Free Will Proves The Sovereignty of God

[MB]

why is this not in the cal/arm section?

I believe it has to do with the theology of the Baptist faith don't you?
MB

 

[Revmitchell]

I believe it has to do with the theology of the Baptist faith don't you?
MB

It is primarily a cal thing.

 

[Inspector Javert]

So what?
So what if God is having a chess match with himself?

So.....if God has already revealed himself as someone who is unlikely to, or wouldn't conduct "chess-matches" with himself...than, it's unlikely that any Theology which purports that he does so is accurate.
Mind you....it's ABSOLUTELY his prerogative if he felt like it or wanted to, to play that very chess. Heck...God can use us as mere pawns and play with himself or even Satan if it were his will and simply sacrifice us pawns as he saw fit....IT's his prerogative for sure.

BUT.....That's not how God's nature has revealed itself to us, Luke. It isn't that we INSIST that "if there were a Sovereign God...he must conform to our preference."....it's that he obviously DOES exist and he has revealed himself to us as one who simply WON'T!

You see, this is not an argument. It is just stating some outcome of the facts that you think will make people be put off by those facts

.
You mean to suggest that we are making an "argument from consequences"...i.e.
"We don't dig a God like this, therefore it ain't so."...
But that isn't the position....it's that we can understand God in some limited capacity as he has revealed his own necessary attributes and his own nature, and that we understand it in at least two ways:
1.) The immediate testament of Scripture rightly divided
2.) Our own VERY BASIC and otherwise general sense of what is "right" or "fair" or "just" given an individual's responsibility for an action, and their intent or malice or well-meaning aforethought of that action....
Now...before you argue (if you would) that every un-saved person is some moron who can't tell whether intentional pre-meditated murder is right or wrong...consider that God has told us in Romans 1:32 and 2:1
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Rom 2:1 ¶ Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Rom 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
God is clearly claiming that the "judges" of those who are wicked are a "law" even the heathen...in that they know right from wrong and just from unjust....and that the "judges" of those who sin (even in a heathen society) condemn themselves for their own sin since they KNOW...how to adjudicate what is right from what is wrong in at least a basic sense, and even a heathen judge can rightly and legally and justly condemn a criminal for blatant sins against the moral law which is written upon the hearts of ALL men.
...I unashamedly credit Pelagius' brilliant commentary on Romans for pointing that Scriptural truth out to me.

It is like saying, "Jack could not have killed the man because if he killed him he would be a murderer."
So what, he would be a murderer? How does the fact that he would be a murderer change the FACTS that indicate that he killed the man?

Again...you're right to object if our argument were merely...."but a God like that kinda sux.....and we doan' wannit..."...
But, that isn't our position...our position is that God has ALREADY REVEALED HIMSELF as one whom it is not possible that he WOULD do such a thing...
I didn't say he "CAN'T"....I didn't say he isn't "Sovereign" enough....I didn't say he doesn't have the POWER to do so....I said, he simply CHOOSES NOT TO....and that is, because it is not in his nature.

So what if God plays chess with himself. I do that sometimes too.

As do I...and I would ADORE a chance to play a match against you sometime...moreover...I even play my complex war-strategy game "Axis and Allies" with myself too!!!:wavey:

What does that have to do with the facts in Scripture and nature that clearly indicate that he is exhaustively sovereign.

He's exhaustively Sovereign.

Another total by-pass of logic to shock value strategy that non-cals use is this, "That makes man nothing more than a puppet," mess

.
There's also the non-"shock-value" version which simply states that you know deep down in your heart that you ARE NOT a puppet. You aren't a puppet Luke, and I maintain that you know that. You're a truly volitional being whom God loved. He didn't WANT a puppet....(actually he did...and they are called "Seraphs"....and they are angels who do nothing more than act like puppets..) But, that isn't why he made you.

So? So what if man is nothing more than a puppet. I never have had that high of regard for man anyway.
Being Almighty, all-knowing, everywhere present God's puppet would be quite an honor! This great God has made me and directs my every step!?! Wonderful!!

Well, now, my friend, you're getting rather close to an "argument from consequences" yourself...hey...I don't "like" the notion of free-will myself. My best friend and I always observe (usually from considering our own wickedness) that "free-will is a B***h"....I am already tired of my own "free-will" Luke...I don't "want" it...and I don't need it. I'm sick of it. And I further know that I won't be capable of using it to offend my Lord and Saviour in eternity once I am either divested of it totally (which would be fine with me) or something else in heaven...I desire that day.

