Do you believe in predestination ?

[Nang]

I believe God Himself is absolute, not His sovereignty, for God must be master of Himself, His choices, and His power or He cannot be considered truly sovereign.

All the attributes of God are equal and absolute. They together define who and what God IS.

You have told me multiple times that the Bible says God's sovereignty is absolute. I'd appreciate it if you would give me some of those texts for the words sovereignty and sovereign are not to be found in the Bible.

I also suggested this thread be read:

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?122698-The-Sovereignty-of-God&highlight=

 

[Gary K]

All the attributes of God are equal and absolute. They together define who and what God IS.



I also suggested this thread be read:

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?122698-The-Sovereignty-of-God&highlight=

Umm.... God is love. He is kind. He is gracious. He is merciful. He is just. Nowhere have I seen a text that says God is a micromanager.

I read your first post and looked at the the list of texts there:
I Chronicles 29:10-12
Job 12:6-10
Psalm 115:3
Psalm 135:6
Isaiah 46:9-11
Isaiah 55:11
Ephesians 1:11
Romans 9:19-21

I don't see a single text there that implies, let alone declares, that God must exercise His sovereignty in every situation. You are reading the absoluteness of God's soveriegnty into those texts.

 

[Gary K]

All the attributes of God are equal and absolute. They together define who and what God IS.



I also suggested this thread be read:

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?122698-The-Sovereignty-of-God&highlight=

How can that be? If each attribute is unrestrained, unbridled, etc... God is not in charge of any part of His character/temperament/personality. He is mentally unstable and mentally ill. God must first rule Himself or He is not fit to rule the universe. Any parent, and God repeatedly tells us He is our Father, must rule themselves with diligence before they are fit to be a parent.

Jesus told us that if we "see" Him we have "seen" the Father. I don't believe that comes close to applying to the physical persons of either. It has to be in reference to who they are. What kind of persons they are. What their temperaments/personalities/characters are like. I see zero evidence in the life of Jesus that He was a control freak that had to control the choices of everyone around Him. So, if we cannot see this desire to control everything in the life of Jesus, who is our creator, it doesn't exist in the Father either.

 

[Stripe]

Yes, of course.

Then there's no point in a discussion. :wave:

 

[Nang]

Then there's no point in a discussion. :wave:

More evidence revealing Open Theists are not open minded . . . :carryon:

 

[Nang]

How can that be? If each attribute is unrestrained, unbridled, etc... God is not in charge of any part of His character/temperament/personality. He is mentally unstable and mentally ill. God must first rule Himself or He is not fit to rule the universe. Any parent, and God repeatedly tells us He is our Father, must rule themselves with diligence before they are fit to be a parent.

Jesus told us that if we "see" Him we have "seen" the Father. I don't believe that comes close to applying to the physical persons of either. It has to be in reference to who they are. What kind of persons they are. What their temperaments/personalities/characters are like. I see zero evidence in the life of Jesus that He was a control freak that had to control the choices of everyone around Him. So, if we cannot see this desire to control everything in the life of Jesus, who is our creator, it doesn't exist in the Father either.

Consider the word "rule" and "Ruler" rather than "control" and "Controller" and you might come closer to understanding, appreciating, and worshiping The Sovereign God of the Universe.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Then there's no point in a discussion. :wave:

Yes, Stripe, you've come to the inevitable, ultimate conclusion. The fact is, your T.U.L.I.P Calvinists are among the most idiotic "theologians" on the planet, and they are a cult, like any other, with their doctrines of men and demons, their false prophets. They have no regard for even Sunday school level plain scripture that puts a lie to their claims. They worship a near merciless, monster god, designer of evil and a damned babies factory, which they're alright with. They cannot even pause to think how silly their main claim, this sovereignty business, is, somehow are oblivious that God, in fact, created man with free will and an expectation that man choose, by His sovereign will and pleasure making mankind thus. There is NO sovereignty issue. It's a straw man, non-issue, silly sophistry, just playing with words. (They do the same with predestination, scripture predestination merely involving God's plan for those that receive Christ, that is, to be conformed to the image of Christ, not a scintilla to do with any determinism of anybody's fate. That's just a Calvinist lie, and a very wicked one, that slanders Holy God.) But this sovereignty thing they harp on, like some broken record, is as stupid as saying God's not sovereign, if He allows us to choose corn flakes or fruit loops for breakfast. Of course, your Calvinist can never choose: it's always fruit loops. And, in their defense, they could hold themselves out to be evidence for Total Depravity.

In any event, again, there's no discussing anything, with any cult, actually. They don't have God on the throne, don't care what the Lord Jesus said on these things. Cults have Ellen White, or Charles Taze Russell, many Catholics a Pope, Calvin, on and on the merry-go-round of false prophets spins, with those phony baloney doctrines of men and demons first and foremost their religion, very scripture truth of no consequence. Presenting truth is as futile as trying to pry somebody away from a cult they've willingly been kidnapped by: they'll drink the Kool Aid, before they'll have the truth.

