Reformed Theology: Somewhere Between..

[Lon]

Lon, you are missing the obvious.

:nono:

Just because you don't like the word luck, doesn't change its meaning. Luck is what you believe.

lain: This is just an inane assertion game. It isn't worth my or your time. "Yes it is." "No its not." "Yes it is." "No its not." "Yes it is." "No its not." I'd MUCH rather see you address AMR's post with any sense of depth. Pleasantly surprise me regarding your aptitude and prowess.

You can protest away but these words exist. Don't blame me, blame the dictionary.

:sigh: "Yes it is." "No its not." "Yes it is." "No its not." "Yes it is." "No its not."
Pleasantly surprise me, do some serious digging and address AMR in as much detail as you are able. He gave an incredible amount of detail. Don't let it glaze your eyes over, if you give it a good treatment, it will serve this thread better than your and my back and forth, very well. It really will, if you are up to task.

If you don't like it so much then get a new belief that isn't based on luck. According to your belief, you are one of the lucky ones elected before the foundation of the world. This is fine for you so long as you are saved because you can think of yourself as one of those lucky ones. And because you are saved, you have a good measure of personal comfort, which is perfectly good and right. But you are transferring that comfort in God onto your own doctrine as if it justified it. It doesn't.

"Yes it is." "No its not." "Yes it is." "No its not." "Yes it is." "No its not."

 

[Desert Reign]

:nono:

lain: This is just an inane assertion game. It isn't worth my or your time. "Yes it is." "No its not." "Yes it is." "No its not." "Yes it is." "No its not." I'd MUCH rather see you address AMR's post with any sense of depth. Pleasantly surprise me regarding your aptitude and prowess.


:sigh: "Yes it is." "No its not." "Yes it is." "No its not." "Yes it is." "No its not."
Pleasantly surprise me, do some serious digging and address AMR in as much detail as you are able. He gave an incredible amount of detail. Don't let it glaze your eyes over, if you give it a good treatment, it will serve this thread better than your and my back and forth, very well. It really will, if you are up to task.

"Yes it is." "No its not." "Yes it is." "No its not." "Yes it is." "No its not."

I quoted you several definitions of luck. I pointed out what aspects of your belief in election fitted those definitions. I am not in the business of pleasantly surprising you. I suggest you look for gratification elsewhere. If you are incapable of arguing your case such that you have to stoop to bringing in other debaters, then it shows you have already lost the argument. If AMR wanted to debate with me, he would have addressed me directly, just as he has been free to do over the last 6 years, and not Musterion. If you wanted to make the points he has made, then you would have done so by now. If you want to make them, I would still be happy to carry on a conversation.

 

[Clete]

I can't do it with traffic either, but I reject that chance leads to accidents or there would be no such thing as liability.

Do you believe that there is any such thing as an accident?

 

[Derf]

Hi AMR,
I'm not Musterion, so I can't, and don't pretend to, speak for him or the intent of his post you replied to, but I find it interesting that according to Berkhof there is only one decree of God, sometimes called "purpose" or "counsel".

As Berkhof noted:

Though we often speak of the decrees of God in the plural, yet in its own nature the divine decree is but a single act of God. This is already suggested by the fact that the Bible speaks of it as a prothesis, a purpose or counsel. It follows also from the very nature of God. His knowledge is all immediate and simultaneous rather than successive like ours, and His comprehension of it is always complete. And the decree that is founded on it is also a single, all-comprehensive, and simultaneous act. As an eternal and immutable decree it could not be otherwise. There is, therefore, no series of decrees in God, but simply one comprehensive plan, embracing all that comes to pass. Our finite comprehension, however, constrains us to make distinctions, and this accounts for the fact that we often speak of the decrees of God in the plural. This manner of speaking is perfectly legitimate, provided we do not lose sight of the unity of the divine decree, and of the inseparable connection of the various decrees as we conceive of them.

