Freewill bites the dust

[Blammo]

It sure does hold a problem. Either man is able to override God's will, or you're misinterpreting the verse.

Your answers always seem to assume, if God's will be overridden, it is without His permission. As if God, in our view, is powerless.

What does this verse mean?

Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Did God truly regret making man? If so, why?
Was God truly grieved? If so, why?

 

[johnp.]

Hello Andy T.

In fact, can you establish that Calvin himself believed such?

I do not need to establish what Calvin said, you are not talking to Calvin you are talking to me. I am not backing my Christianity on what they believed but on scripture. I defended myself with Calvin against the charge of hyper-Calvinism and in particular an assumption I'd made about what you were charging me with because you still haven't shown me in which way I'm hyper.

Since some men has been predestined to Hell talking about their sins is secondary don't you think? I mean, since God predestined Esau to Hell without taking his deeds into account then what's the problem with Him causing us to sin?

Scripture is quite plain and direct: For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Rom 11:32. What has Edwards got that I should believe him instead of God?

I know of Calvinists who hold to double predestination who do not take it as far as you do and believe that God is active in making them evil and sinners.

So you know some who believe God predestines to death yet they don't believe God causes them to sin? So I'm different, so what? Does what I believe cause me to be your enemy? They need to ask this and so do you: Rom 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" Until you ask that question you will stay wrong.

Can you establish that any of the giants of Calvinism (Spurgeon, Edwards) believed that God is active in making them sinners?

It's got to be the same answer again hasn't it? I learnt from these people and I am grateful to God that there was such a wealth given to me when I joined the Church. Is it right that I should rely on them or preach what I preach? If I'm wrong and proved so from scripture I can fall back to the orthodox Calvinist position easily enough.

When I realised what I believe now I had the nerve, and I can tell you it was a nerve, to put my faith on the line without the aid of books or famous preachers and I found my arguments held water. It is all very simple and direct and it avoids all the confusion of God saving some and not doing anything to the others.

In fact, I believe Edwards wrote a little tome called "Freedom of the Will" that obliterates your false theology.

Little? Maybe he does. I don't know what I don't know. Why don't you start and educate me. Use his words against me and see how I bat. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/will.html

(never been to Seminary or Bible College)

You haven't missed anything.

However, I would also like to clarify that my use of that label towards Johnp is not intended to question his salvation or integrity.

I don't mind being called what I am and I don't mind being called what I am not but I am called to correct my brothers and you mustn't bring a charge that isn't backed up that's all.

I happen to think his view on this issue (i.e., that God actively makes men sinners) is deplorable false doctrine, so I do not apologize for applying to him the stigmatized label of "Hyper-Calvinist".

If you wanted to get really nasty you could call me late for dinner.

john.

 

[J.D.]

mnw, would you answer a question if someone that you know should know better says "if God is so weak, then..." It's a false premise. Why should anyone answer a question that has as it's false premise that God has an inferiority complex?

As far as decisions go, it's like this: In my job, I make decisions. I have a boss. My decisions are not final. My bosses' are. I can do it his way or get fired. So I make decisions, but only within the parameters of my bosses' will. I have choice, but not sovereign choice.

God is the boss. He decides. If He does not decide, He is not the boss.

 

[npetreley]

Your answers always seem to assume, if God's will be overridden, it is without His permission.

With or without permission, the verse does pose a problem. If, as you interpret the verse, God is not willing that any perish, and some perish, then God's will is thwarted - whether it is by His permission or against His permission. Either man is able to trump God's will against His will, or God has given man permission to trump His will. Regardless of which way you slice it, your interpretation of the verse says man trumps God when it comes to salvation.

To get right to the point of this: If the verse means what you think it means, then man - not God - is sovereign over his own salvation, whether it is by God's permission or against it.

 

[Blammo]

With or without permission, the verse does pose a problem. If, as you interpret the verse, God is not willing that any perish, and some perish, then God's will is thwarted - whether it is by His permission or against His permission. Either man is able to trump God's will against His will, or God has given man permission to trump His will. Regardless of which way you slice it, your interpretation of the verse says man trumps God when it comes to salvation.

By permission.

To get right to the point of this: If the verse means what you think it means, then man - not God - is sovereign over his own salvation, whether it is by God's permission or against it.

