the problem, for, on the Arminian view, how can God be holy if He ordains even one sinful act?

The Calvinist position seems preferable: God Himself never sins but always brings about His will through secondary causes; that is, through personal moral agents who voluntarily, willingly do what God has ordained. These personal moral agents (both human being and evil angels) are to blame for the evil they do. While the Arminian position objects that, on a human level, people are also responsible for what they cause others to do, we can answer that the Scripture is not willing to apply such reasoning to God. Rather, Scripture repeatedly gives examples where God in a mysterious, hidden way somehow ordains that people do wrong, but continually places the blame for that wrong on the individual human who does wrong and never on God Himself. The Arminian position seems to have failed to show why God cannot work in this way in the world, preserving both His holiness and our individual responsiblity for sin.

Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 343

Now this took some time to wrap my mind around!! This is exactly why I say that we (21st century Americans in particular, but Westerners in general) are so steeped in Enlightenment traditions that elevate humans so much, that we have lost sight of what makes God God!!

Edit: Just wanted to add that I think it would be worthwhile to spend as much time as we need on this concept. IMHO, if you don't get this concept, Reformed theology will never make sense to you and we will always be talking past each other in any discussions. And I know it's a lot of work to get this concept down, because we are so rooted in the Enlightnment's inflated view of humanity that we are just unable to accept any alternatives as valid.

 

[Boxmaker]

Edit: Just wanted to add that I think it would be worthwhile to spend as much time as we need on this concept. IMHO, if you don't get this concept, Reformed theology will never make sense to you and we will always be talking past each other in any discussions. And I know it's a lot of work to get this concept down, because we are so rooted in the Enlightnment's inflated view of humanity that we are just unable to accept any alternatives as valid.

I don't get it.

What is your view of predestination? Is only your end point predestined or is every steop along the way predestined?

 

[Boxmaker]

I can certainly see why you would find that exceedingly hard to deal with...but all I'll do right now is ask two questions...

1. When the disciples asked Jesus how to pray, why did He tell them to ask forgiveness for their sin? Do you consider this 'prayer model' a valid model for Christians today?

Yes. Jesus gave us the Lord's Prayer.

2. Who is Paul talking about in Romans 7?

Jews. The whole book of Romans is writen to the Jews

And I can't help but make one comment....if Jesus' death forgave all sins for all men for all time, but all men are not going to heaven...then his death didn't actually accomplish anything, did it? It only made salvation possible for all men, right? (You'll find that Sproul develops this with much greater facility than I can.)

Correct. And its not that different a view from Calvinism's predetermined view of things. In either case, only a relative few are saved.

 

[Boxmaker]

Sin is any lack of conformity to what's right. That includes our lack of reliance on the One Who knows what's right.

Sin is acting in oppositioni to God.

Eh? Sins have to be atoned-for. If all sin were abolished ontologically at the Cross then there's no room for faith in Christ. Because sin doesn't exist.

Christ attoned for sin under the Old Testament, not sin under the New Testament.

Jesus wasn't referring to the destruction of the Law when He said, "The goal has been reached" (another translation of "tetelestai"). That's what the word means. Don't conclude Jesus is lying when people attribute to much to "it". Conclude the people are lying.

Yes, He was. Christ came, in part, to complete the Old Testament and usher in the New Testament. That is what Galations is talking about. If you have faith in Chirst the O.T. law is of no use to you. On the other hand, if you put your faith in the O.T. law then Christ is of no use to you.

Tell me how you propose to accuse God of evil intent. Then tell me how you deny God will settle accounts. Third, tell me how you will judge God, your inherent superior. And finally, tell me how we have done nothing wrong.

God is perfectly Holy, not capable of evil. When Calvinists say that God is responsible for every act of every human then God must be responsible for evil. If God is responsible for everything you say, do, think and feel then you have no free will, no choice in the matter. This whole thread was totally ordained before time began and you have no right to judge me nor I you. We are each playing our predestined parts in something that, ultimatly, has no meaning. Think about that.

Then I'll tell you how God absolves Himself of the charge of guilt for our sin.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Yes. Jesus gave us the Lord's Prayer.

So you agree that we need to ask forgivness for our sins daily?

Jews. The whole book of Romans is writen to the Jews

Not quite. The begining of chapter one tells us that Romans was written to Christian believers in Rome, probably Jew and Gentile believers. And in chapter 7, Paul is describing himself and the struggles had experienced currently, as he was writing the letter to the Romans, and demonstrating the normal struggles with sin all believers can expect to face.

