quantumfaith
Active Member
So true, how often some attempt to "spin" about what others think or say. And then attack that spin.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Does Calvinism ever really answer the major objection?
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
So true, how often some attempt to "spin" about what others think or say. And then attack that spin.
Your language and the tone of your questions, speak louder than your "correction'......You are set against the verses of scripture, not these supposed calvinists who find scripture troubling......
You are troubled by the truth of these teachings,and constantly rail against them. The truth stands against all such attempts.
You will not find peace unless and until you can be content with God's eternal purpose as revealed in scripture.
Why don't you try and actually interact with a thread directly.There is no spin here. I quoted from his own post,and could spend all day posting example after example of the same....but that is not profitable.
You going along with it....puts you in the same boat as an accomplice to the crime. QF......why don't you interact with AA post about Joseph?
tell me how that was in any way spin??:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
preacher4truth
Active Member
I have stated similar in the past, and you speak the truth here in love. Thanks.
preacher4truth
Active Member
Brother,
I have also attempted to garner some real input from quaff, to no avail. Look, we are all aware that he is here to support skan, we can see that such is of utmost importance, as this is the reason behind his posts. I always expect when skan starts a thread to see quaff come in and do his thumbsup, and do as you've stated above.
If his posts were adding content and input, we could claim otherwise. All we have to go by is track record here. It speaks loudly on the objective of quaff.
- Peace
Right, I created the controversy over free will and sovereignty.
And heaven forbid someone bring up a theological point of controversy on a theological debate forum.
"RIGHT" & thats all you appear to do....frankly its getting real tired & boorish.:BangHead:
quantumfaith
Active Member
I DO go along with, without any malice without any shame. I do interact when I feel I am able to contribute in an articulate manner.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Puhleeze, you have done nothing of the sort. I was the last one to extend ANY hint of an "olive branch" between me and you, and you spurned it or ignored it. I will say once again, I have no problem with the difference in our theological stances, but I do have have issue with HOW you simply pronounce everyone who agrees not with you as "deficient".
First, you presented a mere attempt to support your view of Divine sovereignty, ...but without addressing the second part of the question. (This amounts to a red herring by distracting from the original point.) BTW, I predicted that as one way the Calvinist will "try" to make his argument. Post #85 D
Second, the author of the quote you cite begins his argument with a “weaseler” (literature given to protect a claim by watering it down): i.e. “While the doctrine of predestination is not a necessary outgrowth of the absolute foreknowledge of God,” Then he criticizes resorting to a paradox to maintain logically incompatible omni-doctrines , continues in contradiction of himself by offering up a “classical view of foreknowledge” as an absolute to proclaim predestination as truth and saying, “this indeedprecludes the concept of authentic human freedom” in essence presuming one (omni-doctrine) is more important than the other. Then again goes back to speak of how we must resort to a paradox and how that is illogical while insisting his doctrine of classical foreknowledge has its origin of in logical formation while admitting it defies human freedom. His argument becomes almost humorous as he displays his double-minded reasoning. In the crux of his argument (speaking of the necessity of maintaining Omni-doctrines) he ignores Omnibenevolence (which is necessary for righteous judgment and to avoid fatalism) in favor of Omniscience. You, or him, not sure if that is a quote, are honest in stating demeaning logic is doomed to fail (Predicted argument try Post #85 B); too bad though his argument centers on that “classical foreknowledge” has its “origin in logical formation” if the author can't make up his mind whether "modern logic" has value.
"There are those who are complete skeptics regarding knowledge, they say it is impossible to know anything. But one wonders how they know that." :laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
As I said in another thread, your entire idea of things has been misshapen by an incomplete reading of the Westminster Confession. You want the confession to say "God ordains all things that come to pass." You want to label those who hold to Westminster, or some variation thereof like Second London, as "Determinists" believing that God causes man's nature to be fallen or that God causes man to sin in order that His greater purposes be accomplished.
WESTMINSTER DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IT SAYS!
Westminster (and 2nd London) both state the following:
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
So, here we have the statement "God...ordain
- God is not the author of sin
- God does over-rule the will of the creature
- The liberty of second causes is not taken away
Man does not "create" his own nature. Man's nature was created by God--pre-fall. The nature was changed--by Sin--at and after the Fall.
