Knight and Zman one on one.

[death2impiety]

Many good points all around fellas. I've got to say though, Zman you are doing backflips trying to justify and levitate your faith as supreme but your logic is off.

You can think of any idea or plan that you wish, but the Lord's counsel, or His plan of action will stand. In other words, He always gets His way. Sometimes our plans come through, but it's not because of 'freewill' that God decided to let you have it 'your way' - it's because your plans and His ways were in unity. Sometimes our plans fall through, and that's because it wasn't what God had intended. It's that simple.

It isn't that simple. This can easily be reverted back to fall of man. So, in your view, God got His way in causing the fall of man? ...In causing the death and damnation of human kind and in destroying a world He created that He called "good"? Did Adam's plan to remain perfect "fall through" because of God? If the answer is no the only alternative is to say that defying God was his original intention in the first place which God ordained...can't you see how ridiculous this is?

What is simple here is that your confusing yourself by adding hidden meaning to otherwise easy to interpret text. God can intervene in our lives to direct us when we ask or as He sees fit. Everything we do is not reliant on God's ultimate decsion. Our will is free, we can accept Gods guidance or reject it just like Adam and Eve.

 

[novice]

d2I - I am glad you started this thread. And the point you are making is awesome. I think what your saying is similar to Knight's point about tjhe motivation of God's interaction with Peter. If God controls everything, then Peter was controlled to react the way he did when God predicted his denial of Christ, which defeats the purpose of the interaction. Yet if God doesn't control everything the story makes perfect sense because God wanted to persuade Peter and He did so by predicting the future.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I grew up a "Three-and-a-half point" Calvinist. (Baptist to be specific.) We broke from Calvinism in that we accepted Universal Atonement, and that we accepted a rather limited version of Libertarian Free Will (God was sovereign and in controll, but it was possible to rebel against His will).

But there's one fundamental issue in the whole Calvinist-Everybody Else debate that keeps getting lost: no human being is capable of understanding the whole "Sovereign-Free Will" issue, yet we go around arguing and fighting as if we understood the whole thing.

That's not just pride, it's foolish pride.

 

[Servo]

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Humans are the authors of confusion. Thanks Greek Pagan philosophy!

 

[novice]

But there's one fundamental issue in the whole Calvinist-Everybody Else debate that keeps getting lost: no human being is capable of understanding the whole "Sovereign-Free Will" issue, yet we go around arguing and fighting as if we understood the whole thing.

That's not just pride, it's foolish pride.

Ya think?

I don't think that is the case at all.

The Bible is God's word and we can investigate God's word to determine or fortify our faith in a belief about the author. There is no reason to believe we cannot understand the author to at least some extent.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

The Bible is God's word and we can investigate God's word to determine or fortify our faith in a belief about the author. There is no reason to believe we cannot understand the author to at least some extent.

The problem is that this level of "understanding" requires a great deal more interperative support than straight textual support. The process and mechanics of soteriology is an area that the Scriptures are completely silent on: at no point in the Bible does it give us a detailed account of HOW salvation happens, just that it happens, and that it's neccesary. Yet folks like Calvin and Arminius come along, write books and books on the topic, and claim "I know how it happens."

 

[death2impiety]

The problem is that this level of "understanding" requires a great deal more interperative support than straight textual support. The process and mechanics of soteriology is an area that the Scriptures are completely silent on: at no point in the Bible does it give us a detailed account of HOW salvation happens, just that it happens, and that it's neccesary. Yet folks like Calvin and Arminius come along, write books and books on the topic, and claim "I know how it happens."

I see what your saying but, I'm just arguing from a logical perspective. You read my original post no? Based on my understanding of the nature of God it seems impossible for our lives to be authoritatively governed by any direct application of His will. The foundation of my belief is Adam and Eve, the first humans who fudged it all up for the rest of us. If God designed a perfect world and gave its inhabitants the choice to follow (as he wanted loving worshippers, not robots) than it would follow that the fall of man is the fault of none other than man. Its impossible to find God accountable for such a thing, its contrary to His nature and to His vision of humanity.

 

[death2impiety]

d2I - I am glad you started this thread. And the point you are making is awesome. I think what your saying is similar to Knight's point about tjhe motivation of God's interaction with Peter. If God controls everything, then Peter was controlled to react the way he did when God predicted his denial of Christ, which defeats the purpose of the interaction. Yet if God doesn't control everything the story makes perfect sense because God wanted to persuade Peter and He did so by predicting the future.

Precisely. Its a real stretch to go the way of Zman. God becomes an entirely different entity.

 

[death2impiety]

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Humans are the authors of confusion. Thanks Greek Pagan philosophy!

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I see what your saying but, I'm just arguing from a logical perspective. You read my original post no?

I have--and that's the thing, D2I, I agree with you, in as much as it is possible for a human being to understand. It certainly makes logical sense that at least some limited self-will exists, and that (in a Christian paradigm) God did not "ordain" the fall. To my mind, arguments that God is completely sovereign and controlls every act, yet God was not responsible for the Fall (standard "Calvinist" concepts of the sovereign nature of God), while very pious, are also incoherent.

But my main point is not a soteriology argument: my point is epistemic. I take it as self-evident that God's nature, and God's actions, are fundamentally beyond human comprehension. We may gain a measure of insight, but for any human being to claim comprehension to the degree that Calvin and Arminius claimed is preposterous.

