John Calvin said this....

[Clete]

Dialogos,

Choice requires, by definition, alternative possibilities.

If Babylon chose to attack Israel and God punished them for that then there is no issue and your argument doesn't impact my position at all. But by saying they chose you imply that they could have done otherwise. To deny this obvious fact is to simply contradict yourself, which Calvinism (including the WCF) does all the time!

I've never suggested that Calvinists don't SAY that people choose. They SAY that all the time. But as with dozens of other common words, they've redefined 'choice' to mean something other than what it actually means. In fact they've redefined choice to mean its opposite. It's all amounts to lip service! Forcing words to mean whatever they need to mean in order to make it possible to say the things that sound like they make some sense. But its all intellectual theater designed to make their theology feel like its consistent with the experience they have in their every day life! If it weren't then there would be no disagreement and none of your arguments would come within a mile of touching my position.

 

[beloved57]

clete

Blasphemous stupidity!

Thats you, and quite foolish of you to call into Judgment the Justice of God because it does not conform to your puny views ! Isa 45:9

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

As if God does not have a Right to make some men Vessels of Wrath , to punish them for their sins, that He made them willingly commit, and they could not have done otherwise !

 

[Clete]

clete



Thats you, and quite foolish of you to call into Judgment the Justice of God because it does not conform to your puny views ! Isa 45:9

Like I said, I didn't define what justice is, God did. If you're right then God is unjust by His own standard.

As if God does not have a Right to make some men Vessels of Wrath , to punish them for their sins, that He made them willingly commit, and they could not have done otherwise !

"made them willingly commit" - Your mind is malfunctioning!

I'm not kidding! Anyone who can seriously put that sentence together has a mental disorder.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[glorydaz]

Like I said, I didn't define what justice is, God did. If you're right then God is unjust by His own standard.


"made them willingly commit" - Your mind is malfunctioning!

I'm not kidding! Anyone who can seriously put that sentence together has a mental disorder.

Resting in Him,
Clete

:rotfl:

 

[Dialogos]

Dialogos,

Choice requires, by definition, alternative possibilities.

If Babylon chose to attack Israel and God punished them for that then there is no issue and your argument doesn't impact my position at all.

Your response is a little confusing here Clete, in the past you said you were fine with God using Babylon to destroy Israel.

It isn't the part where God uses Babylon that I deny, moron.

So is God using Babylon in your view or was the destruction of Jerusalem totally Nebuchadnezzar's idea?

But by saying they chose you imply that they could have done otherwise.

Answer this question for yourself, Clete. Did God use Babylon or could Babylon have done otherwise?

 

[beloved57]

Like I said, I didn't define what justice is, God did. If you're right then God is unjust by His own standard.


"made them willingly commit" - Your mind is malfunctioning!

I'm not kidding! Anyone who can seriously put that sentence together has a mental disorder.

Resting in Him,
Clete

You don't have a right to reply against God! You are showing Him contempt the irreverence! Woe unto you!

 

[GuySmiley]

You don't have a right to reply against God! You are showing Him contempt the irreverence! Woe unto you!

Apparently he was "made to willingly" do it though.

 

[beloved57]

Apparently he was "made to willingly" do it though.

That's right! But it's still held against Him by God!

 

[GuySmiley]

That's right! But it's still held against Him by God!

I'm praying that someday God makes you willingly give some thought to the words "made to willingly do something."

 

[Clete]

You don't have a right to reply against God! You are showing Him contempt the irreverence! Woe unto you!

Your version of god is guilty of evil by his own standard - not mine!

 

[Clete]

Your response is a little confusing here Clete, in the past you said you were fine with God using Babylon to destroy Israel.

Yeah, so?

So is God using Babylon in your view or was the destruction of Jerusalem totally Nebuchadnezzar's idea?

The two are not mutually exclusive. God is able to read our minds, you know.

Answer this question for yourself, Clete. Did God use Babylon or could Babylon have done otherwise?

They are not mutually exclusive!

A corner back in the NFL watches the eyes of the quarterback and makes an interception and runs it back for a touch down. The CB used the eyes of the quarterback which the quarterback used willingly. Are you suggesting that Josh Norman is able to somehow control the quarterback's eyes?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[beloved57]

Your version of god is guilty of evil by his own standard - not mine!

More Blasphemy against God, the True God!You are going to answer for your blasphemy!

 

[Dialogos]

Yeah, so?


The two are not mutually exclusive.

This is apparantly important enough for you to say that you said it twice.

They are not mutually exclusive!

You have been the one, up to this point, arguing that the sovereign decrees of God and the choices of mankind are mutually exclusive. This is a pretty common tenet of open theism.

Compatibilists have been arguing that they "aren't mutually exclusive" the whole time.

Welcome to the club, Clete. The theological grass really is greener on this side.

God is able to read our minds, you know.

Yes, but God's own testimony is far more than God reading Nebuchadnezzar's mind and knowing that the king of Babylon intended to attack Judah.

God says He "sent for" the king of Babylon. (Jeremiah 25:8) He also said that He "brought them against the land and its inhabitants."(Jeremiah 25:9).

