You be da Judge! (part 2)

[Lotar]

I'll take that as a "no."

Hey...if R.C. Sproul is right, then God foreordained me to call you Puppy. So who are you to question God's will? Who art thou, o clay, to speak against thy Maker?

How old are you?

What I am seeing here is that a 13 year old is more mature and and showing more academic integrity than you.

 

[frumanchu]

If the eternal fate of all was determined irrevocably in eternity past, then no decision in this life - for the Gospel or against it - makes the slightest impact on determining your eternal fate.

You are arguing for decisions on two different levels. The decision for or against the gospel is not a decision for or against cooperation with the sovereign elective decree of God. You are setting in opposition two completely different aspects of causality. In order to be logically consistent, you will have to deny God's omniscience and omnipotence in order to support the notion that man actually has an impact on his eternal fate in the manner you're putting forth.

Tell me...if God in His perfect omniscience knows beforehand that a group of people a) will choose of their own volition to sin against Him unto their own destruction, and b) would choose otherwise given a certain action on God's part, then does their decision really 'make the slightest impact on determining their eternal fate?'

Ever read 1984?

Yes. That's the long-running column they have running on the front page of most newspapers these days, right?

 

[orthotomeo]

Sorry, I am not interested in the arcane intricacies of Calvinistic philosophy because this matter really is VERY simple.

If God holds people responsible for a choice they make (which is what the Bible says), that means their eternal fate is NOT predestined but is open to choice. He gives them that ability, which is the only way THEY can be fully responsible for their choices and their consequences. THEY are 100% responsible, not God.

If, on the other hand, He DID determine in eternity past where they'd spend eternity future (as Calvinism says) - and in fact sovereignly determined every decision they'd ever make (as Calvin, Pink and Sproul said) - then whatever choices they make in this life are meaningless and count for nothing. Why? Because those choices are not the result of the individual's will; they are the result of GOD'S will for that individual. That makes GOD 100% responsible for their rejecting Christ and going to the Lake of Fire, not them.

These are mutually exclusive - there is no balance here. It's one or the other and you can't have it both ways. Calvinists can't even try to make this case without engaging in deliberately complicated anti-logic that makes sense only to Calvinists, a la R.C. Sproul (who would be proud of you).

you will have to deny God's omniscience and omnipotence in order to support the notion that man actually has an impact on his eternal fate in the manner you're putting forth.

No I don't. God's omniscience and omnipotence are irrelevant to the biblical fact that He gives people the ability to CHOOSE their eternal destiny based on the Gospel facts He presents to them. Besides, there's evidence in the Bible (evidence John Piper does NOT like) that indicates God does not, or chooses not to, exhaustively foreknow the decisions of men, much less predestine them. It's interesting to look at, but that's meat for another thread.

Tell me...if God in His perfect omniscience knows beforehand that a group of people a) will choose of their own volition to sin against Him unto their own destruction, and b) would choose otherwise given a certain action on God's part, then does their decision really 'make the slightest impact on determining their eternal fate?'

Your question is flawed (deliberately, I suspect) and need not be answered because consistent Calvinism teaches that those who "choose of their own volition to sin against Him unto their own destruction" only appear to do so, when in reality their unbelief is the direct, decreed result of God's sovereign reprobation! Add that element to your question and I'll answer it.

"Ever read 1984?"

Yes. That's the long-running column they have running on the front page of most newspapers these days, right?

Actually, I see things eerily similar to it right here on this board.

o.

 

[frumanchu]

Sorry, I am not interested in the arcane intricacies of Calvinistic philosophy because this matter really is VERY simple.

Your disinterest goes much further than the "intricacies" of Calvinism, skolios.

No I don't. God's omniscience and omnipotence are irrelevant to the biblical fact that He gives people the ability to CHOOSE their eternal destiny based on the Gospel facts He presents to them. Besides, there's evidence in the Bible (evidence John Piper does NOT like) that indicates God does not, or chooses not to, exhaustively foreknow the decisions of men, much less predestine them. It's interesting to look at, but that's meat for another thread.

Open Theism is a vile heresy...post-modern philosophy meets Pelagianism.

Tell me, which of God's divine attributes is He able to suspend at will? Would His holiness be among them?

