God's Devil

[webdog]

Trust me in this, I DO see where the Arminians come from, just have to say that you come from the premise that mankind was only "marred' by the fall, and that God was able to 'perserve" for man some type of "free will"

I tend to see that we went far beyond being "marred" actually were "killed" so in order for any to actually be able to place faith in Christ, the Lord hasd to do his work "in us" to have us do "our work" and trust in Christ!

If you would stop posting these caricature talking points from your side, you would ACTUALLY see what we believe. You DON'T see where the arminians come from...even after all of the questions you continue to ask and have answered!

The fact you have all of these questions to begin with shows that your side is not as hole proof as you have realized. Curious, just why are you asking so many questions...particularly when you get answers to them? It seems like you get an answer, then start another thread based on a response in the original...without absorbing the previous answers. This leads to just repeating the same tired strawmen and caricatures of what we believe.

 

[webdog]

Boy, don't try to tell Fredrick and Aaron that! They will ridicule you as dodging the issue, using dishonest debate tactics, and just about every other method to mock and demean you in the book.

No need to tell me...my recent vacation was paid in part due to their bonus bucks :laugh:

You forgot, I'm Prophet Webdog

 

[Skandelon]

Trust me in this, I DO see where the Arminians come from, just have to say that you come from the premise that mankind was only "marred' by the fall, and that God was able to 'perserve" for man some type of "free will"

Do me a favor JF, you seem like a reasonable guy. Go to Genesis and read the account of the Fall. Find where it speaks of the results (birth pains, working the ground etc), ok?

Now, keep reading and find the part where it says man won't be able to even tell the difference between good and evil because they will only do evil and not even understand good unless first regenerated. And find the part that says that when God sends his own Son, His Spirit, His inspired written Word, and his appointed messengers that mankind won't be able to respond to His appeal to be reconciled. Find the part where Adam, Eve and their descendants won't even be able to understand and believe it when God communicates with them from that point forward without them first being born again. Let me know when you find it.

 

[Luke2427]

So, the evil intent just "ensures" or "appears" from nothing? God removing his presence doesn't tell us where the evil intent originates, Luke. It's like saying the kids won't disobey until their parents leave. Just because their parents leave doesn't MAKE the kid disobey, it just makes the condition right so they will. Their intent to disobey must still have an origin.

Evil IS the absence of the moral goodness of God.

1. You keep saying that God doesn't author evil, but what is the difference in authoring it and willing/causing/purposing it?

Moral evil is not the result of God's activation- it is the result of God's absence.

I can will for there to be darkness in this room. I can bring it to pass simply by removing my light from this room. I pay the power bill I buy the light bulbs and so in that sense it is my light. If I wish for darkness to exist I do not have to conjure it up, or create it or buy it or anything else. The ONLY thing I have to do to bring darkness to pass in this room according to my will is remove my light.

Am I the author of the darkness in the room? No. I did not MAKE it. I did not ACTIVELY cause it.

If I am the author of a book I, myself, must write it. I must take a positive part in it's creation. I cannot be the author of something that exists simply because of my absence.

That is the difference.

Like I said before, I reserve the term "hyper" for anti-evangelists, which I know you are not. I've only referred to you as a hard determinists which is what you have made yourself out to be, not me. Even other Cals here recognize that Luke.

I really don't deny that I am a "high" Calvinist. What I am arguing is that being a high Calvinist is perfectly in line with mainstream historic Calvinism.

I argue that it is perfectly in line with the Westminster and Baptist Confessions (1689).

But I do believe that men have real will and make real choices and are, in some way that I confess is a mystery to me and I believe all men, really fully responsible for their own doom.

Nevertheless, the benefit of a forum is that you can explain yourself and clarify your position, which is what you are doing. Thanks!

How pleasant this is becoming!

Wouldn't it be nice if it would continue?

 

[Luke2427]

What if God chooses to give a creature his own independent power? Scripture speaks of the powers of this dark world, the rulers of darkness etc. Just because God gives his creatures the ability (power) to act, doesn't tell us what caused them to do what they do. It only serves the purpose of our discussion if you say "God empowered to do what he determined them to do," or "God empowered them to do what they freely determined themselves to do." Which one do you say?

Both.

This is the ESSENCE of compatabalism.

 

[Skandelon]

Both.

This is the ESSENCE of compatabalism.

Not if you define "freely" in the way I meant it, rather than in the "convoluted" way of compatabilism.

I'm not meaning that as an insult, I just honestly believe that the way compatiablists define human freedom is so far from true freedom that it non-sensical.

As I've argued before, I believe in contra-casual freedom..."A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."

It is my understanding that compatiblists attempt to maintain that men are free in the since that they are "doing what they desire." It is my contention that this is an insufficient explaination to maintain true freedom considering that compatibilists believe that even the desires and thoughts of men are decreed by God.

This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires. Given your belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God's decree on which human freedom might be based. Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God's desire in the matter (i.e., God's desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God's decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices, including the evil ones.