We, human beings, are not now strictly "created in the image of God." The human race is created in the image of God. But, we, as individual humans, are pro-created in the image of Adam.
A consequence of fall is that mankind, because of our common ancestor of Adam, now bear his fallen nature.
God determined that the result of the Fall would be that every human born of Adam and Eve would be born fallen (or "totally depraved). But, Adam and Eve still--of their own free will--made the choice to sin and sinned. That condemned all of us to have a fallen nature made in Adam's image.
You know, you really need to stop setting up Strawmen and arguing to the strawmen by telling us what we believe. It would serve you better to seek to understand our position--which you've never rightly articulated.
Your misunderstanding, again, is based on an intentional misreading of Westminster. You are defaulting to determinism. We do not hold to determinism. This fact alone demonstrates that you don't understand the position.
God controls all circumstances. God does not control all people. There is a huge difference. Westminster, basically, affirms the concept that God controls all circumstances without controlling all people. You seem to miss that and you seem not to be willing or able to conceive of the simple notion that we do not say that God controls people.
I affirm that Adam could have both followed God's command or broken God's command. Both choices were equally before him.
I affirm a libertarian free will in Adam as the free will relates to the commands of God. I do not affirm that Adam could fly if he so chose--the free will doesn't extend to absolutely everything.
The difference between Adam's nature (before the fall) and his nature after the fall is that Sin thoroughly corrupted Adam's nature after the fall. Now, as his progeny, there is no difference in nature between the post-fall Adam and the pre-salvation human.
Yes, God determines the consequences. God determined the consequences for Israel for disobeying the Covenant. Their deportation (and the Northern Kingdom's destruction) were a natural consequence of their rebellion.
In the same way, God told Adam and Eve of the natural consequences of disobedience. They disobeyed--eyes wide open--and suffered the consequences and us with them.
Adam and Eve--of their own free will--disobeyed and the natural consequences came to pass. Did they know the full extent of the consequences? No, probably not. Did they know that they would be condemning the entire Human Race? No. Probably not. Did they know they should obey God at every turn? Yes.
This illustrates to us that obedience is the issue. It is not obedience to avoid consequences that matters--that's what one author called "moralistic therapeutic deism." We are to obey because of Who give the command.
You are conflating the "nature" of the wind and the waves with the human "nature." These things are not the same.
As stated earlier, God determined the natural consequences and warned, though not fully, Adam and Eve of the consequences of their rebellion or breaking of His law.
What you are seeking to do is to blame God for letting Adam and Eve sin. Or, perhaps you are seeking to blame God for having any consequences--natural or otherwise--for sin.
Passive determinism is illustrated in the Fall and also Israels rebellion.
1. God actively does something--creates Adam and Eve or rescues Israel from slavery in Egypt. 2. He actively gives His commandment(s). 3. He, either fully or partially, gives a warning against breaking his commandment(s). 4. He allows His subjects to choose and suffer the natural consequences for their actions--the fall in Adam and Eve's case, the destruction of Israel and the captivity of Judah in the Nation of Israel's case.
Now, I know you'll want to say that he does that will all humanity and that summarizes the Arminian position and totally frustrates the Calvinist position. However, that simply is not the case. Remember, Israel had a direct, salvific revelation from God. And, even in the light of that revelation, most of the Nation chose to rebel against God, almost at every turn. This is precisely why God states in the Prophets that people need new hearts. This is precisely why God states "I will cause you to walk in my ways." Even the direct revelation to Israel, though it informed them about their choices they were free to make, proves that Mankind follows his own sinful desires, produced by his fallen nature, even in the light of the "choice" presented.
The Archangel
1. The above unquestionably firstly declares determinism.
2. Then rightly declares God is not the author of sin.
3. The author(s) also seem to understand the theological fatality “if” violence is done to the will of the creature.
BUT:
4. Then offer their argument of compatibility by resting on the flawed philosophy of creaturely will having liberty because of possessing second cause ability. Therein they have they failed in their argument that both determinism ("unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass") and no violence has been done to freewill ("nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures") are compatible. They have not only offered violence toward freewill but make an empty claim to have established creaturely “second causes” as the way of getting around the problem with their view of determinism that it is not doing damage to the will of the creature.