Yep, you may as well be trying to have a discussion with a tree stump. And the entire purpose of a cult is to try and spread their disease, in the first place, which they cannot see that people of the Spirit never buy. 2 Timothy 3:13. That's another matter. I don't even see the point. What difference does it make if some unregenerate, that would listen to their claims, is "converted", exchanges one lie for another? What has been accomplished? In any event, it will all come down to futile bickering, trying to reason with them, and 1 Timothy 6:3-6. (As to all the cloned debate threads, I'm convinced there's a Web James Bible such verses have been redacted from that most everybody's using! You know, you could go away for a year, come back, and people are still arguing over the same things, making the same points, though it does seem to go in cycles. Calvinism seems to be the cult flavor of the month.)

 

[Stripe]

Yes, Stripe, you've come to the inevitable, ultimate conclusion. The fact is, your T.U.L.I.P Calvinists are among the most idiotic "theologians" on the planet, and they are a cult, like any other, with their doctrines of men and demons, their false prophets. They have no regard for even Sunday school level plain scripture that puts a lie to their claims. They worship a near merciless, monster god, designer of evil and a damned babies factory, which they're alright with. They cannot even pause to think how silly their main claim, this sovereignty business, is, somehow are oblivious that God, in fact, created man with free will and an expectation that man choose, by His sovereign will and pleasure making mankind thus. There is NO sovereignty issue. It's a straw man, non-issue, silly sophistry, just playing with words. (They do the same with predestination, scripture predestination merely involving God's plan for those that receive Christ, that is, to be conformed to the image of Christ, not a scintilla to do with any determinism of anybody's fate. That's just a Calvinist lie, and a very wicked one, that slanders Holy God.) But this sovereignty thing they harp on, like some broken record, is as stupid as saying God's not sovereign, if He allows us to choose corn flakes or fruit loops for breakfast. Of course, your Calvinist can never choose: it's always fruit loops. And, in their defense, they could hold themselves out to be evidence for Total Depravity.

In any event, again, there's no discussing anything, with any cult, actually. They don't have God on the throne, don't care what the Lord Jesus said on these things. Cults have Ellen White, or Charles Taze Russell, many Catholics a Pope, Calvin, on and on the merry-go-round of false prophets spins, with those phony baloney doctrines of men and demons first and foremost their religion, very scripture truth of no consequence. Presenting truth is as futile as trying to pry somebody away from a cult they've willingly been kidnapped by: they'll drink the Kool Aid, before they'll have the truth.

Yep, you may as well be trying to have a discussion with a tree stump. And the entire purpose of a cult is to try and spread their disease, in the first place, which they cannot see that people of the Spirit never buy. 2 Timothy 3:13. That's another matter. I don't even see the point. What difference does it make if some unregenerate, that would listen to their claims, is "converted", exchanges one lie for another? What has been accomplished? In any event, it will all come down to futile bickering, trying to reason with them, and 1 Timothy 6:3-6. (As to all the cloned debate threads, I'm convinced there's a Web James Bible such verses have been redacted from that most everybody's using! You know, you could go away for a year, come back, and people are still arguing over the same things, making the same points, though it does seem to go in cycles. Calvinism seems to be the cult flavor of the month.)

To be fair, it's more to do with the man than the theology.

Nang does nothing but assert the truth of her ideas.

 

[Gary K]

Consider the word "rule" and "Ruler" rather than "control" and "Controller" and you might come closer to understanding, appreciating, and worshiping The Sovereign God of the Universe.

How about if I consider the words of John Calvin himself taken from his Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans. The following paragraph is from his comments on Romans 1:3.

We hence learn, that they perversely resist the authority of God and upset the whole of what he has ordained, who irreverently and contemptuously reject the preaching of the gospel; the design of which is to constrain us to obey God. We must also notice here what faith is; the name of obedience is given to it, and for this reason—because the Lord calls us by his gospel; we respond to his call by faith; as on the other hand, the chief act of disobedience to God is unbelief, I prefer rendering the sentence, “For the obedience of faith,” rather than, “In order that they may obey the faith;” for the last is not strictly correct, except taken figuratively, though it be found once in the Acts, vi. 7. Faith is properly that by which we obey the gospel.1

The doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God which must control all choices is an invention of someone other than John Calvin. I wondered if it wasn't and his own words make it clear that this is in fact true.

 

[Nang]

How about if I consider the words of John Calvin himself taken from his Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans. The following paragraph is from his comments on Romans 1:3.





The doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God which must control all choices is an invention of someone other than John Calvin. I wondered if it wasn't and his own words make it clear that this is in fact true.

Your attribution for the quote posted is unfounded, but nevertheless, faithful obedience proves to be the very spiritual fruit and (therefore legitimate) evidence of the sovereign gift of saving faith received by the sons of God through the power of the Holy Spirit.

So your post appears to have no basis; makes no point; and makes no sense . . .

 

[Gary K]

Your attribution for the quote posted is unfounded, but nevertheless, faithful obedience proves to be the very spiritual fruit and (therefore legitimate) evidence of the sovereign gift of saving faith received by the sons of God through the power of the Holy Spirit.

So your post appears to have no basis; makes no point; and makes no sense . . .

So, copying and pasting an entire paragraph out of my copy of John Calvin's Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Romans is a lie? Would you like a link so you can download the book just like I did?

Are you having problems with reading comprehension?