 

[death2impiety]

I have--and that's the thing, D2I, I agree with you, in as much as it is possible for a human being to understand. It certainly makes logical sense that at least some limited self-will exists, and that (in a Christian paradigm) God did not "ordain" the fall. To my mind, arguments that God is completely sovereign and controlls every act, yet God was not responsible for the Fall (standard "Calvinist" concepts of the sovereign nature of God), while very pious, are also incoherent.

But my main point is not a soteriology argument: my point is epistemic. I take it as self-evident that God's nature, and God's actions, are fundamentally beyond human comprehension. We may gain a measure of insight, but for any human being to claim comprehension to the degree that Calvin and Arminius claimed is preposterous.

I agree. Its a good thing we have His Word to go by.

 

[Sir Cast-a-Lot]

We may gain a measure of insight, but for any human being to claim comprehension to the degree that Calvin and Arminius claimed is preposterous.

what did they claim?

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

what did they claim?

Ever read Institutes of the Christian Religion or Five Articles of the Remonstrants? :shocked: "God did thus-and-so." God didn't do thus-and-so." Even "It is not possible for God to have done thus-and-so...."

Justin

 

[Scholastic]

It isn't that simple. This can easily be reverted back to fall of man. So, in your view, God got His way in causing the fall of man? ...In causing the death and damnation of human kind and in destroying a world He created that He called "good"?

From the easter proclamation (The exultet)

Father, how wonderful your care for us!
How boundless your merciful love!
To ransom a slave you gave away your Son.

O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam,
which gained for us so great a Redeemer!

Most blessed of all nights,
chosen by God to see Christ rising from the dead!

Adam could not have fallen except if it would have been allowed by God. Without Adam's fault, there would have been no need for Christ. However, because Adam fell, then Christ was able to redeem man, thus glorifying the Lord. How many times in the bible do you see: "Because i have rescued you from this, you shall know that I am the LORD, and you shall glorify me"?

In fact, Augastine states: (http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP002.html#FPQ2A3THEP1)

"Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil."

What is simple here is that your confusing yourself by adding hidden meaning to otherwise easy to interpret text. God can intervene in our lives to direct us when we ask or as He sees fit. Everything we do is not reliant on God's ultimate decsion. Our will is free, we can accept Gods guidance or reject it just like Adam and Eve.

i want you to keep in mind the scripture in which Christ says "Without me, you can do nothing"

 

[Sir Cast-a-Lot]

Ever read Institutes of the Christian Religion or Five Articles of the Remonstrants? :shocked: "God did thus-and-so." God didn't do thus-and-so." Even "It is not possible for God to have done thus-and-so...."

Justin

so your saying they are in hell?

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

so your saying they are in hell?

Cast-a-Lot, I'm not Christian: I don't even believe in hell! :chuckle: I'm mainly criticising Calvin and Arminius from a logical point of view. If one takes the Bible as a starting point, one must accept several logical inconsistancies to get anywhere with Calvin or Arminius--not the least of which you must accept that on God's scale, all of Creation has already happened, and time is closed.

 

[Scholastic]

Cast-a-Lot, I'm not Christian: I don't even believe in hell! :chuckle: I'm mainly criticising Calvin and Arminius from a logical point of view. If one takes the Bible as a starting point, one must accept several logical inconsistancies to get anywhere with Calvin or Arminius--not the least of which you must accept that on God's scale, all of Creation has already happened, and time is closed.

I personally like Calvin. He was about the only Protestant reformer that made any sense. His teachings were, quite frankly, very reasonable. Inconsistencies? Name them.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I personally like Calvin. He was about the only Protestant reformer that made any sense. His teachings were, quite frankly, very reasonable. Inconsistencies? Name them.

Well, I just named the "biggest" visible inconsistancy: if Calvin's postulates are true, then from God's perspective, God's existance already encompases the time of the New Heavens and the New Earth. In that sense, all of "Creation" has already occurred, and time is closed. It's not a theological inconsistancy: it's a metaphysical and logical inconsistancy.

I quite agree that Calvin was one of the best of the Protestant reformers, but he's wasn't perfect.

 

[death2impiety]

Adam could not have fallen except if it would have been allowed by God. Without Adam's fault, there would have been no need for Christ. However, because Adam fell, then Christ was able to redeem man, thus glorifying the Lord.

How is the Lord glorified when countless people will go to hell because of the fall? Your making the Lord out to be a kid with a magnifying glass out for his own amusement and gratification at the expense of man. So your saying God had it all planned out: create man, curse man and finally, have my son murdered so...people will glorify me...with all His power surely there is a better way to be glorified.

How many times in the bible do you see: "Because i have rescued you from this, you shall know that I am the LORD, and you shall glorify me"?

Yes...we shall. This does nothing to help your position.
Because I rescued you from that burning house you will know that I was able to and you will thank me...Providence/predestination is not required to understand and glorify God. Whats more, plenty of people do not know He is LORD and they haven't glorified Him...

 

[Sir Cast-a-Lot]

Cast-a-Lot, I'm not Christian: I don't even believe in hell! :chuckle: I'm mainly criticising Calvin and Arminius from a logical point of view. If one takes the Bible as a starting point, one must accept several logical inconsistancies to get anywhere with Calvin or Arminius--not the least of which you must accept that on God's scale, all of Creation has already happened, and time is closed.

Then where do you believe people go?