Your question is flawed (deliberately, I suspect) and need not be answered because consistent Calvinism teaches that those who "choose of their own volition to sin against Him unto their own destruction" only appear to do so, when in reality their unbelief is the direct, decreed result of God's sovereign reprobation! Add that element to your question and I'll answer it.

You're arguing against hyper-Calvinism, which is really not Calvinism at all. But of course you knew that since you were once a Calvinist, right? My question is not flawed, it is completely valid, but it appears you would rather ridicule than present a defense against it. You can go on about "what Calvinism teaches" (which you are grossly misrepresenting), or you can address what I am presenting.

Actually, I see things eerily similar to it right here on this board.

Having trouble playing by the rules?

 

[orthotomeo]

Insult me all you want. Say whatever you like about open theism. I don't care. I simply let the Bible speak for itself, and as I said, such evidence is found in a plain reading of the Bible.

And what I'm "attacking" is not hypercalvinism. Hypercalvinism is the strongest strain going because it's as internally consistent as possible for anything carrying John Calvin's name. I'm attacking the most common variety which is a hopelessly inconsistent and divided muddle (surpa, infra, blah blah). Ask three different "traditional"* Calvinists what Calvinism teaches on a given point and you may get three contradictory answers. It's already happened right here on our own board.
You're the one standing on the deck of a theological Titanic, not me.

So once more: rephrase your question in light of what we both know you REALLY believe (reprobation) and I'll be glad to answer it.

o.

* I put that in quotes because the hypers are closer to "traditional" Calvinism (as Calvin taught it) than the gang on this board.

 

[frumanchu]

Insult me all you want. Say whatever you like about open theism. I don't care. I simply let the Bible speak for itself, and as I said, such evidence is found in a plain reading of the Bible.

Why don't you provide us with the plain meaning of Acts 13:48, skolios. I'm amazed at how many hoops people jump through trying to deny the plain meaning of this verse.

And what I'm "attacking" is not hypercalvinism. Hypercalvinism is the strongest strain going because it's as internally consistent as possible for anything carrying John Calvin's name. I'm attacking the most common variety which is a hopelessly inconsistent and divided muddle (surpa, infra, blah blah). Ask three different "traditional"* Calvinists what Calvinism teaches on a given point and you may get three contradictory answers. It's already happened right here on our own board.
You're the one standing on the deck of a theological Titanic, not me.

Sure. You're arguing against a position of active reprobation where God actively forces and coerces sin out of the unregenerate. That is NOT "traditional" Calvinism, skolios, and YOU KNOW IT.

So once more: rephrase your question in light of what we both know you REALLY believe (reprobation) and I'll be glad to answer it.

My question stands, skolios.

If God in His perfect omniscience knows beforehand that a group of people

a) will choose of their own volition to sin against Him unto their own destruction

and

b) would choose otherwise given a certain action on God's part

then does their decision really 'make the slightest impact on determining their eternal fate?'

This question is absolutely valid. This, I suspect, is precisely why you embrace Open Theism...because if you accept the terms of the question (God's omniscience in foreseeing an action and omnipotence in being able to prevent it), then you have no choice but to accept that God ordains all things. So you sacrifice the divine attributes of God to prop up the libertarian self-determination of man. In essence you seek to deny the Sovereign Creator of the Universe the very right which you impart to the creature: that of 'free choice.' Is it somehow more comforting to conceive of a God who is willfully ignorant, or even selectively incapable of knowledge, than it is to believe that God is sovereign over every aspect of creation and that nothing exists or occurs outside of His control or purpose?

The question stands, and it DOES reflect what I believe (contrary to what you seem to think I believe). Will you answer it? Do I need to elaborate further? Or will you continue your shadow boxing?

* I put that in quotes because the hypers are closer to "traditional" Calvinism (as Calvin taught it) than the gang on this board.

That statement carries a lot of weight given that you've only been in this forum TWO MONTHS. But considering your willingness to misrepresent Reformed theologians like Sproul and Pink, it's far from surprising.

 

[Received]

Why don't you provide us with the plain meaning of Acts 13:48, skolios. I'm amazed at how many hoops people jump through trying to deny the plain meaning of this verse.

But this "plain meaning" is very likely a pragmatic bias -- question begging.