We hence learn, that they perversely resist the authority of God and upset the whole of what he has ordained,

You say no one can upset anything God ordains. If He ordains it, it must happen. John Calvin says there are people who resist the authority of God and upset what He has ordained should happen. You contradict John Calvin yet claim to be a follower of him. Then you claim he didn't write what he wrote. I'm pretty disappointed in you. I thought a lot better of you.

 

[Nang]

So, copying and pasting an entire paragraph out of my copy of John Calvin's Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Romans is a lie? Would you like a link so you can download the book just like I did?

Are you having problems with reading comprehension?

You say no one can upset anything God ordains. If He ordains it, it must happen. John Calvin says there are people who resist the authority of God and upset what He has ordained should happen. You contradict John Calvin yet claim to be a follower of him. Then you claim he didn't write what he wrote. I'm pretty disappointed in you. I thought a lot better of you.

"Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh." Romans 1:3

Where did you find the "commentary" you apparently wrongly applied to this Scripture?

 

[Lon]

It doesn't read that way at all to me. But the bigger problem might be that I don't quite understand why this is important to our discussion.

A will is just the ability to choose. Men have that, unless everything we know about everyday life is an illusion.

A 'choice' must be 'created' in order for it to exist. God created a universe with variables. Similarly, I create different kinds of dishes with some of the same exact variables. Choice then, may leave me a bit of option/freedom for my desire to take effect, but even that desire is made up of tastebuds that are already made a certain way. The neat thing is that 'different' things interact meaningfully. "Will" is seen as 'acting upon that desire' but in order to say sin is an 'option' God would have to make that scenario and I've a problem with God purposefully giving man a choice behind sin as a 'gift.' Man's will was constrained and confined to 'only what God wanted.' The 'desire' (part of the definition of will) for sin could only have come from the serpent (more on this a few more times in this response).

I consider the extra definitions of will to be useful only to the Calvinist, who needs them to address challenges to his theology. I don't see any serious problems with my theology if we don't make distictions between types of will. Also, it hurts my brain trying to separate what people mean when they talk about "will," "free will" and "libertarian free will" as if they were different things.

Understood but not only Calvinists. Long before I became Calvinistic, I had wrestled with the problem of man's will. It has always been awkward hearing anybody say they believe our freewill is a 'gift from God.' It seems egocentric for theology to me in light of every verse that calls us to deny self. I always asked, "how can God give the very thing we are to deny, when following Christ?"

Can you unpack what you're thinking? I don't see a problem. What is wrong with defining a will as a man's ability to choose and leaving it at that? Why do we need a "will" for post-fall and a "free will" beforehand?

A will, ability to choose, prior the fall had a specific set of parameters: Whatever pleased God. Man's will could not have been used outside of those parameters. After the Fall, some theologians believe man's will is more: an ability to choose to love God or not. The problem is that this is seen as 'a gift.' If so, then it depends on man's will, for salvation. Romans 9:16

A will before the Fall is bent (favored) toward God. A will post is bent to sin and stuck there. BECAUSE of the fallen nature of man, you might say man's will 'was' a gift from God, but it'd not be true of a man stuck in sin because 'free' means "free of/from God" in our fallen state. I don't believe a discussion of 'will' alone, is fruitful (nor ever did, even prior to Calvinism) for meaning.
We have to discuss, I believe, what 'will' meant differently to Adam and Eve, what it means to those in sin, and what it means to those in Christ because the choices and desires are opposites.

Fair. But it is better until I see good reason that the more complicated version is necessary.

I'm not sure I accomplished this, but it was and has been my endeavor. At least for me, I think our will is better defined by 'what we desire and do' more than 'free' can entail or explain. IOW, I think while 'complicated' isn't my aim, 'better clearly defined in different contexts for meaning' is my aim.

What is wrong with defining a will as a man's ability to choose and leaving it at that? Why do we need a "will" for post-fall and a "free will" beforehand? A restrained, or perhaps you mean "limited" will, is not a challenge to me. It is fine to say that man's will is limited. As long as he has one, my position is justified. He can choose. Not everything has been predestined.

Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.​

There does not seem to be an explicit or even implicit denial of a will in an unsaved man there. In fact, there is strong implication that a choice is required: "Do not be entangled again." Paul gives instructions. Are we to believe there is not choice required to follow those instructions?

This then, I think, makes a distinction of at least 'will' and 'freewill' necessary )(at least for you, if not for all Open Theists, because this would be a '

God prompting a response does not deny that a man has the ability to choose.

It is sometimes a bit of semantics, like a bowling alley. Certainly you are free to bowl within two gutters. It is also accurate to say you are 'restrained' between the two gutters. Where each is aiming is important.

The only thing I insist on is that no matter the situation, people have a choice to make (regardless of how limited, manipulated or predictable it might be.)

It's a desire. A choice would be to jump off a building. Reality is the pavement.

I've discovered some time ago, talking this over with one Open Theist is a bit different than talking to the next one. There is not yet solidarity withing your circles but I appreciate that. Discussions like this help flesh that out (not that denominations NEED another reason to split off one from the other).

Sure, but that's not contradictory to my position.