Calvinists seem to labour under the assumption that we "LIKE" the idea of "free-will"....no we don't....it sux....In our view, this precious "freedom of the will" crap is precisely the thing which enabled all of our downfall in the first-place and subsequently demanded innocent Jesus' sufferings on the cross to pay the penalty for how we abused it.

Do Calvinists ACTUALLY BELIEVE that we "cherish" the possession of "free-will"? I assure you, we don't...it humbles us, and makes us sick at ourselves.

Next time you elect to play chess with yourself....I'd love to challenge you online...I'll send an e-mail or Facebook address in P.M....
Actually, I'll have my wife do it, since I am a computer illiterate.:wavey: She'll figure out how to do it. :thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

It is primarily a cal thing.

All of scripture is primarily a"cal thing".An artificial fence is not going to contain the all inclusive truths that are found in calvinistic teaching.
The scriptures contain and teach these things.

 

[Iconoclast]

inspjavet-


http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=47783849&alert=1

you and luke can play on here if you sign up....

 

[Revmitchell]

All of scripture is primarily a"cal thing".An artificial fence is not going to contain the all inclusive truths that are found in calvinistic teaching.
The scriptures contain and teach these things.

No your presuppositions teach these things.

 

[Inspector Javert]

All of scripture is primarily a"cal thing".An artificial fence is not going to contain the all inclusive truths that are found in calvinistic teaching.
The scriptures contain and teach these things.

Rev is just trying to feel superior....he's already demonstrated that that's his primary concern here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2014274&postcount=13
Meh....it just makes him feel good about himself to be so "above the fray" of us fools who seek to hash-out these issues.
He's too cool for school, Icon.

 

[Inspector Javert]

inspjavet-


http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=47783849&alert=1

you and luke can play on here if you sign up....

Thanks...!!!!and if you are in for it...I'd like to play you too:wavey: the wife is working on details as well....if ya don't like chess...maybe I'll have to let you pummel me in Scrabble....(I totally suk at Scrabble).

 

[MB]

It is primarily a cal thing.

You know even if Calvinist do not accept the truth of how we believe it's still seems to me it is our responsibility to show it to them. It seems we must refute Calvinism every time we get a chance. This way none of them can say they have never heard the truth.
Some just cannot accept the fact that Salvation is as simple as Repenting of our sins, believing and trusting in Jesus Christ.
MB

 

[The Biblicist]

Some just cannot accept the fact that Salvation is as simple as Repenting of our sins, believing and trusting in Jesus Christ.
MB

Oh but we do believe that as we beleive the means of salvation is chosen as much as the persons - 2 Thes 2:13-14.

 

[Iconoclast]

Thanks...!!!!and if you are in for it...I'd like to play you too the wife is working on details as well....if ya don't like chess...maybe I'll have to let you pummel me in Scrabble....(I totally suk at Scrabble).

If you want to have fun with scrabble.....play 15 minute games using a chess clock...lol....live on the edge......:laugh::laugh: i have almost a sinful weakness for chess and scrabble....I had signed up and played between 300-500 speed games in a matter of weeks.....sometimes even lawful activities can become sinful if they spiral out of control...:thumbs::wavey:

The site lets you play ppl from around the world...many from india,and europe

 

[webdog]

So.....if God has already revealed himself as someone who is unlikely to, or wouldn't conduct "chess-matches" with himself...than, it's unlikely that any Theology which purports that he does so is accurate.
Mind you....it's ABSOLUTELY his prerogative if he felt like it or wanted to, to play that very chess. Heck...God can use us as mere pawns and play with himself or even Satan if it were his will and simply sacrifice us pawns as he saw fit....IT's his prerogative for sure.

