Featured ...but what of His Holiness?

Agreed.

Agreed (Depending on what you mean by 'free.' "A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action"...i.e., contra-causal freedom.)

Agreed.

I think in principle we agree on these matters, but the point of departure (which Aaron continually avoids discussing because he thinks its a 'peripheral issue') is regarding the effectuality (irresistibility) of the means God uses to "remove" sin and bring reconciliation. We can both agree the revealed means in scripture are: Son, Spirit, Apostles, Church, and the Gospel. You just presume these means are ineffective without a prior inward irresistible working of the Holy Spirit which in essence has to reconcile a person (regenerate) so as to give them the ability to be reconciled. They, in a sense, must be saved (regenerated) in order to produce the means through which salvation is applied. I don't believe this concept is supported in the text. Plus, if its true it gives all unbelievers everywhere the perfect excuse for their unbelief, for what better excuse is there than, "I was born this way and can't change." or "God didn't grant me faith." or "God does really love me." or "God didn't want me."

These are DEVASTATING teachings to many who come to our churches seeking love and acceptance, not only from us, but especially from God.

 

Some might believe that, but I do not. That is not the scholarly approach of most respected non-Cal theologians, but unfortunately is what most Christians today think is the only alternative to the Calvinistic answers. It's really no wonder so many are becoming Calvinistic.

The problem with this is view is that it makes the same basic false presumption that the Calvinists make. They over individualize the concepts of divine election and predestination (a problem in Western worldview where everything is about US individually).

I don't have much time but think of it this way. A pilot can predetermine the destination of his airplane without predetermining the individuals who board, right? In the same manner, Paul teaches that God has predetermined to conform and adopt whosoever believes, even if they are not a Jew. That is Paul's intent in Eph 1 and Rom 8. God has predestined "US" (all who believe) to be conformed to the image of Christ and adopted as his sons. We eagerly await our adoption (Rm 8), and that is God's predetermined 'destination' for WHOSOEVER BELIEVES in Him, even if they aren't of the SEED of Abraham (which is the big debate of Paul's day).

Got to run. Feel free to follow up with questions if you have them. Thanks.

 

So, are you telling me that Jesus' teaching regarding how we are to beware of and recognize false teachers should be applied to how we are to understand Adam's choice to sin?

Read the context:

Jesus is teaching us how we can know good teachers from bad ones. You will know them by their fruit. You are plucking a verse from its context to try and prop up your system. This is just about the worse case of proof texting I've ever seen.

Adam sinned because Adam chose to sin, period. He didn't do it because Satan or God or anyone else corrupted him first. He made a free choice and that choice was sinful. His choice wasn't determined by anyone other than himself.

 

Of course you would say that because to say what we KNOW would undermine your insistence that free will doesn't exist. Sin was found IN SATAN. He sinned, by HIS own choice. Satan corrupted Satan. Just admit that and appeal to mystery so you can stop with all this non-sense.

And I'm fine with the statement that "all things were created good, but not incorruptible," but that avoids the question as to who does the corrupting. Where does the intent to sin originate? I say in the creature. But if you admit that then you have to deal with issues within your system as to how God is 'informed' by something that originates outside of God. I don't need to deal with that because I am willing to appeal to mystery and just allow the scripture to stand which says, "sin was found in him," and leave it at that. He has the freedom to sin or not sin and he is accountable for his choice, period.

Oink oink

 

Apparently that is because I'm a swine that just can't quite grasp your precious pearls. If only God loved me as much as he loves you and granted me the intelligence He has granted to you. I can only hope He makes me able to be as humble and smart as you are.

I love you bro. and I know enough about God and people to know that I can't change how you think about me or Him. For you to say something like this to another brother simply because I believe his gifts are able to be rejected and you believe they are effectually applied is beyond the pale.

What you refuse to deal with is that a gift doesn't have to be irresistibly applied for the giver to get ALL the credit for giving it and for those who reject the gift to get all the blame for their rebellion. For some reason (that you won't discuss because its 'peripheral') you have come to conclusion that for God to get all the credit for his gifts, He MUST effectually and irresistibly apply them to a select few. In reality, God should get the credit for his gifts and gracious provisions even when they are rejected, but especially when they bring life and healing.

People who reject God's gracious provisions do so despite God's love and desire to bring them reconciliation and their condemnation is deserved, but that doesn't lesson the glory of his grace or the depth of his mercy. For you to suggest otherwise is only an expression of ignorance for what I actually believe and have experienced in my walk with Christ. I bring nothing but my sin. Even my faith is filthy rags in his sight. But God in his mercy takes our filthy rags and credits it to our account as righteousness because of Christ's provision.

 

It's been a while since I've read Norm's stuff, but from what I remember he makes some good points regarding 'self-determiniation.'

I enjoy Adam Clarke's commentaries. And even though I may not agree with every point that is made I believe there is much wisdom in reading scholars from both perspectives. Reading Calvin and Arminius' actual words is very helpful, in my experience. It really is amazing how similar they really are. Both focus greatly on the Glory and sovereignty of God.

I also like Hershel Hobbs, John Wesley and others who hold to similar views. Many take various approaches to the issues, but they all offer good insight.

 

Yes. And it seems to me that their concept of what God actually does in unchangeably "ordaining/decreeing" sin is worse in regard to culpability than "authoring" would be. I mean which is worse and why?

 

True, I do spend a lot of time debating Calvinists, so I'm quite familiar with it.

Right. So, you should know better than to continually treat me (and others) with disrespect and distain. That is a bad fruit that you often produce here, so what are we to conclude about you?

And KNOWING someone by their fruit is quite different from suggesting they have no control over changing from being one kind of 'tree' to another by the assistance of God's grace.

 

That is debatable but inconsequential because the result is the same. Either way, the Lord said of him, "You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you."

And... "You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.' I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."

These passage show that the corruption was not created or made by God, but that it was 'found.' Where did this pride and desire to become like God originate? In the creator or the created? You can't...you won't answer that question and we all know why.