It was presented as a dichotomy; there are only two possibilities. Either Satan was created with a will and he chose for himself to rebel, or God made him with no choice but to go down that road. There is no third option.

I don't know the third option but I certainly do know that I, nor any other man is intelligent enough (informed enough really) to make a two-option scenario set in cement. Why? Because I've been on the planet long enough to have seen this over and over again. There are times when the 'only two (or three or four) option is simply not true: Either they aren't informed, or naive, or simply wrong.

Example: "Either the world is flat or it is round." While 'round' is okay, the world can be flat and 'round' like a plate. The third and better is 'sphere.'

I cannot get onboard with such a definition. It does not comport with everyday life and seems to be in place solely to serve a particular theological viewpoint.

Let me backtrack a bit and perhaps elaborate meaningfully:

Yes, but as I said, it [God's will] is a will knowing good and evil, but never doing evil. [conversely] Man didn't have that knowledge so never 'could' have chosen evil without the serpent's 'help/deception.'

And I think the challenge you face is the rollback to where Satan got the choice from. Did he get it from God, or from himself. We cannot say God, but if you say it was from Satan's will, then I ask: Why can't man have that same ability?

...as a gift purposefully given? AFTER the first set already made that bad choice? God is Sovereign, He could have done so but I'm not sure how we'd want to speculate such. It seems, at least to me, that Moses necessarily ties the serpent to the Fall and is silent for some reason how the other Fell in the first place. I'm left then, it seems, purposefully perplexed (not told).

It beats trying to convince Barbarian to engage sensibly.

Jokes aside: Likewise. :thumb:

Understood and on the later :cheers:

 

[JudgeRightly]

A 'choice' must be 'created' in order for it to exist.

God gave Adam (and Eve) a choice.

When He created the Garden, He made a doorway that lead out of His presence.

He could have out that door somewhere far away, where they would have never found it, had they cared to look.

But He didn't.

He placed it in the center of the Garden. That door was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He told Adam "don't eat of it, for in the day you eat of it you will die."

Satan's first sin was to tempt Eve into eating of the Tree. She sinned by eating of it, then led Adam to sin also.

Adam chose to sin.

God gave Cain a choice.

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.”Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord.Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering,but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. - Genesis 4:1-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis4:1-8&version=NKJV

Cain chose to sin.

I could go on, but I really just wanted to point out that choices are not created. They simply arise out of the circumstances one is in.

I could choose to jump out of the flying plane with my parachute, and along with it comes the consequence of death or severe injury (if I were to somehow survive). Or I could choose to put the parachute on first. Pulling the cord before I jump out is an option, but rather stupid, as it'll mess it up and I would probably end up dead because of it.

Or I could choose to just not jump out of the plane at all.

My point is this: that choices are everywhere, and God wants us to live our lives, hoping that we will love Him.

He can't force us to love Him, but the option is always there in our lives.

 

[Stripe]

A 'choice' must be 'created' in order for it to exist. God created a universe with variables. Similarly, I create different kinds of dishes with some of the same exact variables. Choice then, may leave me a bit of option/freedom for my desire to take effect, but even that desire is made up of tastebuds that are already made a certain way. The neat thing is that 'different' things interact meaningfully. "Will" is seen as 'acting upon that desire' but in order to say sin is an 'option' God would have to make that scenario and I've a problem with God purposefully giving man a choice behind sin as a 'gift.' Man's will was constrained and confined to 'only what God wanted.' The 'desire' (part of the definition of will) for sin could only have come from the serpent (more on this a few more times in this response).

This reasoning requires me to assume the truth of the Calvinist worldview. Is there something extra-Calvin that makes this distinction of wills necessary?

Understood but not only Calvinists. Long before I became Calvinistic, I had wrestled with the problem of man's will. It has always been awkward hearing anybody say they believe our freewill is a 'gift from God.' It seems egocentric for theology to me in light of every verse that calls us to deny self. I always asked, "how can God give the very thing we are to deny, when following Christ?"

I don't see the problem. :idunno:

A will, ability to choose, prior the fall had a specific set of parameters: Whatever pleased God. Man's will could not have been used outside of those parameters. After the Fall, some theologians believe man's will is more: an ability to choose to love God or not. The problem is that this is seen as 'a gift.' If so, then it depends on man's will, for salvation. Romans 9:16

Salvation is achieved solely through the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. That men can choose to confess this or deny it does not change the source of salvation and Who did the work.

A will before the Fall is bent (favored) toward God. A will post is bent to sin and stuck there. BECAUSE of the fallen nature of man, you might say man's will 'was' a gift from God, but it'd not be true of a man stuck in sin because 'free' means "free of/from God" in our fallen state. I don't believe a discussion of 'will' alone, is fruitful (nor ever did, even prior to Calvinism) for meaning.
We have to discuss, I believe, what 'will' meant differently to Adam and Eve, what it means to those in sin, and what it means to those in Christ because the choices and desires are opposites.

I think the only thing that changed was the environment men were born into. Ie, before the fall, there was no brokenness and overt temptations. Post-fall and things are, well, fallen.

It's not the will that changed, it's the setting people find themselves in.