Sounds very much like God is calling to plays, not just "watching Nebuchadnezzar's eyes to see which way he will throw the ball, doesn't it?

 

[Clete]

You have been the one, up to this point, arguing that the sovereign decrees of God and the choices of mankind are mutually exclusive.

Quite so - given the Calvinist understanding of "decree", which is entirely unbiblical.

Compatibilists have been arguing that they "aren't mutually exclusive" the whole time.

Yes, well, when you're being irrational, you don't feel the need to make sense.

Welcome to the club, Clete. The theological grass really is greener on this side.

This is the sort of intentional intellectual dishonesty that lands people on the my ignore list, not that you would care. The point is I won't allow you to waste my time.

Yes, but God's own testimony is far more than God reading Nebuchadnezzar's mind and knowing that the king of Babylon intended to attack Judah.

God says He "sent for" the king of Babylon. (Jeremiah 25:8) He also said that He "brought them against the land and its inhabitants."(Jeremiah 25:9).

Sounds very much like God is calling to plays, not just "watching Nebuchadnezzar's eyes to see which way he will throw the ball, doesn't it?

This is irrelevant.

I'm starting to loose faith that there are words sufficient to cause you to understand. I am not simply being insulting when I say that Calvinist have a mental disorder. It's truly as if you cannot understand simple English.

The logic is this: If A and B then C.

A: God compelled (i.e. he could not have done otherwise) Nebuchadnezzar to do X.

B: God punished Nebuchadnezzar for having done X.

C: God is unjust by his own standard.


BOTH A and B = C; not either A or B; BOTH!

Get it?

Now if God, knowing Nebuchadnezzar's heart, simply got out of the way and used Nebuchadnezzar's evil heart to punish Israel then that is God's prerogative. He is not compelled to rescue nor protect a nation which rebels against Him. Nor is it unjust to use the wicked to accomplish righteous ends in spite of their evil intentions. If God then chooses to punish the evil that He used for good then that's all well and fine as well. And again, that's not my standard, that's God's own standard of right and wrong which even you don't have any problem with.

But I don't care what sort of intellectual meat grinder you want to put the word "justice" through, one cannot be justly punished for an act that they did not choose to perform, nor is it possible to choose if there are not real alternative possibilities. In other words, one cannot be justly punished (or rewarded, by the way) for an act unless they could have chosen to do otherwise - BY DEFINITION!!

(If you'll bother to look it up, "By definition" happens to be a valid form of rational argument, and not me simply stating my personal opinion.)

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

More Blasphemy against God, the True God!You are going to answer for your blasphemy!

So be it!

If you're right then I blaspheme by God's own decree and cannot have done otherwise anyway.

 

[beloved57]

So be it!

If you're right then I blaspheme by God's own decree and cannot have done otherwise anyway.

That's right so be it, that is what God predestinated you to, to blaspheme Him and willingly do it!

 

[Clete]

That's right so be it, that is what God predestinated you to, to blaspheme Him and willingly do it!

You are a lunatic.

Go ahead and give it an attempt! I dare you!

Just try to explain your comment...

"made to willingly do something"

I'd enjoy seeing what sort of weirdness has to happen to try and make that comment make any sense whatsoever. Which words, I wonder, will you redefine?; "made"?; "willingly"?; "do"? All three perhaps? I can't wait to find out!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

That's right so be it, that is what God predestinated you to, to blaspheme Him and willingly do it!

You do understand that it isn't me that's accusing God of anything, right?

I mean, my point has been that God DID NOT do the things YOU accusing Him of doing. I make that point on the basis of justice, as defined by God Himself. God has not done wrongly, would not do wrongly and cannot be forced to do wrongly and therefore will not ever do wrongly. Therefore, you're doctrine is false because it is your doctrine that says God acts in unjust ways, not the bible, and certainly not me.

I'd enjoy seeing what sort of contortions you have to do to flip it in your mind to where I'm the one accusing God is doing wrongly.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[beloved57]

You do understand that it isn't me that's accusing God of anything, right?

I mean, my point has been that God DID NOT do the things YOU accusing Him of doing. I make that point on the basis of justice, as defined by God Himself. God has not done wrongly, would not do wrongly and cannot be forced to do wrongly and therefore will not ever do wrongly. Therefore, you're doctrine is false because it is your doctrine that says God acts in unjust ways, not the bible, and certainly not me.

I'd enjoy seeing what sort of contortions you have to do to flip it in your mind to where I'm the one accusing God is doing wrongly.

Resting in Him,
Clete

You do call God Unjust and Evil for His Ways! God created some men as vessels of His wrath, and fits them for destruction for their sins and they had no choice in the matter, and they sin willingly as God decreed it! And your evil carnal response is like all evil men, Paul anticipated it Rom 9:19-20!

 

[musterion]

You do call God Unjust and Evil for His Ways! God created some men as vessels of His wrath, and fits them for destruction for their sins and they had no choice in the matter, and they sin willingly as God decreed it! And your evil carnal response is like all evil men, Paul anticipated it Rom 9:19-20!

It's your Augustinian concept of God we've got problems with, not the One True God.