BUT.....That's not how God's nature has revealed itself to us, Luke. It isn't that we INSIST that "if there were a Sovereign God...he must conform to our preference."....it's that he obviously DOES exist and he has revealed himself to us as one who simply WON'T!
.
You mean to suggest that we are making an "argument from consequences"...i.e.
"We don't dig a God like this, therefore it ain't so."...
But that isn't the position....it's that we can understand God in some limited capacity as he has revealed his own necessary attributes and his own nature, and that we understand it in at least two ways:
1.) The immediate testament of Scripture rightly divided
2.) Our own VERY BASIC and otherwise general sense of what is "right" or "fair" or "just" given an individual's responsibility for an action, and their intent or malice or well-meaning aforethought of that action....
Now...before you argue (if you would) that every un-saved person is some moron who can't tell whether intentional pre-meditated murder is right or wrong...consider that God has told us in Romans 1:32 and 2:1
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Rom 2:1 ¶ Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Rom 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
God is clearly claiming that the "judges" of those who are wicked are a "law" even the heathen...in that they know right from wrong and just from unjust....and that the "judges" of those who sin (even in a heathen society) condemn themselves for their own sin since they KNOW...how to adjudicate what is right from what is wrong in at least a basic sense, and even a heathen judge can rightly and legally and justly condemn a criminal for blatant sins against the moral law which is written upon the hearts of ALL men.
...I unashamedly credit Pelagius' brilliant commentary on Romans for pointing that Scriptural truth out to me.

Again...you're right to object if our argument were merely...."but a God like that kinda sux.....and we doan' wannit..."...
But, that isn't our position...our position is that God has ALREADY REVEALED HIMSELF as one whom it is not possible that he WOULD do such a thing...
I didn't say he "CAN'T"....I didn't say he isn't "Sovereign" enough....I didn't say he doesn't have the POWER to do so....I said, he simply CHOOSES NOT TO....and that is, because it is not in his nature.

As do I...and I would ADORE a chance to play a match against you sometime...moreover...I even play my complex war-strategy game "Axis and Allies" with myself too!!!:wavey:

He's exhaustively Sovereign.
.
There's also the non-"shock-value" version which simply states that you know deep down in your heart that you ARE NOT a puppet. You aren't a puppet Luke, and I maintain that you know that. You're a truly volitional being whom God loved. He didn't WANT a puppet....(actually he did...and they are called "Seraphs"....and they are angels who do nothing more than act like puppets..) But, that isn't why he made you.

Well, now, my friend, you're getting rather close to an "argument from consequences" yourself...hey...I don't "like" the notion of free-will myself. My best friend and I always observe (usually from considering our own wickedness) that "free-will is a B***h"....I am already tired of my own "free-will" Luke...I don't "want" it...and I don't need it. I'm sick of it. And I further know that I won't be capable of using it to offend my Lord and Saviour in eternity once I am either divested of it totally (which would be fine with me) or something else in heaven...I desire that day.

Calvinists seem to labour under the assumption that we "LIKE" the idea of "free-will"....no we don't....it sux....In our view, this precious "freedom of the will" crap is precisely the thing which enabled all of our downfall in the first-place and subsequently demanded innocent Jesus' sufferings on the cross to pay the penalty for how we abused it.

Do Calvinists ACTUALLY BELIEVE that we "cherish" the possession of "free-will"? I assure you, we don't...it humbles us, and makes us sick at ourselves.

Next time you elect to play chess with yourself....I'd love to challenge you online...I'll send an e-mail or Facebook address in P.M....
Actually, I'll have my wife do it, since I am a computer illiterate.:wavey: She'll figure out how to do it. :thumbs:

Excellent reply! :thumbs:

 

[Van]

It would be absurd to imply that God is angry over actions that He determined and caused.

Calvinism is an absurdity. Thus a Calvinist would claim God is not really angry, why that is just an anthropomorphism and thus we can nullify any action of God that differs from the Calvinist paradigm.

I am still waiting for any Calvinist to explain if God not declaring what He foreknew means the future is not fixed. I am pretty sure no Calvinist on this forum has any idea what the folks authoring the WCF were trying to say.

Have you been able to find any published commentary on that topic?

 

[Iconoclast]

Van

I am still waiting for any Calvinist to explain if God not declaring what He foreknew means the future is not fixed.

It is not...WHAT ....he did foreknow......

it is WHOM He did foreknow.....

 

[Inspector Javert]

Van


It is not...WHAT ....he did foreknow......

it is WHOM He did foreknow.....

I agree with that actually, I wouldn't have the expertise to claim it from the necessity of the original language, since I don't know a thing about Greek, and don't think that it is profitable to do so....

But, the Calvinist (as it were) was always correct in the assessment that it was individuals....it is people whom God "foreknew"...not merely "whats".

I agree with you 100%

 

[Winman]

Excellent reply! :thumbs:

I agree.

...I unashamedly credit Pelagius' brilliant commentary on Romans for pointing that Scriptural truth out to me.

No wonder Augustine had to set him up, he certainly couldn't debate him.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I agree.