I, at least, am not for holding an entire doctrine on a single scripture -- whether it is Calvinism with this seeming claim of God's ordination of those who will believe and Acts 13:48, or Thomism's claim of absolute divine immutability with Malachi 3:6. There are other interpretations that make perfect sense given the ambiguity of the original languages and their translation into a much more superficial and weak semantic base.

J.O. Buswell states thus:

"...the words of Acts 13:48-49 do no tnecessarily have any reference whatever to the doctrine of God's eternal decree of election. The passive participle tetagmenoi man simply mean 'ready,' and we might well read, 'as many as we prepared for eternal life, believed.'.... Commentaing on this word, Alford says, 'The meaning of this word must be determined by the context. The Jews had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life (v. 46); the Gentiles, "as many as were disposed to eternal life," believed.... To find in this text preordination to life asserted, is to force both the word and hte context to a meaning which they do not contain."

Commenting on this passage, Norman Geisler states thus:

"...within a few verses of this text Luke says, "They [Paul and Barnabus] spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Gentiles believed" (14:1). According to this rendering, in the first text only those who were preordained to be saved would come to faith. But it is also true that persuasive preaching is a means by which people come to faith in Christ. So the Bible teaches both divine sovereignty and human responsibility in the same overall passage. The same act can be determined by God as well as chosen by man."

In short, while Geisler has a different perspective on the issue, he does claim that while man was in charge to preach, God allowed this to come to pass. This goes along with the entire biblical portrayal of ordination -- that God allows to come to pass mans' freely chosen steps. There is no reference to partiality by God admitted here on either interpretation, whether by Buswell, Alford, or Geisler.

What must be emphasized is that the truth of the verse is no 'plain meaning'. The very phrase almost always means in reality 'plain pragmatic sufficiency', and we all know that this is relative to the individual's theology. Reality is unfortunately much bigger than that; the irony of the universe is that knowledge is an illusion. There are no hoops to jump through, nor any non-Calvinist circus monkeys -- save Ben Johnson perhaps -- there are only people working in accordance with what they see to be the essence of God, revealed not only through hermeneutical rationalization, but expereience as well. I personally think the latter form of interpretation towers over any form of blind and basic reasoning, without experience. We non-Calvinists are not rebels of the word, for we know the Word and cannot conclude that such a person, who loved unconditionally all He saw -- who taught and commanded men to do likewise --, could so cunningly and carelessly change His mind in other contexts as they present themselves to us.

 

[frumanchu]

I, at least, am not for holding an entire doctrine on a single scripture -- whether it is Calvinism with this seeming claim of God's ordination of those who will believe and Acts 13:48, or Thomism's claim of absolute divine immutability with Malachi 3:6. There are other interpretations that make perfect sense given the ambiguity of the original languages and their translation into a much more superficial and weak semantic base.

Neither am I inclined to 'hold an entire doctrine on a single scripture.' I simply chose this verse because of the lengths to which I've seen people go, particularly recently, to explain away this verse in a manner which the text does not at all support. I disagree on the extent of ambiguity in this particular verse, and I do not hesitate to point out that EVERY major translation renders it almost identically.

 

[Received]

Regardless of how it may be translated, the original idea of ordination may not be as the Calvinist supposes -- that really is my entire point, addressed above. Moreover, no matter how many different ways you attempt to transpose a symphony to piano, you are going to have the same keys pressed over and over again: the problem is not the translations, but the language. One is massive, the other miniscule.

I do agree that some may try to squelch their way out of certain scriptural instances; but faith transcends reason. What we will come to realize in debating the differences between our theologies is that no objective reason can convince a man from his faith without his own admission through revelation of God's truth. This is the entire idea of truth being subjectivity: without experience, truth would be a naught. I suppose you could say that it isn't a matter of the word appealing to us, but of the Word appealing to us.

 

[orthotomeo]

You're arguing against a position of active reprobation where God actively forces and coerces sin out of the unregenerate. That is NOT "traditional" Calvinism, skolios, and YOU KNOW IT.

I said only what I have quoted Pink, Sproul and Calvin himself as saying. If you want to classify them as non-traditional Calvinists, then I am in no position to stop you.

Ok. That should be my last post.

o.