The decree of God is His purpose or determination with respect to future things. We have used the singular number as Scripture does (Rom 8:28, Eph 3:11), because there was only one act of His infinite mind about future things. But we speak as if there had been many, because our minds are only capable of thinking of successive revolutions, as thoughts and occasions arise, or in reference to the various objects of His decree, which being many seem to us to require a distinct purpose for each one. But an infinite understanding does not proceed by steps, from one stage to another: "Known unto God are all His works, from the beginning of the world" (Acts 15:18).
​

That according to your spoiler, (Berkhof again, I guess), the single decree covers everything:

More concerning the decree of God (courtesy of Berkhof and others):
God's Decrees Concern Everything

The decrees of God relate to all future things without exception: whatever is done in time, was foreordained before time began. God’s purpose was concerned with everything, whether great or small, whether good or evil

And according to a verse quoted by Berkhof, Eph 3:11, God accomplished His eternal purpose in Jesus Christ, meaning there's nothing left to accomplish, if indeed there is only one eternal purpose, as Berkhof asserts above.

So how is it that there is more still happening despite God's eternal purpose (including everything that is to happen) having already been accomplished?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

And according to a verse quoted by Berkhof, Eph 3:11, God accomplished His eternal purpose in Jesus Christ, meaning there's nothing left to accomplish, if indeed there is only one eternal purpose, as Berkhof asserts above.

So how is it that there is more still happening despite God's eternal purpose (including everything that is to happen) having already been accomplished?

Whatever is done in time, was foreordained by God before time began, hence, "accomplished" as contemplated by God, who sees all things equally vividly.

God is infinite in relation to time. Time does not apply to God's essence. God has always been God before time began at His ccommand. Time places no restrictions upon God. That God is not bound by time does not mean that God is not conscious of the succession of points in time. God knows what is now occurring in human experience. God is aware that events occur in a particular order. God is equally aware of all points of that order equally vividly, a vastly qualitatively different experience than what we experience as time. God is aware of what is happening, has happened, and what will happen at each point in time. Yet at any given point in time God is also conscious of the distinction between what is now occurring, what has been, and what will be.

There is a successive order to the acts of God and there is a logical order to his decisions, yet there is no temporal order to God’s willing. God’s deliberation and willing take no time. God has from eternity determined what He is now doing. Therefore God’s actions are not in any way reactions to developments. God does not get taken by surprise or have to create contingency plans.


AMR

 

[Lon]

Do you believe that there is any such thing as an accident?

No. 1 but not No. 2 here.

 

[Lon]

I quoted you several definitions of luck. I pointed out what aspects of your belief in election fitted those definitions.

How can 'election' be luck? :idunno:

I am not in the business of pleasantly surprising you.

AMR was addressing both of your concerns, in a meaningful way. I really don't want to go much further down the 'luck' road. I don't know of one Calvinist (not one) that believes his/her election was luck. Not one.

I suggest you look for gratification elsewhere. If you are incapable of arguing your case such that you have to stoop to bringing in other debaters, then it shows you have already lost the argument.

You 'should' know better than this, but the wild-and-unfoundable accusation is definitely why I'm winding down. Your coaxing or jeering has the opposite effect.

If AMR wanted to debate with me, he would have addressed me directly, just as he has been free to do over the last 6 years, and not Musterion. If you wanted to make the points he has made, then you would have done so by now. If you want to make them, I would still be happy to carry on a conversation.

I assumed AMR was as much addressing your concerns as another's, but had thought it was directly addressed to you, as well.

 

[intojoy]

Call it luck or call it merit. I choose luck, no merits here.

 

[daqq]

How can 'election' be luck? :idunno:

AMR was addressing both of your concerns, in a meaningful way. I really don't want to go much further down the 'luck' road. I don't know of one Calvinist (not one) that believes his/her election was luck. Not one.
You 'should' know better than this, but the wild-and-unfoundable accusation is definitely why I'm winding down. Your coaxing or jeering has the opposite effect.