Free will should be defined as volition and this sustains the meaning that a creature has the ability to consciously choose; one can not do both, have this ability and not have this ability in any logical sense. If creaturely response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the creature then creaturely volition logically becomes void.
To claim the creature only has the liberty of freedom of the will through secondary cause does not “establish” the free ability of the creature to consciously choose, on the contrary it establishes a pre-determinate (first) cause which restricts the creatures ability to freely and of his own will to consciously choose.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Icon, this serves no purpose here. I could simply rebuttal by saying the same thing about your views. We both obviously believe our view is the biblical one. To state such over and over as a defense is really not debating. It is a circular and very immature fallacy of debate. It's like when to kids on the play ground keep say huh-uh, nuh-huh. I choose not to engage in such banter.
First, I hope that you're simply making a play on words, and not attempting to redefine responsibility.
Second, your premise is a non sequitur. God's judgment is based on truth, not man's ability. A man is judged for what he is, not on the basis of his ability. A man is either good or evil, whole or corrupt.
But Paul most elegantly laid to rest your objection in his appeal to Jacob and Esau. What did either of them do, what ability did either of them possess when God hated Esau and loved Jacob?
From every angle in which you have attempted to indict the Gospel, you have crossed swords with Paul. And in this you will find one answer to your question from another thread, what is the difference between the truth an uninspired man writes and the truth written by the inspiration of the Spirit? I may say something that is true, but there is no way I can anticipate all the subtilties with which truth will be attacked.
Calvinism is the only doctrine that submits to the whole counsel of God.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Ben, well stated. :thumbsup:
In addition I wanted to comment on these points:
If a parent locked a child in his room because he was disobedient we would all think, well the kid deserved that. And we would all affirm that was a consequence determined by the parent, but that the child was responsible for his disobedience. Now suppose the parents tells the child that he must come down from his room and apologize for his wrong doing, but the child can't because he is locked in his room, so the parent goes up and beats the child as a consequence for ignoring the appeal. Now, we would all cry FOUL!!! Why? Because the child couldn't have come down to apologize being locked in his room. Though it was his fault for being locked in his room, it is NOT his fault for not being able to respond to the subsequent appeal of the parent. Calvinists ignores this obvious injustice of there system and demeans anyone who dares to question them as being "carnal" and "unbiblical." Yet, in their system, God has bound all men over into slavery from birth as a consequence for the sin of Adam (i.e. locked them in their bedroom), then He appeals for them to be reconciled (i.e. tells them to come down and apologizes) and then punishes them for not doing so (i.e. spanks them for not apologizing).
So, in your response can you please answer the question about if you believe Adam had libertarian (contra-causal free will)?
In addition I wanted to comment on these points:
'Natural consequences' that were determined by God...thus you have yet to avoid the accusation regarding God's determination of man's nature.
Do you mean "free" as in 'libertarian' freedom, the man is able to willingly sin or not sin.
I wasn't referring to human nature, I was speaking of the "natural consequences" you spoke of as if God wasn't in control of what was 'natural.'
Incorrect. I'm simply drawing the conclusion based on YOUR theological claims that God determined for all men to become totally depraved as a consequence of the fall. Just like a parent is responsible for choosing the consequence of his child's misbehavior, so is God responsible for choosing the consequence of our sin. If that consequence even appears unjust then why would we question it?
If a parent locked a child in his room because he was disobedient we would all think, well the kid deserved that. And we would all affirm that was a consequence determined by the parent, but that the child was responsible for his disobedience. Now suppose the parents tells the child that he must come down from his room and apologize for his wrong doing, but the child can't because he is locked in his room, so the parent goes up and beats the child as a consequence for ignoring the appeal. Now, we would all cry FOUL!!! Why? Because the child couldn't have come down to apologize being locked in his room. Though it was his fault for being locked in his room, it is NOT his fault for not being able to respond to the subsequent appeal of the parent. Calvinists ignores this obvious injustice of there system and demeans anyone who dares to question them as being "carnal" and "unbiblical." Yet, in their system, God has bound all men over into slavery from birth as a consequence for the sin of Adam (i.e. locked them in their bedroom), then He appeals for them to be reconciled (i.e. tells them to come down and apologizes) and then punishes them for not doing so (i.e. spanks them for not apologizing).