No wonder Augustine had to set him up, he certainly couldn't debate him.

In Augustine's defense....it wasn't HE -Himself who bribed the Emperor of Rome with 80 Numidian Stallions.... it was a friend of his....:laugh::laugh:

If Augustine had debated Pelagius Personally, and publically, the difference would be between a man who was UNIVERSALLY RESPECTED as having lived an impeccable lifestyle....vs....a pervert who's life attested to the truth of NONE of his Theology.

Whatever is falsely alleged about Pelagius...his life and witness was ABSOLUTELY impeccable....and Augustine was a known pervert and persecutor, who relished the use of physical force in "convincing" the "church" to adhere to his views....

NO one....NNE....can say ANYTHING...about Pelagius' personal lifestyle as an impeccable witness.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Inasmuch as my wife and I have read all of his works personally.....

You (and even Dr. Bob <--who uses the term but has never read him) may call us "Pelagians" any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Here's my view...I wouldn't call myself "Dr." anything...and then throw around terms like "Pelagian" or "Semi-Pelagian" as some do....if I'd never even READ ONE WORD from the man's own pen...

But, that's what Calvinsts do...I'm a "Dr." of nothing...but I HAVE spent the 60 $ necessary to actually read Pelagius from his own pen...I'm pretty sure no Calvinist "DR." has spent that much before they irresponsibly throw around terms like "Pelagian"....

 

[Winman]

Inasmuch as my wife and I have read some of his works personally.....

You (and even Dr. Bob <--who uses the term but has never read him) may call us "Pelagians" any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Oh yeah, I have been called a Pelagian by the Calvinists here probably a hundred times. Not having read Pelagius, I really don't know if I am a Pelagian or not, but I am not afraid of their name-calling. When folks have to call you names, it just proves they are losing the debate. :thumbs:

I tell you what, I would rather be called a Pelagian than an Augustinian or Calvinist any day of the week. I don't know much about Pelagius, but I know enough about Augustine and Calvin that I would NEVER want to be associated with either.

 

[The Biblicist]

.it's that we can understand God in some limited capacity as he has revealed his own necessary attributes and his own nature, and that we understand it in at least two ways:

Yes, God cannot act inconsistent with His own nature and neither can fallen man. Nature dictates His choices and actions as it does in fallen man.

But your whole argument rests upon justice and that is not a good basis to start from when we are dealing with fallen man as justice has but one verdict and it is not mercy. Mercy is something that justice knows nothing about.

Justice would demand "there is none righteous no not one" and justice would find nothing as a ground of mercy in any fallen human being but condemn all equally and justly and that is not merely God's perogative but that is what justice would demand for all sinners equally. Justice is without partiality in regard to sinners and it has only one just outcome - eternal wrath.

Thus all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and justice has but one outcome equally for all without respect of persons.

Now, what is there in any sinner above another that would cause God to have respect of persons of one over another??? There is NOTHING.

Here is where election enters into view. Election is "to salvation" and "salvation" presupposes a fallen and justly condemned condition. That election is "of grace" and thus an act of "mercy" as the very term "mercy" presuppose just condemnation of all sinners equally without respect of persons then election must be based upon something other JUSTICE. This proper order grounded upon mercy instead of justice is significant to grasp as no one can call upon justice to demand mercy, but that is precisely the Arminian presumptive basis for their charge against unconditional election which is based upon mercy not justice and therefore God can be just in discriminating upon whom he will have mercy, just as long as He satisfies the just demands of His law against them. Therefore the non-elect get pure justice while the elect are saved purely upon the grounds of grace, meaning there is nothing in them that deserves salvation over the non-elect. The cause is found in God's own purpose of grace without violating His justice whatsoever.

Therefore, He can have mercy upon whom he will have mercy and he can hardeneth whom he will hardneth - without violating His justice in the least beacuse ALL EQUALLY deserve condemnation and NONE can demand mercy. Jesus came into the world NOT TO CONDEMN the world BECAUSE IT WAS CONDEMNED ALREADY. He came to save all that the Father gave him (Jn. 17:2; Jn. 6:37-39) to give eternal life unto without violating any justice toward those "condemned ALREADY" as the rest of mankind (non-elect) get precisely what they deserve - Justice! And so who can cry foul on the basis of justice? None! So who is it that charges God with being unfair because of unconditional election? Just Arminians who do not understand the justice of God.