This then, I think, makes a distinction of at least 'will' and 'freewill' necessary )(at least for you, if not for all Open Theists, because this would be a '

Uh, not seeing it. Did part of your post get lost?

It is sometimes a bit of semantics, like a bowling alley. Certainly you are free to bowl within two gutters. It is also accurate to say you are 'restrained' between the two gutters. Where each is aiming is important.

If people can choose in this manner, that means God has not determined everything that will ever happen.

I've discovered some time ago, talking this over with one Open Theist is a bit different than talking to the next one. There is not yet solidarity withing your circles but I appreciate that. Discussions like this help flesh that out (not that denominations NEED another reason to split off one from the other).

Yeah, there's a dance between "orthodoxy" and individual opinions that plays out in any debate. It's important to respect when people are appealing to one or the other and also for the appealer not to abuse that respect.

don't know the third option but I certainly do know that I, nor any other man is intelligent enough (informed enough really) to make a two-option scenario set in cement. Why? Because I've been on the planet long enough to have seen this over and over again. There are times when the 'only two (or three or four) option is simply not true: Either they aren't informed, or naive, or simply wrong.

It's a rhetorical construct that only allows two options. It's like asking: "What color is your shirt?" Obviously, there can be many answers. To make a dichotomy, we simply ask: "Are you wearing blue?" That makes it possible for the asker to refer to only two possible results, even if the guy says he is not wearing anything. Is he wearing blue? No. Otherwise, yes. That's a dichotomy.

A false dichotomy is when (typically) Darwinists ask an open question in yes-or-no form.

With the Satan story, "did God create him with a will?" is a dichotomy. It's a yes-or-no question. It was designed to allow me to record only one of two possibilities.

Example: "Either the world is flat or it is round." While 'round' is okay, the world can be flat and 'round' like a plate. The third and better is 'sphere.'

This is simply a case of sloppy wording. It's simple to fix: "Is the Earth spherical?"

Yes, I know. Smartalecs like to say: "No, it's an oblate spheroid." They're idiots, of course. It's as spherical as anything else they would rightly describe as such.

Let me backtrack a bit and perhaps elaborate meaningfully: ...as a gift purposefully given? AFTER the first set already made that bad choice? God is Sovereign, He could have done so but I'm not sure how we'd want to speculate such. It seems, at least to me, that Moses necessarily ties the serpent to the Fall and is silent for some reason how the other Fell in the first place. I'm left then, it seems, purposefully perplexed (not told).

Not after. Angels were probably created on Day 1 (with wills) and mankind on Day 6 (with wills). It all went wrong at the same time when Satan tempted Eve and Adam ate.

 

[Gary K]

"Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh." Romans 1:3

Where did you find the "commentary" you apparently wrongly applied to this Scripture?

Sorry, my mistake there. The verse 3 was a typo. It should have been verse 5. Thanks for pointing that out.

Roman 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

I quoted the second of two paragraphs on the second phrase of this verse.

For the obedience of faith, &c.—That is, we have received a command to preach the gospel among all nations, and this gospel they obey by faith. By stating the design of his calling, he again reminds the Romans of his office, as though he said, “It is indeed my duty to discharge the office committed to me, which is to preach the word; and it is your duty to hear the word and willingly to obey it; you will otherwise make void the vocation which the Lord has bestowed on me.”

We hence learn, that they perversely resist the authority of God and upset the whole of what he has ordained, who irreverently and contemptuously reject the preaching of the gospel; the design of which is to constrain us to obey God. We must also notice here what faith is; the name of obedience is given to it, and for this reason—because the Lord calls us by his gospel; we respond to his call by faith; as on the other hand, the chief act of disobedience to God is unbelief, I prefer rendering the sentence, “For the obedience of faith,” rather than, “In order that they may obey the faith;” for the last is not strictly correct, except taken figuratively, though it be found once in the Acts, vi. 7. Faith is properly that by which we obey the gospel.1

The way you interpret those who perversely resist God is that these people are not upsetting anything but are doing exactly what God ordained they should do. Thus they are not frustrating the will of God, but are instead doing what God has ordained. Calvin's sentence denies that for he says those who reject the preaching of the gospel are upsetting the whole of what God has ordained.

 

[Lon]

I'm finding a need to question a lot here about where you get one idea and another. Some of this to reveal leaps from inference vs. what is blatantly clear (inductive vs deductive Bible study). Some of this that you may further elaborate your meaning. -Lon

God gave Adam (and Eve) a choice.

Why? He is Creator of everything. Why would He even 'want' that ability? It is everything against His own nature. If so, isn't there a bit of God 'wanting' man to fall in your scenario? Why or how not?

When He created the Garden, He made a doorway that lead out of His presence.

You mean the tree of knowledge? Was that the actual purpose of the tree? To 'lead Adam and Eve out of His presence? How much of this is speculation on your part?

He could have out that door somewhere far away, where they would have never found it, had they cared to look.

But He didn't.

Right. To me, just the prohibition, which He was careful to give, would have sufficed, right? Didn't He create Adam and Eve to obey - follow? Or had that rebellious will already been in place? If not, then you are back to my scenario where the serpent is at fault and God didn't plan any of this by desire. Planned for? Yes. Planned? Then you are about in the same place as the extreme Calvinists who say God did this (I think). If not, I'm not seeing the difference. It seems like you guys are saying God purposefully made man to 'be able to sin, as a gift.'

