Not Closed Theology

[Piper]

@Piper that you deny man's God given free will calls into question your understanding of scripture. When you see the IF / THEN option it requires man's free will, that is unless you think God is just being disingenuous.

I do not deny that man makes responsible decisions. Does man have free will? It depends on what you mean by free will. Probably by your standards, I do not believe that man has free will. That is, a will that is able to make decisions unencumbered by anything outside himself. Only God has that.

 

[Silverhair]

I do not deny that man makes responsible decisions. Does man have free will? It depends on what you mean by free will. Probably by your standards, I do not believe that man has free will. That is, a will that is able to make decisions unencumbered by anything outside himself. Only God has that.

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action (aka choosing “otherwise”). This does not require the person to be able to choose anything, nor does it require the absence of other influencing factors. It only requires the ability for a person confronted with a decision to be able to choose from among one or more possible options.

Do you believe that God has given man a free will so that he can evaluate the information that is presented to him and choose to either trust in or reject Christ Jesus?

For example can a person hear the gospel message and with his God given free will choose to trust in Christ for his salvation or reject Him and be condemned?

 

[Van]

But I am not a law unto myself as your autonomous will would require but I do have a God given free will that allows me to make real choices for which I will be held responsible.

If one had a truly autonomous will then they could save themselves or they could decide not to sin anymore but we both know those things are not possible.

Utter nonsense, a constrained will is not a law unto itself.

 

[Silverhair]

Utter nonsense, a constrained will is not a law unto itself.

@Van this a quote from you "we have an autonomous will able to choose within the allowance of God." from your post # 57
This what autonomous will means Van.The capacity of the will of a rational being to be a law to itself, independently of the influence of any property of objects of volition.

So I ask again can you save yourself or decide that you will not sin again? In your quote you effectively said you had an autonomous will but you did not have an autonomous will. Are you trying to attach a special meaning to the word autonomous? Isn't that something you say calvinists do all the time?

 

[Van]

@Van this a quote from you "we have an autonomous will able to choose within the allowance of God." from your post # 57
This what autonomous will means Van.The capacity of the will of a rational being to be a law to itself, independently of the influence of any property of objects of volition.

So I ask again can you save yourself or decide that you will not sin again? In your quote you effectively said you had an autonomous will but you did not have an autonomous will. Are you trying to attach a special meaning to the word autonomous? Isn't that something you say calvinists do all the time?

This post presents absurdity. To be a law unto itself, except for the constraints imposed by God, our fallen nature, and our nurture.

Now Sir, you have crossed the line. You have the unmitigated gall, the unabashed temerity to ask if people can save themselves.; You have revealed your character!!

 

[Piper]

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action (aka choosing “otherwise”). This does not require the person to be able to choose anything, nor does it require the absence of other influencing factors. It only requires the ability for a person confronted with a decision to be able to choose from among one or more possible options.

Do you believe that God has given man a free will so that he can evaluate the information that is presented to him and choose to either trust in or reject Christ Jesus?

For example can a person hear the gospel message and with his God given free will choose to trust in Christ for his salvation or reject Him and be condemned?

We have a free will in the sense that we always choose what we most want. ie. we voluntarily choose what we most want.

I believe that God's meticulous sovereignty and Human freedom are compatible. But to say that we have a free will in the sense that we can choose differently, i.e. we can equally make alternative choices in the same circumstances, is jumping over the fence to Arminianism, and I don't believe that the Bible teaches that.

We have the Natural Freedom to choose what we want, but we do not have the moral freedom to choose what God wants..

 

[Silverhair]

This post presents absurdity. To be a law unto itself, except for the constraints imposed by God, our fallen nature, and our nurture.

Now Sir, you have crossed the line. You have the unmitigated gall, the unabashed temerity to ask if people can save themselves.; You have revealed your character!!

@Van I see that you have a problem with comprehension. I find it funny that you claim that calvinists go to personal attacks and do not deal with the post and here you do the same thing. I use to wonder why you sounded so angry with some of you comments but now I see the problem. You do not read. Go back and read the post without the self-righteous attitude.

