A Question Calvinists must Answer REVISITED

[Luke2427]

Bro. Luke,

I do not want this to sound insulting to my DoG Brethern. I just don't agree, just like they don't agree with me, either. I can disagree, and do so in love, and not hate. If I have insulted anyone, I am truly sorry...I just believe that God will call all His creation, equally.

You accused the Almighty of some things in that post, Willis.

If the Bible is true, then you ought to apologize to him- Calvinism is taught in the Bible.

Willis, the Bible no where says that God calls all men equally- no where.

You need to make up your mind if you are going to bow to the authority of Scripture or if you are going to believe whatever suits you and try to make the Bible bow to that.

I do not mean to be insulting either, btw. God bless!

 

[webdog]

You accused the Almighty of some things in that post, Willis.

If the Bible is true, then you ought to apologize to him- Calvinism is taught in the Bible.

Willis, the Bible no where says that God calls all men equally- no where.

You need to make up your mind if you are going to bow to the authority of Scripture or if you are going to believe whatever suits you and try to make the Bible bow to that.

I do not mean to be insulting either, btw. God bless!

Really...you cry about people throwing around the "heretic" label without anything to support it, but I guess it's OK to do the very same thing in calling Willis a blasphemer

He didn't accuse the almighty of anything. His accusation is on YOUR understanding of the almighty. Unless you are both one in the same, you need to stop with such foolishness, Luke.

 

[Skandelon]

But again, I don't see how in your system the Gospel message/call invokes any "power" since man's LFW cannot be interfered with (lest it become something less than LFW). Can you help me understand what kind of power you are talking about and how that power operates, in your system?

It makes someone who would otherwise be uninformed, without hope, without truth, a slave to sin, with nothing to believe in; to have information, hope, truth which can set them free, and something to believe in. Truth is powerful. Words have power. That is a common theme supported so much throughout scripture that even Christ is called the WORD. I see no reason to diminish the inherent power in God breathed words...they are after all what brought this world into existence, right?

 

[Skandelon]

Originally Posted by Skandelon
Right, because just as Moses was the foreshadowing figure for Jesus, so too Pharaoh was the foreshadowing figure for Israel.

Just like Pharaoh was hardened in his already rebellious and unbelieving state to ensure the first passover, so too Israel was hardened in their already rebellious and unbelieving state to ensure the real PASSOVER

.This is one of the best posts I have ever read on this message board!! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup:

And a hearty ((((((AMEN))))))

Thank you Convicted1, that is very kind. But it is probably not one that will be replied to. In my experience, the strongest points of one's argument are not typically reflected in the portion that his opponents address, but in the portions ignored.

 

[Skandelon]

So, the man who chooses Christ is less defective than the one who doesn't? Who made the one better than the other?

Again, you are playing a game of question begging and you don't even realize it. I don't know how else to explain it to you. He didn't make one "better" than the other, that is your position, not mine. The concepts of unconditional election and effectual calling support the concept of God creating some for good and the others for wrath.

Our view is that God makes them FREE and your quest to have me define how a free choice is made presumes a deterministic response is required, which is the very definition of the fallacy called "begging the question."

Ciocchi, who debated Feinberg, put it this way: "the choice between available options "is what free will is all about . . ., and it is finally mysterious, beyond full explanation, for full explanations presuppose the very determinism the libertarian rejects" (Ciocchi, p. 94).

So, while there are influenctial "reasons" a person might have for making a choice these cannot necessarily be defined in terms of what "determined" the choice..for the agent himself is the determiner of his choices. That process is beyond our full comprehesion and thus remains mysterious...

 

[Andy T.]

It makes someone who would otherwise be uninformed, without hope, without truth, a slave to sin, with nothing to believe in; to have information, hope, truth which can set them free, and something to believe in. Truth is powerful. Words have power. That is a common theme supported so much throughout scripture that even Christ is called the WORD. I see no reason to diminish the inherent power in God breathed words...they are after all what brought this world into existence, right?