This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist's argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When the compatibilist defines freedom in terms of desire (i.e., doing what one wants to do), this formulation initially appears plausible only because it tends to (subtly) evoke a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices. That is, even though the compatibilist insists that God decisively conditions an agent's environment so as to guarantee the outcome of the agent's choices, we can nonetheless envision God's action in doing so as being compatible with human freedom so long as the human agent in question has the opportunity to interact with his conditioned environment as an independent agent, possessing his own desires and thus owning his choices in relation to that environment.

But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determines, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God's decree. For this reason, human desire within the compatibilist framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the integrity of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin).

 

[Skandelon]

Evil IS the absence of the moral goodness of God.

So the absence of something created the intent to sin? That means something came from nothing...an absurdity from your own perspective.

I can will for there to be darkness in this room. I can bring it to pass simply by removing my light from this room.

But darkness is not equal to the intent to do evil. An intent to do evil exists and thus must have origin. Now, you can say that a creature originated that intent in the absence of God, but just to say the evil intent IS the absence of God doesn't work. If the existence of goodness necessitates the existence of evil, in the same manner that the existence of light necessitates darkness, then God (who is good) and eternally existent could not be self sufficient. For him to exist would necessitate the existence of evil, which is contrary to what we know about God.

Plus, how does God maintain COMPLETE sovereignty, in the way you define it, over a world where he chooses to be absent? If he is absent at the time sin originates how can he be sovereign over that?

I really don't deny that I am a "high" Calvinist. What I am arguing is that being a high Calvinist is perfectly in line with mainstream historic Calvinism.

I argue that it is perfectly in line with the Westminster and Baptist Confessions (1689).

I think that might depend on what Calvinist you are talking to. I suspect those in the camp that is not quite as "high" as you would make a strong case against that point of view, but that is neither here nor there. The point was to show that various camps exists and thus labels aren't always so useful in these discussions. Enough said.

But I do believe that men have real will and make real choices and are, in some way that I confess is a mystery to me and I believe all men, really fully responsible for their own doom.

We do agree on that point. I'd just rather side with the mystery that doesn't appear to impugn the nature of God's holiness by suggesting He has actively decreed the nature and thus desires of man so that they could only choose to reject God's appeal for reconciliation. No matter how you explain that, it just doesn't align to what I see revealed in scripture, nor what my own spirit tells me is true about the nature of God's dealing with mankind.

How pleasant this is becoming!

Wouldn't it be nice if it would continue?

It will as long as we stick to discussing the subject and not each other.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Here is your God Given Freedom Skan, "You dont have to Sin"...... Just dont do it!

 

[JesusFan]

Do me a favor JF, you seem like a reasonable guy. Go to Genesis and read the account of the Fall. Find where it speaks of the results (birth pains, working the ground etc), ok?

Now, keep reading and find the part where it says man won't be able to even tell the difference between good and evil because they will only do evil and not even understand good unless first regenerated. And find the part that says that when God sends his own Son, His Spirit, His inspired written Word, and his appointed messengers that mankind won't be able to respond to His appeal to be reconciled. Find the part where Adam, Eve and their descendants won't even be able to understand and believe it when God communicates with them from that point forward without them first being born again. Let me know when you find it.

Well...

Adam and eve under a different "arrangement" with God than we are, at least when originally created, as both were without sin natures, so "not lost" until they choose to disobey and sin against God...

So Fall happened to them. and to us also, as God "credits" all of us as being "in Adam" now at birth, and we do now have original sin natures...

And being depraived to me does NOT mean that mankind could not hear and understand about God, his ways, plans etc...

Its just that being sinners/blinded and killed in spiritual nature towards God...

Unless God actively does his quickening/saving work in us, we will either always reject the message of the Cross, as it will be foolish to our darkened hearts/minds, or else will will 'change" it to a Gospel of good works, or else follow false gods and Christs!

 

[Skandelon]

So Fall happened to them. and to us also, as God "credits" all of us as being "in Adam" now at birth, and we do now have original sin natures...

We agree on this point...

And being depraived to me does NOT mean that mankind could not hear and understand about God, his ways, plans etc...

That's typically the way Calvinists interpret 1 Cor 2:14...that the natural man cannot understand the things of God unless they are spiritually discerned...not even the gospel message. So, how do you interpret it?

Unless God actively does his quickening/saving work in us, we will either always reject the message of the Cross, as it will be foolish to our darkened hearts/minds, or else will will 'change" it to a Gospel of good works, or else follow false gods and Christs!

Can you quote the passage(s) that you believe teaches this?

 

[JesusFan]

We agree on this point...

That's typically the way Calvinists interpret 1 Cor 2:14...that the natural man cannot understand the things of God unless they are spiritually discerned...not even the gospel message. So, how do you interpret it?

Can you quote the passage(s) that you believe teaches this?

satan, 'god' of this World has blinded those whose heart is hard towards jesus Christ/Gospel message...

Its like a spritual veil has been placed over them, only removed in Christ...

So think those outside the Body of Christ CAN hear understand mentally even mentally assent to what they hear, but its not a "heart" thing, still unregenerate, that is where Grace of God comes into picture to make them able to accept Christ and be saved!

 

[Skandelon]

satan, 'god' of this World has blinded those whose heart is hard towards jesus Christ/Gospel message...