:rotfl:

Poor Lon has reduced himself to nothing more than a ping-pong ball in a lottery drawing with absolutely no choice whatsoever as to whether or not he gets "elected" by the One who performs the election-selection of the ping-pong lottery balls. Will it be only a six-pix lotto this time around or might there still be a chance that the Big Hand will open the escape hatch door in the heavens one more time and snatch up another ball from the election pool into the great whirlwind? Will Lon perhaps be the chosen power ball this time around? Will his number be changed from black to red? O power ball, how blessed you are to have been chosen! What did you do to deserve such an honor? "Absolutely nothing", replies the ping-pong ball, "I'm just, ehem, super special! Truth be told, I could never have even changed the number that was pasted on my forehead so as to increase my chances of being elected! It just happened because the Big Hand in the whirlwind willed it to be so! What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with the Big Hand? The Big Hand forbid! But He chose Me over many others!"

Sure looks and sounds like a pure luck-of-the-draw religion by the modern definition of the word, (luck). So why does Lon appear to be so jilted, tilted, and winding down like a pinball machine having been racked against the wall just because someone else has stated the obvious here in this thread? Perhaps, Lon, it all depends on how one views, defines, and understands election. Part yourself asunder, as the Master commands, and render unto Caesar the things of Caesar, (the old man Esau nature which is fitted to destruction) and render unto Elohim the things of Elohim, (the new you) for the both of you came from the selfsame lump of clay. :chuckle:

 

[Clete]

No. 1 but not No. 2 here.

Never mind. Anyone who has to consult a dictionary to understand the word 'accident' is hopeless.

 

[Desert Reign]

How can 'election' be luck? :idunno:

You said yourself here

No. 1 but not No. 2 here.

that you accepted the definition of an accident as "an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury."
But according to your beloved AMR and Berghof, there is only one primordial act and intention of God, in decreeing the entire universe and all its history. So by that understanding, there is no such thing as an accident, even by the definition you agree with.
Your only way out here (and this is what I presumed you meant by citing this definition) is that the term 'accident' is relative. Unexpected and unintended is only from the standpoint of the person who has suffered from the accident.
In the same way, exactly the same way, the election of Lon is a matter of pure luck from your point of view. Anything you say about God's reasons for choosing doesn't affect your relation to the event. It can't, because that's what your theology explicitly states.
I don't see how you can have it both ways here. You don't just need a new dictionary, you need two new ones. You need two for your definition of omnipotence, one in which God can break his vow and one where he can't. You need two for your defintion of accident, one where an accident is an unexpected event and one where it isn't. And so on.

I don't know of one Calvinist (not one) that believes his/her election was luck. Not one.

Of course not. But if you ask non-Calvinists whether the election is based on luck, they will say it is. So telling us that you don't believe it is luck doesn't amount to any kind of argument. The dictionary definition is clear. Luck is a perfectly valid description of the election according to your theology. Of course you don't like it. But you have options over that, as I said before.

You 'should' know better than this, but the wild-and-unfoundable accusation is definitely why I'm winding down. Your coaxing or jeering has the opposite effect.

Well, you effectively busted hopes of a decent debate by your condescending remarks about how shallow my arguments are in comparison to your true god AMR:

I'd MUCH rather see you address AMR's post with any sense of depth. Pleasantly surprise me regarding your aptitude and prowess.

I don't judge myself by how I compare with AMR. I would demean myself by doing so.

AMR was addressing both of your concerns, in a meaningful way. I really don't want to go much further down the 'luck' road.
I assumed AMR was as much addressing your concerns as another's, but had thought it was directly addressed to you, as well.

Whatever AMR says, it will not give you any reason to avoid answering fair and obvious questions about your theology. You won't be able to answer to God that you shared on the same website as AMR if he asks you to justify why you didn't listen to the truth. AMR hasn't addressed me directly for 6 years, almost since I have been here. He said he thought I was some kind of heretic and dismissed me as of no consequence. Ever since, he has been going around cleaning up the spilt milk after his sycophants or others who he feels paternal towards and who can't answer my questions, in a totally cowardly fashion, never once addressing me directly but trying to patch over the cracks and demonstrate his fatherly presence. Believe me when I say, if he wanted to address me directly, he would have. Believe me also, he is not as deep, anywhere near, as you like to think. That's why you need to answer life's questions for yourself. It will only deceive you if you trust in others to the extent you trust in AMR.