I agree that God's Word has power. But in your system it's relegated to simple information. Once the hearer responds favorably to that information based on their LFW, then and only then will God's actual power take place in their heart and change them. But not before. Never before; always after. See the difference?

 

[Andy T.]

You are the one who brought up "culpability" first, so I think you need to defend your view first. You said that God is not culpable of sin merely because he has foreknowledge and permits it. So I ask again, are you culpable if you allow another man to murder someone else, if you had the full power and means (and even foreknowledge) to stop it? And how is this different from your view of God?

Bumping post. A question [orthodox] Non-Calvinists must answer.

 

[Skandelon]

I agree that God's Word has power.

Only for those who have first been regenerated, but for most of mankind its powerless. And even for those regenerated, the words themselves have no real power because the real power in conversion was the irresistible call, not the gospel's words....so if your consistent you really don't believe God's words have power.

But in your system it's relegated to simple information.

As if that is any different in your system? Once the elect is regenerated what does the gospel serve to do except to "inform" them? In my system the gospel enables the response whereas in your system the effectual call does that, so in my system the gospel is more powerful than in yours.

Once the hearer responds favorably to that information based on their LFW,

But the POWER I'm speaking of is the POWER TO RESPOND, you are skipping over that as if its not really power, yet even in your system you acknowledge that there must be some irresistible power to make this response even possible.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon wrote: If you created a man (or robot) with the nature and desire (programming) to kill another man in such a way that he could not have done otherwise, and you have the power and means to stop it, but you do nothing, are you culpable? Yes, much more so than in the analogy you presented, which is the distinction of our views.

Andy wrote: You are the one who brought up "culpability" first, so I think you need to defend your view first. You said that God is not culpable of sin merely because he has foreknowledge and permits it. So I ask again, are you culpable if you allow another man to murder someone else, if you had the full power and means (and even foreknowledge) to stop it? And how is this different from your view of God?

I thought I did defend my view first. I did so by pointing out the distinction between our views by showing how much MORE culpable your view makes God for evil, while I believe the passages of scripture you all use to justify your view are actually justification for our views.

See what I mean? Let me try it this way:

1. There are many verses which explain how God is not culpable for evil that he has purposed for his own glory (i.e. crucifixion/hardening Pharaoh/ hardening Israel etc)

2. View 1 makes God appear to be somewhat culpable for those evil things he has allowed to occur.

3. View 2 makes God appear to be very culpable for those evil things he has determined to occur.

4. Both use the same verses to support their views and explain the issue of divine culpability, but only one of them is correct.

5. The one that makes God appear less culpable for evil is probably right considering all the verses that speak of God's holiness and righteous character. One should err on the side of God's holiness, not on the side which impugns his character.

 

[Andy T.]

Only for those who have first been regenerated, but for most of mankind its powerless. And even for those regenerated, the words themselves have no real power because the real power in conversion was the irresistible call, not the gospel's words....so if your consistent you really don't believe God's words have power.

As if that is any different in your system? Once the elect is regenerated what does the gospel serve to do except to "inform" them? In my system the gospel enables the response whereas in your system the effectual call does that, so in my system the gospel is more powerful than in yours.

God uses the Gospel as his means to save people, so in my view, yes the Gospel has power because God is the one sending out that message and using it to save people. I don't worship words, I worship the God behind the words. The Gospel message is not some independent entity all to itself. I know we both agree with that - just showing that to say my Gospel has no power is pointless.

And I don't see how in your system that the Gospel can "enable" someone to make a LFW choice - because you state that the chooser is the one who choses - that is the determination, not some outside determinative force.

But the POWER I'm speaking of is the POWER TO RESPOND

But don't people already have the power to respond based on their LFW? If not, then they don't have true LFW.

 

[Andy T.]

I thought I did defend my view first. I did so by pointing out the distinction between our views by showing how much MORE culpable your view makes God for evil, while I believe the passages of scripture you all use to justify your view are actually justification for our views.