Its like a spritual veil has been placed over them, only removed in Christ...

True, but if they turn to God their veil will be removed.

 

[JesusFan]

True, but if they turn to God their veil will be removed.

Both agree on that!

just that I would say that Gods grace WILL have a sinner turn to Christ and have veil removed

You would say that grace of God Might be able to do that, IF I allowed it to work on my behalf!

 

[Skandelon]

You would say that grace of God Might be able to do that, IF I allowed it to work on my behalf!

No, I would say the grace of God IS able to do that, but that man can exchange the truth of God for a lie and thus perish because they refuse to love the truth which would have saved them.

 

[JesusFan]

No, I would say the grace of God IS able to do that, but that man can exchange the truth of God for a lie and thus perish because they refuse to love the truth which would have saved them.

So basically:

Gods Will is that NONE should perish
God had Jesus Die For ALL so that ALL might become saved
God sent His Holy Spirit to convict sinners, turning them to Christ
Gods Will none die lost, jesus died so that all might live, HS came to draw men to Christ

But your "free will" manages to make null and void God operating on your behalf after all you would say his Will is?

 

[Amy.G]

So basically:

Gods Will is that NONE should perish
God had Jesus Die For ALL so that ALL might become saved
God sent His Holy Spirit to convict sinners, turning them to Christ
Gods Will none die lost, jesus died so that all might live, HS came to draw men to Christ

But your "free will" manages to make null and void God operating on your behalf after all you would say his Will is?

Maybe you didn't notice but Skan quoted scripture.

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.



Your argument is with God.

 

[JesusFan]

Maybe you didn't notice but Skan quoted scripture.

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.



Your argument is with God.

Not really, as those people described in Romans were those whose herats and mond were hardened off because they refused to even give God glory due Him from just general revelation of creation...

proves that w/o God directly intervening on our behalf, we all would do same thing that they did!

 

[Amy.G]

Not really, as those people described in Romans were those whose herats and mond were hardened off because they refused to even give God glory due Him from just general revelation of creation...

proves that w/o God directly intervening on our behalf, we all would do same thing that they did!

I doesn't say that at all. It says that God has revealed Himself through the things He has made so that they are "without excuse". It never says that God reveals Himself through His creation to just "some".

 

[Winman]

satan, 'god' of this World has blinded those whose heart is hard towards jesus Christ/Gospel message...

Its like a spritual veil has been placed over them, only removed in Christ...

So think those outside the Body of Christ CAN hear understand mentally even mentally assent to what they hear, but its not a "heart" thing, still unregenerate, that is where Grace of God comes into picture to make them able to accept Christ and be saved!

What Paul actually taught is that believers "received" the Spirit that "they might know".

1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

The word "received" here is lambano according to Strong's and is defined as:

1) to take
a) to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing in order to use it
1) to take up a thing to be carried
2) to take upon one's self
b) to take in order to carry away
1) without the notion of violence, i,e to remove, take away
c) to take what is one's own, to take to one's self, to make one's own
1) to claim, procure, for one's self
a) to associate with one's self as companion, attendant
2) of that which when taken is not let go, to seize, to lay hold of, apprehend
3) to take by craft (our catch, used of hunters, fisherman, etc.), to circumvent one by fraud
4) to take to one's self, lay hold upon, take possession of, i.e. to appropriate to one's self
5) catch at, reach after, strive to obtain
6) to take a thing due, to collect, gather (tribute)
d) to take
1) to admit, receive
2) to receive what is offered
3) not to refuse or reject
4) to receive a person, give him access to one's self,
a) to regard any one's power, rank, external circumstances, and on that account to do some injustice or neglect something
e) to take, to choose, select
f) to take beginning, to prove anything, to make a trial of, to experience
2) to receive (what is given), to gain, get, obtain, to get back

Now, I think it is pretty clear here that "received" in 1 Cor 2:12 does not mean that the Holy Spirit was given to a person without consent, but rather a person takes or procures the Spirit.

And only after this person has received or taken the Spirit can they understand the things of God.

But this shows a distinction between receiving the Spirit and knowing the things of God. It is true that a person cannot understand the things of God without the Spirit, but this does not mean a person cannot receive or take the Spirit. In fact, this is exactly what Paul says has happened, the believers have received the Spirit so that they may know and understand the things of God.

And how does Paul teach a person "receives" the Spirit? By the hearing of faith.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Received here in Galatians 3:2 is the exact same word lambano. So this proves by faith a person can take or procure the Holy Spirit in order that he be able to understand the things of God.

Now, how can a person be regenerated without the Spirit? Yet, the scriptures shows a person takes or procures the Spirit by the hearing of faith, and then afterward can understand the things of God.

So, these "things of God" Paul is speaking of in 1st Corinthians is not the Gospel. Men can obviously understand the Gospel before receiving the Holy Spirit.

 

[JesusFan]

I doesn't say that at all. It says that God has revealed Himself through the things He has made so that they are "without excuse". It never says that God reveals Himself through His creation to just "some".

exactly!

Not even those that were not part of the Election of God have ANY excuse, for their own wicked and deceitful hearts/mind condemn them before a Holy God....