I couldn't simply choose to be saved, I had to agree to God's way. (and He did the saving, not me)

 

[npetreley]

I couldn't simply choose to be saved, I had to agree to God's way. (and He did the saving, not me)

You have the final say, however. If you had chosen differently, you would have trumped God's will that none perish.

 

[Blammo]

You have the final say, however. If you had chosen differently, you would have trumped God's will that none perish.

By permission. Not because God is powerless to force my mind and heart to believe the gospel.

 

[mnw]

mnw, would you answer a question if someone that you know should know better says "if God is so weak, then..." It's a false premise. Why should anyone answer a question that has as it's false premise that God has an inferiority complex?

I understand what you are saying. But these are genuine questions that come to mind and others I know have asked.

I know God does not have any weaknesses or fears. But, some theological opinions seem to imply that He does. Again, it comes down to inconsistency. But, this charge is levelled both ways...

Sometimes I hesitate to accept a reply because it seems like terms have been redefined rather than an answer given.

Anyway, my questions were answered in a sense and I appreciate the replies... eventually

 

[Andy T.]

Johnp, I'm not the only one who would call you Hyper. Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-Calvinism

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/hypercalvinism.html

http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonABriefCritiqueOfHyper-Calvinism.htm

Look, at this point I'm not interested in debating the particular issue of whether or not God makes men sinners. What I am establishing is that your view on the matter is in the very small minority of overall Calvinism. Do you agree with that?

 

[johnp.]

Phil Johnson? Maybe I am an hyper after all.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

Hello mnw.

Does He have an inferiority complex and so demands to be loved rather than allows His creation to choose to love Him?

You should ask Him: Dt 6:5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts.
Because that is exactly the command isn't it? Love me or go to Hell in short. Some chat up line a?

Does the Calvinist's God fear rejection? Is that why He does not allow choice?

He does not fear rejection because He will not let us reject Him. ...To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ: Jude 1. We are kept.

Does the Calvinist's God fear rejection? Is that why He does not allow choice?

The scripture says that the mind controlled by the sinful nature is at war with God. It says that the mind controlled by the Holy Spirit is one of life and peace. Rom 8:6-7. If God turns a man's emnity away, which will be good for the man and his neighbour, why do people think that is a terrible sinful interuption of our sovereignty yet claim God is still Sovereign if He doesn't? That's the problem. When people say He doesn't interfer with our will it leaves us sovereign in what we do. It must.

This is the argument I have with orthodox Calvinism. If men can decide of their own sinful will to go to Hell then God is not Sovereign in that choice yet we read that He chose who would go to Hell without taking deeds into account, Romans 9:11. Even if they choose what God wants they have still made a sovereign choice.

Would His Sovereignty be lessened if He gave His creation choice? If so, how?

Sovereignty is choice. The choice, the freedom to choose a thing, is a choice made in sovereignty and there are not two sovereigns but billions in a free will universe.
When people say He doesn't interfer with our will it leaves us sovereign in what we do. It must.

The prime question is the meaning of Sovereignty. Sovereign means Absolute Despot.

Does that answer your question? The same question is aired all the time here. Who is sovereign in the UK? Parliament signed away it's sovereignty to the European Union. Sovereign in the signing and not sovereign after. If the Courts tell us to jump we must jump.
Our nation's international treaties have constrained our sovereignty since we allow strangers to dictate to us then we have given our sovereignty away in our sovereignty.
I want this conversation because if I am wrong it can be traced directly to my definition of Sovereignty, if it's mine or/and the bible's.

john.

 

[johnp.]

I'd rather be hyper than have to keep typing supralapsarian man.

john.

 

[johnp.]

That's wrong Blammo, you are saying it was you that made the vital link to God, you saved yourself by taking advantage of what's on offer. God made it possible but you made it certain. If it wasn't for you God would have had nothing to do with you.

Johnp, I'm not the only one who would call you Hyper. Look here:

I refuse to run around trying to establish my own guilt man! You fetch what you find to me.

Look, at this point I'm not interested in debating the particular issue of whether or not God makes men sinners. What I am establishing is that your view on the matter is in the very small minority of overall Calvinism. Do you agree with that?

Yes.

john.

 

[npetreley]

By permission. Not because God is powerless to force my mind and heart to believe the gospel.

We're just going 'round in circles, but my point remains. If God permits you to trump His will and remain lost, then He's certainly willing that some should perish. Put another way, He's willing to let you trump His will that none should perish.