He placed it in the center of the Garden. That door was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He told Adam "don't eat of it, for in the day you eat of it you will die."

Satan's...

To right here, we are in agreement and I'd have said all the same...continuing...

Satan's first sin was to tempt Eve into eating of the Tree.

:think: Genesis 3:1 "...was more crafty...you won't die..."

She sinned by eating of it, then led Adam to sin also.

Adam chose to sin.

1 Timothy 2:14

God gave Cain a choice.

Remember this part in a moment, because it confuses me...

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.”Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord.Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering,but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. - Genesis 4:1-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis4:1-8&version=NKJV

Cain chose to sin.

What choice did God give? I think one can infer that, but He is rather asking a question and describing Cain's condition isn't He?

I could go on, but I really just wanted to point out that choices are not created. They simply arise out of the circumstances one is in.

I'm a bit confused if that was the point, because you'd just said God gave Cain a choice (for instance). Is 'giving a choice' the same as 'created?' Sorry I'm not getting it.

I could choose to jump out of the flying plane with my parachute, and along with it comes the consequence of death or severe injury (if I were to somehow survive). Or I could choose to put the parachute on first. Pulling the cord before I jump out is an option, but rather stupid, as it'll mess it up and I would probably end up dead because of it. Or I could choose to just not jump out of the plane at all.

As with a few questions above, some are asked because I'm not seeing it in the text, but these latter are being asked because I'm trying to follow. For me, the really important part of this discussion is about 1) free will (and for me a distinction between it and just 'will'). Then 2) about how we can sin with something that is proposed as a 'gift from God.' As Stripe has said, there is no verse that says we were given a 'free will' but that such is inferred from scripture by free-will theists. That alone needs a lot of scripture to cover it or it is philosophy/reasoning alone that asserts it. The other part that is difficult in this is that the Open Theist himself/herself either states or beats-around-the-bush that God planned for man to sin AND gave him/her the 'ability' (as a gift) to do so. I've heard Enyart say that God HAD to do so or we'd not have genuine relationship, but for me, this infers that Adam and Eve were incapable of genuine relationship until they chose to sin. It just doesn't make logical sense nor seem to fit scriptures to me.

My point is this: that choices are everywhere, and God wants us to live our lives, hoping that we will love Him.

He can't force us to love Him, but the option is always there in our lives.

I think 'love' is its own force. That's why, I believe Proverbs 22:6 says that when a child grows up, they 'will not depart.' It is about what we pour into them. My children really don't have much of a choice. They love, because they were loved. 1 John 4:19

There may be a sense where there is value in 'chosen' love, but I'm convinced God chose me. Even with my wife, she chose me, which made me love her back. I use the word 'made' here because while 'choice' is part of our make-up, I'm convinced it has nothing really to do with relationship. For me, commitment and single-minded in God is the glue that holds my marriage together. Lest I take any credit (I can't) that glue is Christ. Christians in more than name only, are new-creatures. There is a Spiritual awakening that doesn't provide choice, but rather direction and motivation toward that goal, which is Christ Jesus. Because it is single-minded (albeit where flesh wars against it) then choice is but one, always: 1 Corinthians 10:31 Colossians 3:17

Thank you for talking a few moments. Even if the disagreement remains, I believe covering and understanding terms as well as reexamining them is a good use of our time. In Him -Lon

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm finding a need to question a lot here about where you get one idea and another. Some of this to reveal leaps from inference vs. what is blatantly clear (inductive vs deductive Bible study). Some of this that you may further elaborate your meaning. -Lon
Why? He is Creator of everything. Why would He even 'want' that ability? It is everything against His own nature. If so, isn't there a bit of God 'wanting' man to fall in your scenario? Why or how not?


You mean the tree of knowledge? Was that the actual purpose of the tree? To 'lead Adam and Eve out of His presence? How much of this is speculation on your part?

Right. To me, just the prohibition, which He was careful to give, would have sufficed, right? Didn't He create Adam and Eve to obey - follow? Or had that rebellious will already been in place? If not, then you are back to my scenario where the serpent is at fault and God didn't plan any of this by desire. Planned for? Yes. Planned? Then you are about in the same place as the extreme Calvinists who say God did this (I think). If not, I'm not seeing the difference. It seems like you guys are saying God purposefully made man to 'be able to sin, as a gift.'

To right here, we are in agreement and I'd have said all the same...continuing...


:think: Genesis 3:1 "...was more crafty...you won't die..."

1 Timothy 2:14

Remember this part in a moment, because it confuses me...

What choice did God give? I think one can infer that, but He is rather asking a question and describing Cain's condition isn't He?

I'm a bit confused if that was the point, because you'd just said God gave Cain a choice (for instance). Is 'giving a choice' the same as 'created?' Sorry I'm not getting it.