 

[Lon]

:rotfl:

Poor Lon has reduced himself to nothing more than a ping-pong ball in a lottery drawing with absolutely no choice whatsoever as to whether or not he gets "elected" by the One who performs the election-selection of the ping-pong lottery balls.

So this is how you treat important scriptures... lain:
Titus 3:5 2 Timothy 1:9 Ephesians 2:9 and you are left treating the matters of God in a glib and unacceptable manner. Matthew 12:36-37

I'll quickly put you on ignore if you continue to treat the things of God and important matters as if they are your play toys. Who cares what I believe, I am concerned with the God of the universe and you are soundly reprimanded for being sacrilegious.

:chuckle:

I have no interest in 'light, shallow, meaningless.' This post of yours is beneath any theologian. If you want to do theology out of a CrackerJacks box, I am not your man. Keep this garbage to yourself. It is offensive to God and man.

 

[Lon]

You said yourself here.

Keep "luck" then. It applies more to you than me, but I'm not so inept as to put a strawman in my sig.

Titus 3:5 2 Timothy 1:9 Ephesians 2:9

Isaiah 53:6

1 Corinthians 4:7 John 15:5 Colossians 1:17 Acts 17:28

 

[Dialogos]

Of course not. But if you ask non-Calvinists whether the election is based on luck, they will say it is.

So what?

Why would we be looking to Non-Calvinists to define Calvinism for us anyway.

:duh:

This is the near perfect blueprint for the constructing of a straw man argument. When Calvinism becomes subject to how non-Calvinists define Calvinism, then you have about a zero percent chance of defining Calvinism with any degree of accuracy.

Ergo, straw man.

And, let me add my voice to the cocophony of other calvinist voices saying that "luck" has precisely nothing to do with election.

So telling us that you don't believe it is luck doesn't amount to any kind of argument. The dictionary definition is clear. Luck is a perfectly valid description of the election according to your theology.

No, not it isn't.

Luck according to Mirriam Webster:

"Full Definition of luck
1
a : a force that brings good fortune or adversity
b : the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual
2
: favoring chance; also : success <had great luck growing orchids>​

The first definition out of the gate is totally antithetical to Calvinism.

We don't beleive that some un-named "force" brings us good fortune.

Instead, if you were to alllow Calvinism to be defined on its own terms, you would find the following:

But the cause of this undeserved election is exclusively the good pleasure of God. This does not involve his choosing certain human qualities or actions from among all those possible as a condition of salvation, but rather involves his adopting certain particular persons from among the common mass of sinners as his own possession. As Scripture says, When the children were not yet born, and had done nothing either good or bad..., she (Rebecca) was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Rom. 9:11-13). Also, All who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48).​

(Article 10, Canons of Dort)

Of course you don't like it. But you have options over that, as I said before.

He doesn't like it because it isn't true.

Well, you effectively busted hopes of a decent debate by your condescending remarks about how shallow my arguments are in comparison to your true god AMR:
I don't judge myself by how I compare with AMR. I would demean myself by doing so....

Whatever AMR says, it will not give you any reason to avoid answering fair and obvious questions about your theology. You won't be able to answer to God that you shared on the same website as AMR if he asks you to justify why you didn't listen to the truth. AMR hasn't addressed me directly for 6 years, almost since I have been here. He said he thought I was some kind of heretic and dismissed me as of no consequence. Ever since, he has been going around cleaning up the spilt milk after his sycophants...

Whatever the source of your sour grapes with AMR may be, you still are dead wrong on what Calvinism says on election.

That is due to one of two reasons:

1. You are mistaken as to what Calvinism actually teaches.
2. You know that you are falsely representing Calvinism but are doing it anyway.

For the sake of making charitable judgments, lets go with one for now.

Do you now understand why reducing election to "luck" is inconsistent with Calvinism or do you need someone who understands Calvinism to explain it to you further?

 

[Desert Reign]

Why would we be looking to Non-Calvinists to define Calvinism for us anyway.