So, in your response can you please answer the question about if you believe Adam had libertarian (contra-causal free will)?
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
I'm only going to address this one point because the totality of your post flows from a wrong understanding of this point.
Here, again, is Westminster:
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
The first clause is not talking about "determinism," as you presuppose. The first cause is addressing what we refer to as Sovereignty.
To say that God is sovereign means that He does as He pleases. Where you err is that you presuppose that this means that He is controlling persons like pawns, bishops, knights, etc. on a chess board. But, we, and the Westminster Divines, did not believe this.
If you look at the second clause, you will see the use of the adversative conjunction "yet." This means that the second clause and the first clause do not exist in separate vacuums. Rather, due to the use of the adversative "yet" it is understood that God ordains all things or God is sovereign over all things but that sovereignty does not make Him the author of sin.
If you further not the third and fourth clauses, they begin with the coordinating conjunction "nor." The "nor" looks back to the "yet" and continues the exceptions, extending the exceptions to to say that God does not over-rule the will of the creature nor does He remove liberty.
Now, it is obvious that you disagree with Westminster. That's fine. But, it is really absurd to try to redefine what is so clearly written based on your presuppositions. In other words, you need to let Westminster speak for itself. Once you have done that, you are--obviously--free to confront the ideas contained therein. For example, you can say "The authors of Westminster say that God ordains everything that comes to pass and they say that God isn't the author of sin. How can those two ideas be the case?" In asking questions like this you argue the merits of the confession itself rather than setting up a strawman and holding the arguments of others to your strawman born of your own flawed presupposition drawn from an unfair reading of Westminster.
Also, it is important to remember that the Confessions themselves are just that--confessions. Often they do not give reasons. You are looking for reasons, and that's fine. Don't look for reasons by redefining the confession. Take the confession at face value and then ask your questions.
The Archangel
The BB will gladly refund you your membership fee
reading this thread all I see from the cal camp is "you this" and "you don't that" instead of "I believe" and "our view".
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I'm pointing you to the root meaning of the origin of this word. We understand one who is able to respond is 'response-able,' thus when you remove the ability for one to respond you remove their responsibility or culpability. It is not that difficult.
You accusation of non-sequitur is based on the fallacy of a false dichotomy, as if the judgement of God must be based on one or the other when in reality it is both...
Yet, if I judge the house cleaning robot I made without considering its ability to clean my house then I'd only be judging it for what I made it to be, which is really more a judgement upon me rather than my robot... This is the problem a deterministic system creates when they won't acknowledge the independence and abilities of free moral creatures.
And that is the answer I addressed in the OP. Congrats, you are the first to actually bring it up, but even still you haven't addressed the argument presented.
See my last response to Icon. Let's not reduce our dialogue to that level of discourse. Ok?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I don't claim to be a Calvinist so I cannot respond to your OP as a Calvinist. I can respond as one, who over a course of years after God's work of Grace in my life, came to believe in the Sovereignty of God in the Salvation of His elect.
I make no apologies for my belief in the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace. I make no apologies for what Scripture clearly teaches. The Doctrine of Grace is a wonderful Doctrine because it magnifies the Grace of God. I will certainly never apologize for God nor will I be embarrased by my inability to explain His Sovereign Grace.
Any thought of understanding God is absurd but this I believe: If it were not for the Sovereign Grace of God [call it election if you choose] no one would be saved!
I make no apologies for my belief in the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace. I make no apologies for what Scripture clearly teaches. The Doctrine of Grace is a wonderful Doctrine because it magnifies the Grace of God. I will certainly never apologize for God nor will I be embarrased by my inability to explain His Sovereign Grace.
Any thought of understanding God is absurd but this I believe: If it were not for the Sovereign Grace of God [call it election if you choose] no one would be saved!
AMEN BROTHER..... AMEN, AMEN, AMEN :jesus::thumbs:
The BB will gladly refund you your membership fee
reading this thread all I see from the cal camp is "you this" and "you don't that" instead of "I believe" and "our view".
Oh are you the spokesmen now :laugh::laugh::laugh:
- Status