As with a few questions above, some are asked because I'm not seeing it in the text, but these latter are being asked because I'm trying to follow. For me, the really important part of this discussion is about 1) free will (and for me a distinction between it and just 'will'). Then 2) about how we can sin with something that is proposed as a 'gift from God.' As Stripe has said, there is no verse that says we were given a 'free will' but that such is inferred from scripture by free-will theists. That alone needs a lot of scripture to cover it or it is philosophy/reasoning alone that asserts it. The other part that is difficult in this is that the Open Theist himself/herself either states or beats-around-the-bush that God planned for man to sin AND gave him/her the 'ability' (as a gift) to do so. I've heard Enyart say that God HAD to do so or we'd not have genuine relationship, but for me, this infers that Adam and Eve were incapable of genuine relationship until they chose to sin. It just doesn't make logical sense nor seem to fit scriptures to me.


I think 'love' is its own force. That's why, I believe Proverbs 22:6 says that when a child grows up, they 'will not depart.' It is about what we pour into them. My children really don't have much of a choice. They love, because they were loved. 1 John 4:19

There may be a sense where there is value in 'chosen' love, but I'm convinced God chose me. Even with my wife, she chose me, which made me love her back. I use the word 'made' here because while 'choice' is part of our make-up, I'm convinced it has nothing really to do with relationship. For me, commitment and single-minded in God is the glue that holds my marriage together. Lest I take any credit (I can't) that glue is Christ. Christians in more than name only, are new-creatures. There is a Spiritual awakening that doesn't provide choice, but rather direction and motivation toward that goal, which is Christ Jesus. Because it is single-minded (albeit where flesh wars against it) then choice is but one, always: 1 Corinthians 10:31 Colossians 3:17

Thank you for talking a few moments. Even if the disagreement remains, I believe covering and understanding terms as well as reexamining them is a good use of our time. In Him -Lon

Thanks for your response, Lon. I'll get to this when I have the time. You ask some really good questions, and I'm itching to answer them!

Thanks for your patience!

 

[Lon]

This reasoning requires me to assume the truth of the Calvinist worldview. Is there something extra-Calvin that makes this distinction of wills necessary?

Calvinists. Amyraldians (mostly Catholic) as well as some others who agree with 3 or 4 points.

I don't see the problem. :idunno:

First, 'free' is entirely too 'free' for any kind of description of man. It carries the tenor: "I'm God, but you people are 'free' to do whatever you like. This end leads to death otherwise you are fine. Do whatever you like. You can flap your arms and fly like a bird as well because 'free' literally means 'no strings attached and no restrictions."

As you've said earlier, you've no problem with talking about restrictions, but 'free' is incredibly too broad to be meaningful to any discussion of the will. Because of that, even before I'd embraced precepts of Calvinism, I'd never appreciated nor wanted to describe the will as 'free.' Rather, it is only those in Christ that ARE actually set free, scripture says. Galatians 5:1 John 8:36 Because of both of these reasons and moreso the scriptures, I don't believe 'free' and 'will' are compatible except when referring to Christians.

Salvation is achieved solely through the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. That men can choose to confess this or deny it does not change the source of salvation and Who did the work.

No, and that is monergism. You are saying that you simply 'believe' it and that's not a work. It is simply acknowledging what Christ has done. Such is completely monergistic. You are, my friend, in disagreement with a few other Arminians as well as Openists. :e4e:

I think the only thing that changed was the environment men were born into. Ie, before the fall, there was no brokenness and overt temptations. Post-fall and things are, well, fallen.

It's not the will that changed, it's the setting people find themselves in.

Okay, a question then: What specifically did Christ die to 'set us free' from? (Romans 6:18) Further: Would you be able to follow God if Christ had not set us free?

Uh, not seeing it. Did part of your post get lost?

Yes, but going back, your statements in the previous post do distinguish between will and free-will. In other words, even you have adopted the separation for some thinking and description.
As with above, you make statements that do indeed distinguish between a man's will pre and post coming to Christ. The scriptures themselves talk about the difference in wills between the spiritual man and man of the flesh to the point where the man in the flesh 'cannot discern the things of the spirit.' Such distinguishes profoundly a difference between what either can 'will.'
At any rate, you said 'some limitation' is well within your acceptance such that 'free' (no restraints) and what you acquiesce is different to even begin with. Maybe mostly with Calvinists, but certainly with others who aren't as well. Its important to at least recognize the distinction AND that you, at times, describe a difference as well. To me, it makes 'freewill' and 'will' different enough, that you can see they aren't always (if at all) interchangeable. If not, I'm at least seeing the difference in your descriptions. For you, if I weren't Calvinist, it'd still be a hangup with the word 'free.' I just don't think 1) it is any kind of accurate descriptor and about meaningless in discussion until 2) scripture talks of it being 'free' and only in Christ. So I have a definition hangup and a scriptural hangup with equating will and freewill AND believe 'free' should never come into any theological discussion regarding will UNTIL we come to Christ setting men free indeed. -Lon

If people can choose in this manner, that means God has not determined everything that will ever happen.