See what I mean? Let me try it this way:

1. There are many verses which explain how God is not culpable for evil that he has purposed for his own glory (i.e. crucifixion/hardening Pharaoh/ hardening Israel etc)

2. View 1 makes God appear to be somewhat culpable for those evil things he has allowed to occur.

3. View 2 makes God appear to be very culpable for those evil things he has determined to occur.

4. Both use the same verses to support their views and explain the issue of divine culpability, but only one of them is correct.

5. The one that makes God appear less culpable for evil is probably right considering all the verses that speak of God's holiness and righteous character. One should err on the side of God's holiness, not on the side which impugns his character.

I don't see the difference between allowing something to occur (when he has the means to stop it) and determining it to occur. If he allows something to occur, then he has determined it to occur by his non-action. So I see the two of us in the same boat together. Except you keep trying to put me in a different boat by creating strawmen that say I believe God actively works evil into people. He doesn't. You're right, he is righteous and holy and perfect.

 

[Skandelon]

I don't see the difference between allowing something to occur (when he has the means to stop it) and determining it to occur. If he allows something to occur, then he has determined it to occur by his non-action. So I see the two of us in the same boat together.

You really don't see the different in someone who foreknows evil will occur and doesn't prevent it and someone who determines the evil to occur?

If I simply know you are going to shoot a friend and don't stop it, am I more culpable than you for actually doing the shooting?

Except you keep trying to put me in a different boat by creating strawmen that say I believe God actively works evil into people. He doesn't. You're right, he is righteous and holy and perfect.

Then explain where sin originates if not in God. If in man or satan, then was their evil intent created within themselves? Did the origination of that evil intent inform God of that intent? Expound.

 

[webdog]

I don't see the difference between allowing something to occur (when he has the means to stop it) and determining it to occur. If he allows something to occur, then he has determined it to occur by his non-action. So I see the two of us in the same boat together. Except you keep trying to put me in a different boat by creating strawmen that say I believe God actively works evil into people. He doesn't. You're right, he is righteous and holy and perfect.

Wow. The fact my wife and I had children knowing they would sin means I determined that they would sin? At least your deterministic fatalism is consistent.

 

[Andy T.]

You really don't see the different in someone who foreknows evil will occur and doesn't prevent it and someone who determines the evil to occur?

If I simply know you are going to shoot a friend and don't stop it, am I more culpable than you for actually doing the shooting?

God is not the one "doing the shooting." Man is. God allows it. But by allowing it, he also determines that it would occur, otherwise he would've stopped it. No, I do not see a difference between allowing and determining when it comes to an omnipotent, omnisciencent, omnipresent God.

Then explain where sin originates if not in God. If in man or satan, then was their evil intent created within themselves? Did the origination of that evil intent inform God of that intent? Expound.

I don't understand your last question here. Sin comes from the heart of man.

 

[Andy T.]

Wow. The fact my wife and I had children knowing they would sin means I determined that they would sin?

Bad analogy to compare yourself with the omniscient, omnipotent Creator. His ways are not our ways.

 

[Skandelon]

Bad analogy to compare yourself with the omniscient, omnipotent Creator. His ways are not our ways.

Couldn't he rebut any anthropomorphic analogy you have presented with the same reply? Why not simply acknowledge that it is possible to foreknow something that you don't determine? In fact, why would authors of scripture choose to use the word "foreknow" if the word "determine" was in their arsenal; if indeed "predetermine" is their intent?

 

[Skandelon]

I don't understand your last question here. Sin comes from the heart of man.

Let's look at the sin of Satan, since it was the first recorded to speak of, okay?

Satan is a creature. He was created by God. He was declared as good and "no evil found in him." But the intent to "become like God" and "rise" in that sinful way had to begin somewhere. You have indicated you believe that originated in the 'heart of the creature.' Okay so far?

Now, if the sin originated in the heart of Satan, and God foreknew Satan would intend this evil and permitted it, then you have to admit that something (evil) Satan created/originated informed God. God didn't originate or create the evil, but he was informed through foreknowledge of the evil and created Satan anyway.