You don't have to. But when you define it you must use a dictionary that is common to all. Your definition of Calvinism says that election of an individual has nothing to do with that individual. That's luck. That's what luck means.

Luck according to Mirriam Webster:

"Full Definition of luck
1
a : a force that brings good fortune or adversity
b : the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual
2
: favoring chance; also : success <had great luck growing orchids>​

The first definition out of the gate is totally antithetical to Calvinism.
We don't beleive that some un-named "force" brings us good fortune.

So you are saying that God is not a force? Of course you aren't. Which only means that you need to learn to read a dictionary. In fact, this first definition exactly, almost word for word, describes a very famous scripture passage. Is. 45:7. You have just admitted that Calvinism is totally antithetical to scripture. Thanks. You made my case for me right there.

Whatever the source of your sour grapes with AMR may be, you still are dead wrong on what Calvinism says on election.

I don't have sour grapes with AMR. I only mentioned it because Lon insisted, in a condescending manner, that I should respond to him. AMR is not interested in reacting with me, but I don't take it personally as I know that I am one of many such people. It is his choice and he of course, like all of us, has to accept the consequences of his choices.

Do you now understand why reducing election to "luck" is inconsistent with Calvinism or do you need someone who understands Calvinism to explain it to you further?

Judging from the definition you gave earlier from Mirriam Webster, you a) reinforced my conclusion that Calvinistic election is based on luck, b) provided strong evidence that you cannot yet read plain English, and c) provided evidence that you don't know the Bible, which leads me to further conclude that you are not the person to defend Calvinism.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Such are the calumnies of the rabid anti-Reformed. They run about asking "Why? How?" hither and yon, calling God down from His throne into the Dock to give account, while we Reformed ask "Who?".

Answer: God.

Hence, "Why? How?" is but a fools (Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar) errand.

AMR

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Such are the calumnies of the rabid anti-Reformed. They run about asking "Why? How?" hither and yon, calling God down from His throne into the Dock to give account, while we Reformed ask "Who?".

Answer: God.

Hence, "Why? How?" is but a fools errand.

AMR

Amen! You see these thread titles, calling God "to the dock," like that phrase of yours, a lot. As if the finite creatures are going to come to a prescient evaluation of the eternal Creator's whys and wherefores, make some finding as to His validity, after, what, a few whole decades experience, floundering around in the flesh, at that? Truly, such a fool's errand. There's a certain pride of life in some which, apparently, knows no bounds.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Proverbs 8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Psalms 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

 

[Dialogos]

You don't have to. But when you define it you must use a dictionary that is common to all. Your definition of Calvinism says that election of an individual has nothing to do with that individual. That's luck. That's what luck means.

Citation please?

Furthermore, you would then conclude that grace is equivalent to luck then as well, right? Because "grace" has nothing to do with the worth of the individual recipient.

So you are saying that God is not a force? Of course you aren't. Which only means that you need to learn to read a dictionary.

No, God is not a force, and that is one pretty compelling reason why election is not synonymous with luck.

In fact, this first definition exactly, almost word for word, describes a very famous scripture passage. Is. 45:7.

Wha....?

No it doesn't.

Are you sure I am the one who needs a refresher on how to read a dictionary?

Lets do a little comparison, shall we?

Webster's first definition of "luck: "a force that brings good fortune or adversity."

And now Isaiah 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things. (Isa 45:7 ESV)

Not only aren't they the same, Isaiah 45:7 is a pretty clear disputation on the pagan notion of "luck."

You have just admitted that Calvinism is totally antithetical to scripture. Thanks. You made my case for me right there.

:chuckle:

I've been around these kinds of discussions long enough to know that when someone pulls some argument from out of nowhere (like the one you just made) and then quickly declares victory, that said argument is likely on shaky ground.

Isaiah 45:7 is a beautiful affirmation of God's sovereignty and a sound refutation of the perverse notion that "luck" has anything to do with it.

Judging from the definition you gave earlier from Mirriam Webster, you a) reinforced my conclusion that Calvinistic election is based on luck,

I see.