 

[Silverhair]

We have a free will in the sense that we always choose what we most want. ie. we voluntarily choose what we most want.

I believe that God's meticulous sovereignty and Human freedom are compatible. But to say that we have a free will in the sense that we can choose differently, i.e. we can equally make alternative choices in the same circumstances, is jumping over the fence to Arminianism, and I don't believe that the Bible teaches that.

We have the Natural Freedom to choose what we want, but we do not have the moral freedom to choose what God wants..

Curious, how do you square the idea of God's meticulous determination of all things with man having a free will. If God has determined all things that would include all that man does so no free will. Thus logically under your view man really can not be held responsible for any evil thing that they do. But since God does not determine all things and has given man a free will with which they can make rational choices then man can be and is held responsible for the choices they make.

I agree that man does finally choose what he wants most which for some reason you thing means he would never respond to the gospel message. So I have to ask, do you actually reach out to anybody and tell them about salvation through faith in Christ Jesus? And further to that, WHY? According to your post man would never choose to repent and trust in Christ so your just wasting your time.

I have to disagree with you on who has jumped over the fence. The one that denies clear scripture and denies man's God given free will has left scripture and moved toward a philosophy that has pagan roots.

 

[Piper]

Curious, how do you square the idea of God's meticulous determination of all things with man having a free will. If God has determined all things that would include all that man does so no free will. Thus logically under your view man really can not be held responsible for any evil thing that they do. But since God does not determine all things and has given man a free will with which they can make rational choices then man can be and is held responsible for the choices they make.

I agree that man does finally choose what he wants most which for some reason you thing means he would never respond to the gospel message. So I have to ask, do you actually reach out to anybody and tell them about salvation through faith in Christ Jesus? And further to that, WHY? According to your post man would never choose to repent and trust in Christ so your just wasting your time.

I have to disagree with you on who has jumped over the fence. The one that denies clear scripture and denies man's God given free will has left scripture and moved toward a philosophy that has pagan roots.

I believe that there is a mystery in how to equally hold that Man makes morally responsible choices and God's meticulous sovereignty. That is why God is God and we are not. There are some things that we cannot comprehend. But I believe that both of those things are equally, clearly, regularly presented in Scripture. I have not left Scripture.

 

[Silverhair]

I believe that there is a mystery in how to equally hold that Man makes morally responsible choices and God's meticulous sovereignty. That is why God is God and we are not. There are some things that we cannot comprehend. But I believe that both of those things are equally, clearly, regularly presented in Scripture. I have not left Scripture.

You can not call it a mystery when you say that God is meticulously sovereign which would require that He determine all things that happen and then say man is responsible for things he has no control over. Your view is not a mystery it is a contradiction.

You say God is God and we are not but the question for you is why do you not let God be God? Since the bible shows that man makes real choices, which you agree with in your post, then why do you think that man cannot freely trust in God. Either God is meticulously sovereign as you posit and man is not responsible for his actions and choices or God is sovereign and in His sovereignty He has given man an actual free will with which to make real choices and he is responsible for his choices.

 

[Van]

@Van I see that you have a problem with comprehension. I find it funny that you claim that calvinists go to personal attacks and do not deal with the post and here you do the same thing. I use to wonder why you sounded so angry with some of you comments but now I see the problem. You do not read. Go back and read the post without the self-righteous attitude.

Totally addressing my behavior!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Silverhair]

Totally addressing my behavior!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just pointing out that you do not deal with what I posted you just react. You do seem to have a very thin skin as you seem to think every disagreement with what you post is a personal attack.

 

[Van]

A significant fraction of believers think God has exhaustively predestined whatsoever comes to pass. We are all like actors on a stage, simply mouthing our words and doing our foreordained actions. But the fly in the buttermilk is that such a viewpoint means we are not responsible for our sinful thoughts and actions as they were foreordained by God and we cannot resist His power to compel.

Thus any system of theology that hold humanity responsible for sin is not a closed theology, but an open, at least partially, theology.

The good news, the gospel of Christ, declares we can be forgiven all the consequences of "our" sin, whether volitional or inadvertent.