Now, if you believe that God's foreknowledge and permission of Satan's evil is equal to his determining evil to occur, then why even mess with using the words "foreknow" and "permit?" Why not just say God determined/caused/originated evil? The reason we don't say that is because scripture uses the words foreknow and permit and is CLEAR that God is not the one who even tempts men to evil and that He is completely holy.

By presuming through human logic that God's perfectly knowing something "PRIOR" to creating it means that he must have been it's cause or determiner goes further than scripture ever goes. Even the use of the word PRIOR when speaking of a timeless and eternal being is non-sensical and steps into speculation about mysterious we do not even have the capacity to fully comprehend. Calvinism oversteps its bounds by drawing logical conclusions based upon their limited finite scope.

 

[Andy T.]

Why not simply acknowledge that it is possible to foreknow something that you don't determine? In fact, why would authors of scripture choose to use the word "foreknow" if the word "determine" was in their arsenal; if indeed "predetermine" is their intent?

Oh, you mean like in Acts 4:28?

 

[Andy T.]

Let's look at the sin of Satan, since it was the first recorded to speak of, okay?

Satan is a creature. He was created by God. He was declared as good and "no evil found in him." But the intent to "become like God" and "rise" in that sinful way had to begin somewhere. You have indicated you believe that originated in the 'heart of the creature.' Okay so far?

Now, if the sin originated in the heart of Satan, and God foreknew Satan would intend this evil and permitted it, then you have to admit that something (evil) Satan created/originated informed God. God didn't originate or create the evil, but he was informed through foreknowledge of the evil and created Satan anyway.

Now, if you believe that God's foreknowledge and permission of Satan's evil is equal to his determining evil to occur, then why even mess with using the words "foreknow" and "permit?" Why not just say God determined/caused/originated evil? The reason we don't say that is because scripture uses the words foreknow and permit and is CLEAR that God is not the one who even tempts men to evil and that He is completely holy.

By presuming through human logic that God's perfectly knowing something "PRIOR" to creating it means that he must have been it's cause or determiner goes further than scripture ever goes. Even the use of the word PRIOR when speaking of a timeless and eternal being is non-sensical and steps into speculation about mysterious we do not even have the capacity to fully comprehend. Calvinism oversteps its bounds by drawing logical conclusions based upon their limited finite scope.

We're both using human logic here to try to explain God and evil. It is a difficult issue for both of us.

I think you'll find that I'm more on the "soft side" or lower end of Calvinism. I don't have a problem with the words permit and allow, because I see Scripture speak in those terms. But I also don't have a problem with the word determine, because I see the Scripture speak in those terms, as well. Maybe I'm not as coherent and consistent as you would like, but that's the way I see it.

 

[Skandelon]

Oh, you mean like in Acts 4:28?

Exactly! We affirm that God did by his active agency determine some events such as the crucifixion of Christ. He did so through the means of temporarily hardening/blinding Israel in their already unbelieving and rebellious state so that they would crucify the Christ and accomplish redemption for the world.

To point to this active work of God in bringing about the redemption of the world as proof that likewise actively determined the evil intent of Jeff Dahmer (for example) to carry out the heinous crimes he committed is unfounded.

This is where the definition of the word "decree" is important to understand. As provided on the other thread, from Easton's Theological Dictionary: "The decrees are eternal (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13), unchangeable (Ps. 33:11; Isa. 46:9), and comprehend all things that come to pass (Eph. 1:11; Matt. 10:29, 30; Eph. 2:10; Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; Ps. 17:13, 14). The decrees of God are (1) efficacious, as they respect those events he has determined to bring about by his own immediate agency; or (2) permissive, as they respect those events he has determined that free agents shall be permitted by him to effect.

See the two different types of decrees of God pointed out here? One is accomplished through God's active and efficacious agency in order to accomplish a redemptive purpose. The other is permissive in that God doesn't actively originate the evil in any way, but only allows it to continue.

Likewise, the sin of rejecting Christ's appeal to be reconciled to God is NOT something God has actively and efficaciously decreed would happen. He permits men to resist his appeal to be reconciled to God. The concepts of eternal unconditional election of certain individuals to salvation and all others left to reprobation undermines that.