For me? It doesn't lessen any meaning if He has. The sustaining of my being means He knows already how I'm going to throw this or that and what is going to happen in His physical universe. For me, again, it isn't if I get to 'choose' that makes it meaningful, but rather the experience itself. God is 'sharing' His universe with us. That alone, choice or not, is worth something and it is absolutely relationship. All it means really, is that He cared more to do something ahead of time, which is certainly as much/more relationally meaningful. Me having/getting to choose doesn't add or detract. Dad says, "come on" and takes you bowling or says "come on, let's go bowling." Neither lessens or makes more of the outcome. You don't have to 'choose' for the time planned to be meaningful. What choice DOES do is allows you or me an 'out' to NOT be relational. Why anybody would think that such makes or breaks relationship is perplexing to me. Choice simply does not do that. "But doesn't the time they 'might' make up for it because you 'know' they want to be there with you? In a word: "no." It really doesn't. When they want to be with me all the time, whatever I'm doing, that's the mark. Romans 8:5

Yeah, there's a dance between "orthodoxy" and individual opinions that plays out in any debate. It's important to respect when people are appealing to one or the other and also for the appealer not to abuse that respect.

:up:

It's a rhetorical construct that only allows two options. It's like asking: "What color is your shirt?" Obviously, there can be many answers. To make a dichotomy, we simply ask: "Are you wearing blue?" That makes it possible for the asker to refer to only two possible results, even if the guy says he is not wearing anything. Is he wearing blue? No. Otherwise, yes. That's a dichotomy.

A false dichotomy is when (typically) Darwinists ask an open question in yes-or-no form.

With the Satan story, "did God create him with a will?" is a dichotomy. It's a yes-or-no question. It was designed to allow me to record only one of two possibilities.

I see.

This is simply a case of sloppy wording. It's simple to fix: "Is the Earth spherical?"

Yes, I know. Smartalecs like to say: "No, it's an oblate spheroid." They're idiots, of course. It's as spherical as anything else they would rightly describe as such.

Or just overzealous for the technical (I have to hope I'm the latter for my splitting hairs (it may {have} seem[ed] over will and freewill)....

Not after. Angels were probably created on Day 1 (with wills) and mankind on Day 6 (with wills). It all went wrong at the same time when Satan tempted Eve and Adam ate.

Possibly, but we are left speculating. It may seem a black and white to you but for me, with so many assumptions I previously held, now in question, I have to look at all my grays. Somebody asked on another forum how I knew the serpent was Satan. He is right, it didn't say that there, but there are other references that indicate him in the Garden (rabbit-trail example of one of the grays). -Lon

 

[Stripe]

'Free' is entirely too 'free' for any kind of description of man.

This understanding is born of the Calvinist worldview. I do not hold that view, so it is not a challenge to me.

'Free' literally means 'no strings attached and no restrictions."

The "free" part is a redundant addition to what men have: A "will."

It does not mean the ability to do anything. It just means the ability to choose.

As you've said earlier, you've no problem with talking about restrictions, but 'free' is incredibly too broad to be meaningful to any discussion of the will. Because of that, even before I'd embraced precepts of Calvinism, I'd never appreciated nor wanted to describe the will as 'free.' Rather, it is only those in Christ that ARE actually set free, scripture says. Galatians 5:1 John 8:36 Because of both of these reasons and moreso the scriptures, I don't believe 'free' and 'will' are compatible except when referring to Christians.

I can appreciate you wanting to protect the meaning of the word "free" and "freedom." I applaud and join the effort — but in a realm separated from this discussion (if only to make my point).

When I use the term "will," it does not infringe on the concept of "freedom." That men have a will does not mean they are "free." Even if an openist were to say "men have free will," that would be a tautology; the "free" could be deleted with no harm done. And the "free" in "freewill" is different from the freedom we have in Christ.

No, and that is monergism.

Wiki says: "Monergism holds that God works through the Holy Spirit to bring about the salvation of an individual through spiritual regeneration, regardless of the individual's cooperation."

Is that not what you hold?

You are saying that you simply 'believe' it and that's not a work. It is simply acknowledging what Christ has done. Such is completely monergistic. You are, my friend, in disagreement with a few other Arminians as well as Openists. :e4e:

I don't really care who I disagree with, as long as it's not scripture.

What specifically did Christ die to 'set us free' from? (Romans 6:18)

Romans 8:2: For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.​

Further: Would you be able to follow God if Christ had not set us free?

In following God, I have been set free.

This question presumes the truth of your theology.

Your statements in the previous post do distinguish between will and free-will.

They do? I've said that the "free" part is redundant. That would make the two concepts equivalent.

Even you have adopted the separation for some thinking and description... You make statements that do indeed distinguish between a man's will pre and post coming to Christ.

Can you be specific about what I've said that leads you to believe this?

To be explicit: I do not hold that there is any change to man's ability to choose with acceptance of Christ, or indeed at the fall.

The scriptures themselves talk about the difference in wills between the spiritual man and man of the flesh to the point where the man in the flesh 'cannot discern the things of the spirit.' Such distinguishes profoundly a difference between what either can 'will.'

1 Corinthians 2:14: But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.​

This says nothing about a man's ability to choose.

For you, if I weren't Calvinist, it'd still be a hangup with the word 'free.'

I don't use it when talking about a will. It's redundant and adds confusion. If it's not free, it's not a will, but that "free" doesn't mean "the ability to do anything."

He knows already how I'm going to throw this or that and what is going to happen.

This means that He has determined everything.