Correct. And its not that different a view from Calvinism's predetermined view of things. In either case, only a relative few are saved.

It's a very different view from Calvinism. This might be why you are having trouble really understanding the Reformed view in these matters; you think they are not so different, when in fact, they are. This is why I think it would be fruitful to spend some time on these issues. Whereas you believe that Jesus' death forgave all sins for all men for all time, but all men are not going to heaven, so his death didn't actually accomplish anything, but only made salvation possible for all men, Calvinists believe that Christ's death actually secured salvation for the elect and the elect only. This also highlights the difference between the Reformed view of the 'perseverance of the saints' and the typical evangelical view of 'eternal security'. They both come to the same conclusion, that a Christian cannot lose his salvation, but they take very different approaches to arrive at that conclusion. Sproul will get into this in some depth in Chosen By God.

 

[Boxmaker]

So you agree that we need to ask forgivness for our sins daily?

No. The prayer reminds us to forgive others as God forgave us. There is nothing in it about asking for forgiveness of sins.

Matthew 6:10-14 This, then, is how you should pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

It's a very different view from Calvinism. Whereas you believe that Jesus' death forgave all sins for all men for all time, but all men are not going to heaven, so his death didn't actually accomplish anything, but only made salvation possible for all men, Calvinists believe that Christ's death actually secured salvation for the elect and the elect only. Sproul will get into this in some depth in Chosen By God.[/QUOTE]
Jesus death did not bring salvation to men. Jesus's death was God pouring out the wrath reserved for us upon His Son for the atonment of sin. Salvation lies in Christ's resurection from the dead. Christ's death once and for all provided atonment for all sins under the law of the OT. Christ's resurectin made it possible for all people to find salvation in Chirst. THose that find that salvation become the elect.

 

[Boxmaker]

Chapter 2 was an interesting chapter. Sproul defined predestination and sovereignty.

God exercises His sovereignty in such a way that it does no evil and violates no human freedom.

This is a very odd statement to me given Sproul’s assertion that in order for God to be sovereign, God MUST be in control of everything. On page 24 Sproul says that God is the author of all things over which He has authority. Yet he states that God is not responsible for evil. If God is not responsible for evil then God is not the author of evil and, therefore, God has no authority over evil. It strikes me as a bit circular.

On page 25 Sproul talks to a class about chapter 3 of the Westminster.

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

He was quite proud to declare that anybody who does not agree with that are atheists. Note that this forum does not use the Westminster as its bases; it uses the Nicene Creed, a different confession of faith.

Sproul also states this: “All Christians face the difficult question of why God, who theoretically could save everybody, chooses to save some, but not all.”
This is not a true statement unless you replace the word Christian with Calvinists. From Sproul’s view of God, this is a total mystery with not answer. For me it is no problem at all. God, in a totally sovereign exercise of His will, has made us a player in our own salvation. God has made salvation available to all but only a few accept His unmerited gift.

Chapter 3 was very interesting. Sproul starts by setting up a straw man to talk about “neutral free will”. I agree with his description of what it would be and find the discussion totally useless. It does not exist so why would he waist time talking about it? Free will is the ability to make a choice between that which available to you. It is based on desire and I agree that our desires rule our choices. Our desires can be totally selfish but they don’t have to be. When faced with a choice between a new bandsaw for my shop or a new kitchen for my family, the desire is to serve my family first and the bandsaw waits.

I know of several people who, while not being Christian, have a remarkable ability to put the needs of others at least on par with their own. Do you have to know Jesus as your savior to be a moral person? No. But being a good person, as men define good, does not make you good in the eyes of God. I agree with Sproul on that point.

I also agree with Sproul about God working in our hearts to change them, to make them open to the truth. We evangelize the world according to the Great Commission. But is our job to present the truth, the reason for the hope within. God convicts our hearts of that truth. The O.T. law teaches us that we cannot do it on our own. None of us can live the law as perfectly as required for salvation under that law. That is why we need a savior. God opened my eyes to that truth and I took it into my heart. Not because I am better or smatter or more righteous than my neighbor, but because God loved me first. God made me to respond to his love.

Chapter 4 was fun, I have a different view of the fall. (Imagine that!) More on that another day.

In the mean time, God be with you. May He bless you and keep you.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

I don't get it.

What is your view of predestination? Is only your end point predestined or is every steop along the way predestined?

(I'm encountering on-line 'burps' or something. It's taken me about 4 tries to get to this reply screen, so I can't respond as timely as I'd like to. Sorry.)