So either the verse doesn't mean "all" as in "everyone who ever lived, lives, or shall live", or the verse should really read, "Maybe God doesn't WANT anyone to perish, but He's certainly willing to allow men to perish because He has permitted men to be sovereign over their own eternal destinies."

I think it's obvious from the context that "all" is "all of the elect, including those who haven't been born yet". But that's digressing from the point.

 

[npetreley]

I know God does not have any weaknesses or fears. But, some theological opinions seem to imply that He does. Again, it comes down to inconsistency. But, this charge is levelled both ways...

Yes, it goes both ways. To counter your question, is the free-willer God so stupid and incompetent that He can't figure out a way to save everyone, even though He's not willing that any should perish?

That doesn't deserve an answer any more than your question did.

 

[npetreley]

Johnp, I'm not the only one who would call you Hyper. Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-Calvinism

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/hypercalvinism.html

http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonABriefCritiqueOfHyper-Calvinism.htm

Once again I don't want to speak for johnp, but I browsed those links and I don't see how they match what johnp has been saying, at least for the most part. Here's the shortest list of points I could find:

# God is the source of sin and of evil
# a sign of election must be sought prior to repentance
# men have no will of their own and secondary causes are of no effect
# the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
# it is wrong to proselytize
# there is no common grace, that is, God cares only for his elect and has nothing but hatred for the non-elect
# only Calvinists are Christians

If all the above points appeared in johnp's posts, I missed a lot of them.

 

[Andy T.]

Once again I don't want to speak for johnp, but I browsed those links and I don't see how they match what johnp has been saying, at least for the most part. Here's the shortest list of points I could find:

# God is the source of sin and of evil
# a sign of election must be sought prior to repentance
# men have no will of their own and secondary causes are of no effect
# the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
# it is wrong to proselytize
# there is no common grace, that is, God cares only for his elect and has nothing but hatred for the non-elect
# only Calvinists are Christians

If all the above points appeared in johnp's posts, I missed a lot of them.

Johnp believes (according to his posts):

# God is the source of sin and of evil
# men have no will of their own and secondary causes are of no effect

See posts #68 and 100, among others.

 

[Andy T.]

Also note that there are different brands of Hypers. Some deny the need for evangelizing. Some believe that in order to be saved you have to hold to TULIP. Others believe that God is actively creating sin in his creatures. That is Johnp's brand.

 

[Blammo]

We're just going 'round in circles, but my point remains. If God permits you to trump His will and remain lost, then He's certainly willing that some should perish. Put another way, He's willing to let you trump His will that none should perish.

So either the verse doesn't mean "all" as in "everyone who ever lived, lives, or shall live", or the verse should really read, "Maybe God doesn't WANT anyone to perish, but He's certainly willing to allow men to perish because He has permitted men to be sovereign over their own eternal destinies."

I think it's obvious from the context that "all" is "all of the elect, including those who haven't been born yet". But that's digressing from the point.

What is the desire of the Lord as presented in these two verses?

Jeremiah 29:19 Because they have not hearkened to my words, saith the LORD, which I sent unto them by my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them; but ye would not hear, saith the LORD.

Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

Is it, that they would hear and believe the word of God, or is it, that He may have more reason to find them guilty and send them to hell? If it be the latter, is He just prettending to be grieved by it? Furthermore, He is God, what more reason does He need to send men to hell?

 

[npetreley]

Johnp believes (according to his posts):

# God is the source of sin and of evil
# men have no will of their own and secondary causes are of no effect

See posts #68 and 100, among others.

And you believe TULIP, which hypercalvinists also believe. Right? Does that mean I get to lump you in with those who believe you shouldn't preach to a mixed congregation?

 

[npetreley]

What is the desire of the Lord as presented in these two verses?

Jeremiah 29:19 Because they have not hearkened to my words, saith the LORD, which I sent unto them by my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them; but ye would not hear, saith the LORD.

Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

Is it, that they would hear and believe the word of God, or is it, that He may have more reason to find them guilty and send them to hell? If it be the latter, is He just prettending to be grieved by it? Furthermore, He is God, what more reason does He need to send men to hell?

You're wandering way out of the territory of the verse. If you want to talk about how God feels, you can go right to the verse bout how God does not DELIGHT in the destruction of the wicked. But that's not the same thing as saying God is not willing that any should perish. The former is about how God feels. The latter is about His will being done.

So once again we're back where we started. God is not willing that any should perish. Either man is thwarting God's will, or you have to ask the quesiton "any of whom"?