Thus to embrace "closed theology" is to deny the very foundation of the gospel.

 

[Van]

If God is said to "allow" only one choice, that is to say God compels that choice, which is the opposite of allowing someone to make a choice between alternatives.

Those that seek to redefine the meaning of words to claim God's sovereignty is not defined by "God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass" seem a tad shy is offering their own definition.

Sovereign = Supreme Power = God Almighty

Nothing happens unless God either causes it, or allows it to occur. His power is supreme.

 

[Piper]

You can not call it a mystery when you say that God is meticulously sovereign which would require that He determine all things that happen and then say man is responsible for things he has no control over. Your view is not a mystery it is a contradiction.

You say God is God and we are not but the question for you is why do you not let God be God? Since the bible shows that man makes real choices, which you agree with in your post, then why do you think that man cannot freely trust in God. Either God is meticulously sovereign as you posit and man is not responsible for his actions and choices or God is sovereign and in His sovereignty He has given man an actual free will with which to make real choices and he is responsible for his choices.

I disagree. It is not a contradiction. God has ultimate control, man has responsibility for his actions. How that happens is a mystery, not a contradiction.

 

[JonC]

Matthew 10:29-30. "Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will. But the very hairs on your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value that many sparrows."

The Lord Jesus did not mention molecule and atoms because He would not have been understood. But if there were one rogue atom somewhere in the Universe that God did not know about and rule, then the world would be out of control and our faith in God found to be in vain.

'For the want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For the want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For the want of a horse the rider was lost.
For the want of a rider the battle was lost.
For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost;
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.'
[Benjamin Franklin, I think]

However, this in no way destroys the concept of free will. Unsaved sinners use their free will to oppose Christ and to indulge their sinful natures (John 3:19 etc.); the saved seek God's will for their lives and try to please Him (Psalm 40:8 etc.). Yet still God manages all things according to His good and perfect will (Genesis 50:20; Proverbs 16:4).
The fact that we cannot understand how He does this does not make it any the less true. '"For My thoughts are not your thoughts; nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts higher than your thoughts."'

Jonathan Edwards wrote a book (The Freedom of the Will) that offers an adequate, and eloquent, rebuttal of the idea of predestination and free-will being mutually exclusive.

 

[Silverhair]

I disagree. It is not a contradiction. God has ultimate control, man has responsibility for his actions. How that happens is a mystery, not a contradiction.

@Piper your own post shows that your view does indeed present a contradiction. "I believe that there is a mystery in how to equally hold that Man makes morally responsible choices and God's meticulous sovereignty."

You use terms such as meticulous sovereignty & ultimate control and then go on to say man in some mysterious way overrules God and does what he pleases so is responsible for his actions. You must have a different understanding of the English language, You seem to think: not A = A

 

[Piper]

@Piper your own post shows that your view does indeed present a contradiction. "I believe that there is a mystery in how to equally hold that Man makes morally responsible choices and God's meticulous sovereignty."

You use terms such as meticulous sovereignty & ultimate control and then go on to say man in some mysterious way overrules God and does what he pleases so is responsible for his actions. You must have a different understanding of the English language, You seem to think: not A = A

I never said man overrules God. You did. Man does not have to overrule God to be responsible for his actions.

 

[Van]

Now we have "overrule" in the pile of semantic obfuscation hoisted by deniers of truth, justice and Christian morals.
Closed theology is a fiction from the dark ages.
God allows humans to make choices and holds them accountable for those choices.
No two ways about it!

 

[Silverhair]

I never said man overrules God. You did. Man does not have to overrule God to be responsible for his actions.

But if God is meticulous in His sovereignty as you claim then man can not do anything that is outside of His {God's} control. Thus anything they do or do not do is determined by God. So the only way man could sin on their own would be if they overruled God and since they can not do that it must be God that is causing them to sin.

There in lays the problem for your view. You need God to determine all things until it becomes inconvenient at which point you change and say God does not determine all things.

By the way I agree man does not have to overrule God to be held responsible for his actions, it's called free will. Which for some strange reason you do not think a sovereign God gave to mankind.