Can you cite a single reformer that claims that election is based on luck?

:nono:

No?

Why then would you completely ignore how Calvinists define election in favor of your own kooky definition that you wish to foist on Calvinism?

b) provided strong evidence that you cannot yet read plain English,

For someone who seemed a bit miffed at Lon's "condescension" you appear to have some of your own to dish out, don't ya?

:chuckle:

which leads me to further conclude that you are not the person to defend Calvinism.

Shew! Boy am I glad to hear that.


That alleviates me of the burden of doing what someone has already done, namely, define Calvinism's understanding of election.

:readthis:

But the cause of this undeserved election is exclusively the good pleasure of God. This does not involve his choosing certain human qualities or actions from among all those possible as a condition of salvation, but rather involves his adopting certain particular persons from among the common mass of sinners as his own possession. As Scripture says, When the children were not yet born, and had done nothing either good or bad..., she (Rebecca) was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Rom. 9:11-13). Also, All who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48).
(Article 10, Canons of Dort)

Webster's defines "luck" as some nondescript "force."

Dort defines the source of election as God's pleasure.

In the words of sesame street, "one of these things is not like the other."

Your attempt to defend your straw man argument fails miserably and it erodes my confidence that you were erecting said straw man in ignorance....

:think:

 

[Derf]

Whatever is done in time, was foreordained by God before time began, hence, "accomplished" as contemplated by God, who sees all things equally vividly.

God is infinite in relation to time. Time does not apply to God's essence. God has always been God before time began at His ccommand. Time places no restrictions upon God. That God is not bound by time does not mean that God is not conscious of the succession of points in time. God knows what is now occurring in human experience. God is aware that events occur in a particular order. God is equally aware of all points of that order equally vividly, a vastly qualitatively different experience than what we experience as time. God is aware of what is happening, has happened, and what will happen at each point in time. Yet at any given point in time God is also conscious of the distinction between what is now occurring, what has been, and what will be.

There is a successive order to the acts of God and there is a logical order to his decisions, yet there is no temporal order to God’s willing. God’s deliberation and willing take no time. God has from eternity determined what He is now doing. Therefore God’s actions are not in any way reactions to developments. God does not get taken by surprise or have to create contingency plans.


AMR

I understand that's what you are thinking, and it could be true, perhaps, but is it?

If God "from eternity" determined what He is now doing, when did God determine to do that determining? Was there ever a point where God hadn't already determined what He would do? When He said "Let us make man in our own image", was He so locked in that He couldn't say otherwise? I expect you will answer that I don't understand God and eternity, and you will be correct. But I would hazard to guess that you don't either, despite your eloquent description.

Unless I'm wrong about your grasp of eternity and "timelessness" the best you or I can do is in throw scripture at each other and try to grasp what they mean. This is a worthy exercise, and one that is likely never complete on this side of eternity. So, while it's nice to go over what we have thought in the past, it is surely profitable not to rest on our laurels thinking we've figured it all out, right?

Here's a thought I've had on the time/eternity thing. Most scriptures I know about that deal with time on a macro scale (related to beginnings, endings and eternity) only talk about things we deal with, not surprisingly. So we determine our time/eternity relationship based on a rather small data set. Thus I would have a hard time figuring out how God works--if there is a time sequence or not for Him--based on our single data set. The bible doesn't really talk about "time" beginning, but it talks about "everything" beginning, at least every physical thing. Can we apply that to "time" as a thing"? Maybe. Does the bible apply that to "time" as a thing? I'm not so sure. I'm confident the bible doesn't say "God is outside of time", which is a common conclusion. Can we conclude that God is "outside of time", or that God sees all time concurrently, or some such based on the scriptures? Those may be dangerous leaps of speculation! (By "dangerous", I mean that we may settle on an incorrect conclusion and thus squelch opportunities to discover more/better.)

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Can we conclude that God is "outside of time", or that God sees all time concurrently, or some such based on the scriptures?

Have you read this:

One on One: AMR and JCWR on the Temporality of God - 2008

May help set up some foundations.

AMR