I'll just refer you the Westminster Confession, Chapter Three, with Scripture references...

I. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

1. Psa. 33:11: Eph. 1:11: Heb. 6:17
2. Psa. 5:4; James 1:13-14; I John 1:5; see Hab. 1:13
3. Acts 2:23; 4:27-28: Matt. 17:12; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Chapter 2 was an interesting chapter. Sproul defined predestination and sovereignty.

This is a very odd statement to me given Sproul’s assertion that in order for God to be sovereign, God MUST be in control of everything. On page 24 Sproul says that God is the author of all things over which He has authority. Yet he states that God is not responsible for evil. If God is not responsible for evil then God is not the author of evil and, therefore, God has no authority over evil. It strikes me as a bit circular.

Did you read my quote by Wayne Grudem, which challenges your assumptions here?

On page 25 Sproul talks to a class about chapter 3 of the Westminster.

He was quite proud to declare that anybody who does not agree with that are atheists.

But you don't really respond to Sproul's development of his statement through page 28.

Note that this forum does not use the Westminster as its bases; it uses the Nicene Creed, a different confession of faith.

Do you think that maybe Sproul was perhaps being provacative on purpose, to challenge and stimulate thought?

Chapter 3 was very interesting. Sproul starts by setting up a straw man to talk about “neutral free will”. I agree with his description of what it would be and find the discussion totally useless. It does not exist so why would he waist time talking about it?

Because contemporary Christianity demands that this form of free will exists. Just go cruise the General Theology forum and see for yourself!!

Free will is the ability to make a choice between that which available to you. It is based on desire and I agree that our desires rule our choices. Our desires can be totally selfish but they don’t have to be.

So we have here another example of where you think your view is not so different from Calvinism, but in fact it is worlds apart. It's like what Sproul spent so much time developing here went right past you. Our desires are totally selfish, because of our sin nature.

When faced with a choice between a new bandsaw for my shop or a new kitchen for my family, the desire is to serve my family first and the bandsaw waits.

I know of several people who, while not being Christian, have a remarkable ability to put the needs of others at least on par with their own. Do you have to know Jesus as your savior to be a moral person? No. But being a good person, as men define good, does not make you good in the eyes of God.

Doesn't Sproul spend considerable print demonstrating that while these desires might be other-centered, they still are not God-centered, and are still therefore man-centered...which is what gets us into trouble?

I agree with Sproul on that point.

I think you agree on a part of the point.

God opened my eyes to that truth and I took it into my heart.

Because God first changed your heart.

Not because I am better or smatter or more righteous than my neighbor, but because God loved me first. God made me to respond to his love.

By changing your heart...Sproul's point is that regeneration precedes faith.

Chapter 4 was fun, I have a different view of the fall. (Imagine that!) More on that another day.[/quote]

Of course you do. I look forward to that discussion!

In the mean time, God be with you. May He bless you and keep you.

And with you as well!

 

[GrinningDwarf]

No. The prayer reminds us to forgive others as God forgave us. There is nothing in it about asking for forgiveness of sins.

?? So when we address God and say "Forgive us our debts", we are not asking God for forgiveness?! This is from the NIV Commentary:

In addition to physical provisions, we also need forgiveness of sin and deliverance from temptation. The word "debt" means "sin" or "transgression," here conceived as something owed God (cf. Lk 11:4).

What about 1 John:

1JN 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

Note that John here is addressing Christians.

Christ's death once and for all provided atonment for all sins under the law of the OT.

So the sins of the unelect are paid for twice? Once by Christ on the cross, and then again by the person who doesn't choose God?

 

[Boxmaker]

?? So when we address God and say "Forgive us our debts", we are not asking God for forgiveness?!

No, we are not. "Forgive us our sins" is a dependant clause thta is modified by the as that follows it. Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.

Note that John here is addressing Christians

I never said we were without sin. Even Paul said he does the things he does not want to do and does not do the things he does. Jesus died for those sins so that the wall of sin that seperates you from God no longer exists. It is not you sins under the OT law the condemn you, its what you do with Jesus that condemns you.

So the sins of the unelect are paid for twice? Once by Christ on the cross, and then again by the person who doesn't choose God?

Only once by the death of Jesus. The person who refuses to accept Chrsit as their savior is condemned by that, not by sin as defined by the OT.

 

[Boxmaker]

(I'm encountering on-line 'burps' or something. It's taken me about 4 tries to get to this reply screen, so I can't respond as timely as I'd like to. Sorry.)

I'll just refer you the Westminster Confession, Chapter Three, with Scripture references...

I. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

1. Psa. 33:11: Eph. 1:11: Heb. 6:17
2. Psa. 5:4; James 1:13-14; I John 1:5; see Hab. 1:13
3. Acts 2:23; 4:27-28: Matt. 17:12; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33

If God predestined whatsoever comes to pass then God determined that Hitler would kill the jews, and others, for Gods glory. God determined that the child molester would rape and murder an 8 year old child for His glory. If you say that God did not predestine these acts then God, by reason of the Westminster confession, is not God. If God did not preordain these actions then the occured apart from God and, therefore, God is not sovergien. If God did ordain them for His glory then we do not understand what evil is.

I looked up the passages you listed. They are speaking of Jesus's mission on Earth. Chrsits life was predetermined by God. Jesus was and is God. God's will will be done in spite of all of our pethetic attempts to help or hender God's will.

 

[heymikey80]

Sin is acting in oppositioni to God.

Clearly it's deeper than that if it's a mind, heart, soul corruption.

But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? Rom 3:5​

Christ attoned for sin under the Old Testament, not sin under the New Testament.

Christ is the atonement for sins. There's no limitation of "back then".

Yes, He was. Christ came, in part, to complete the Old Testament and usher in the New Testament. That is what Galations is talking about. If you have faith in Chirst the O.T. law is of no use to you. On the other hand, if you put your faith in the O.T. law then Christ is of no use to you.

No, he wasn't. And that's not what Galatians is talking about. Paul is pointing out that salvation is not from the Law, but the Law is pointing to salvation from another.

Why would God deliver the works of Law as such a Great Deception?

God is perfectly Holy, not capable of evil. When Calvinists say that God is responsible for every act of every human then God must be responsible for evil.

You've yet to point out in what way God is responsible, and so the assertion is baseless. People are responsible for the motives of their hearts. God's motives are holy -- therefore His responsibility for the existence of evil must be completely pure and justified.

If God is responsible for everything you say, do, think and feel then you have no free will, no choice in the matter. This whole thread was totally ordained before time began and you have no right to judge me nor I you. We are each playing our predestined parts in something that, ultimatly, has no meaning. Think about that.

I've thought about that and rejected it time and again. The idea's absurd. Humans are responsible for what they are motivated to do, and their wills are responsible for their motivations and desires as well. This "no choice in the matter" is equally absurd. You have no choice about this thread existing. It exists! Therefore it's relegated to an ordaining, certainly. It's a fact of the past!

Does that make you or I less responsible for it? No. Yet it's completely ordained! It's a fact; it's unchanging reality; it's in the past. You have no choice over it. Yet your responsibility for it remains.

And yet for things in the future, you do have choice over it. Your will controls choices. Yet your will is built a certain way. Your options are open. There are no chains on you. But you are you. You choose consistently with your will. That makes you responsible. The reality that makes you responsible is your choice. And it is not fettered any more than in the free will model.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

If God predestined whatsoever comes to pass then God determined that Hitler would kill the jews, and others, for Gods glory. God determined that the child molester would rape and murder an 8 year old child for His glory. If you say that God did not predestine these acts then God, by reason of the Westminster confession, is not God. If God did not preordain these actions then the occured apart from God and, therefore, God is not sovergien. If God did ordain them for His glory then we do not understand what evil is.

You're still not getting it...and you still havn't responded to the Grudem quote I posted, which crystalizes a lot. Go back and read that Grudem quote, comment on it, and then we can continue.

 

[bradfordl]

Funny how as we delve deeper the correlated errors bubble up. And as the layers are peeled back, we see more clearly the object of Box's efforts to obscure.... he wants a god just a little more powerful, and just a little less limited, than himself. And he will have that god, scripture and reason notwithstanding.

I had hope that RC might break through the veil, but what I find is that it is not a veil of ignorance, but a veil of obstinance. My hope ebbs with each reply.

Oh, Boxmaker, why do you kick against the goads? You see plainly the truth of scripture, but squint your eyes, plug your ears, and hold your breath in hopes that it will just go away. It won't. You'll accept God's sovereignty, undiluted by your mental gymnastics, some day. If not in this life then in the next.

Brad

 

[GrinningDwarf]

I had hope that RC might break through the veil, but what I find is that it is not a veil of ignorance, but a veil of obstinance. My hope ebbs with each reply.

It ain't over yet. It took me two years of kicking before I came around.