His determinate counsel

I'm not speaking of order of decrees, if that is what you mean by "decreeism". I don't know what's hard to understand. "Whatsoever things that come to pass are decreed by God" (paraphrase of the 1689 confession).

As JArthur said
1. God decreed it.
2. It happened.

The alternative is:
1. Things just happen by chance. (fate)

Pick one. And no, it's not a false dichotomy. It's the only two choices available to the rational mind. The theory that God "looked at" a list of "possible outcomes" and chose the one He "mostly" wanted completely removes God of His sovereignty.

 

So if one replaces the word free-will with choice then it is ok?

 

You know Jauthur, I actually don't disagree with what you have said here even though I'm a freewiller.....wait, guess maybe I should start using non Cal instead of freewiller if the Cals are using a definition of freewiller that excludes our believing in the drawing of the Holy Spirit.

I would however have qualified the part I italicized. Not all who's eyes are opened to the truth will accept it. King Agrippa is a good example (Acts 26). His eyes were open, he had the Apostle Paul, full of the Holy Spirit, earnestly explaining the truth, he understood the prophets and still he refused to accept. This seems to be the cheif difference between what I believe and what you Cals believe. You would probably say that his eyes weren't fully opened.

 

I have talked with others who take on the name calvinist who would not agree with this. And your semantical prose on the issue of will is rather unnecessary. To choose or not to choose must be an option and both, while can only happen after God opens the heart, are a part of the will.

 

So what you're saying is that you don't like the idea of choosing without the option to say no? What's the problem? Do you resent the idea that God might actually save someone without that person having the option to reject it?

 

1. This is a prime example of Libertarian free will.

2. Here's a quesion for those who insist on this type of freedom: Are we going to have the option to choose or not to choose in Heaven?

 

Not so, at least as I am understanding both you and Calvinism.
You are again stating what I set forth already.
God decrees and that is why God knows what He knows.

So if God knows all things, as even you espouse, why the need to decree anything since all that God knows will come about - EVEN IN YOUR VIEW - There is STILL NO NEED.

His decrees set the boundries to and of what will happen and why. If His decrees were not in place and He just let fly creation, anything can happen with any potential varity of endings. Gods decrees are the established boundries which bring time and space into divine order that all things which are known and determined by God are fulled in accordance with His plan.

If you would like an order from us, I request (if possible) to see the list of Gods decrees in the order God told us He decreed them in from you first.

You missed the whole point. I 'embolded' the above where I said you have a problem and what the problem is.

It had nothing to do with "God being in full control of all things and decreeing things to come about"

You have absolutely NO biblical support for your order of decrees and why God determined them to be in that order IF He determined any order at all. This is pure speculation AT BEST.
You nor I haven't a biblical clue as to why God decreed ANY of His decrees (other than it pleased Him to do so in accordance to His purpose and plan - and no disagree with that - or should not at least ) or that we even know half of them. Not only do we not know the 'why' but the HOW God determined or KNEW regarding the fullness of WHAT He knows. Yet a large portion of your theology is based upon this 'pure speculation' as though it is the gospels own truth. Without this portion much of your view becomes baseless, not all but much of it looses credence.

Both sides do this to a point, though my side isn't based so resolutely upon what we do not know and making it the basis of how it all fits together. We show how God reveals it plays out in time in accordance with He has revealed and those few things outside of time He has chosen to reveal as well. We say God decreed in conjuction with His Knowledge. What did God know, How did God know, How did God know and decree, all of these things presumes the mind of God being understood by finite man where God not once expounded His infinate counsil on the matter to us, other than He Knew and decreed.

 

I agree as do most all the other Non-Cals, that man does not have libertarian free-will, which is what you and most other Calvinist STILL charge us with. Libertarian Free-Will is substantiated in both Pelegain and Semi-Pel - BOTH of which assert that man can choose to come to God WITHOUT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM GOD AT THE OUTSET. Semi-Pel only slightly differs here in that Once man has determined (without ANY influence from God) to come, only then He realizes He is inadaquate to make it and God rewards the man for his coming with grace to achieve salvation.

Both the Pel and Semi-Pel have two main theological themes that can not be divorced from their theological paradiams.
1. Man come to God unaided and without ANY influence of or from God at the first.
2. Salvation and grace are rewards for mans effort.

NEITHER of these two theological views are held by the majority of Non-Cals.
WE believe that man will not come to God of his own and that is why God MUST FIRST come to man and that THIS is by and due to the Grace of God which no man has earned nor in fact can earn EVER. We hold that man is resposible with the truths God has 'revealed' to us. We have no choice unless God gives it to us and that is always based upon what we do with the truth He has given to us to know.

No question. Man can just up and decide that he will be saved today (John 1)

James, this is the worst rendering of scripture I have seen from you. That is NOT what it is speaking to. The context is that unless you are born again you can not know the things that God is doing fully. You know the wind is there but you don't know where it is going to or where it is coming from. In short, you don't understand its reason for being there or doing what it's doing. You only know that it is present.

 

The Bible says that we must hear the gospel.

Rom 10:14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

What happens to those who never hear the gospel? Are they saved based on "what has been revealed"? Even if it is only the creation?

Jhn 3:8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

The wind doesn't just blow. It blows where "it wishes".

 

I think you misunderstand the Calvinist position. God knows "whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions", so he doesn't know something based on his decreeing it, since most of what may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions won't actually come to pass. And if it doesn't come to pass, then God didn't decree it.

Of course this knowledge God has of things that don't come to pass but would come to pass upon supposed conditions can't come from foresight either, since God doesn't foresee as future events things that won't come to pass. His knows these things because he thinks them.

But what about the other class of events, the events that actually will occur in creation history? Does God come by his knowledge of those events differently that he does his knowledge of possible events? Does he use his foresight in this case rather than his forethought? Or does he come by his knowledge of all things (both actual future events and possible future events) in the same way?

I'd think God has to be the sole source of all his knowledge. So, just as God's knowledge of "whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions" has to come from his own forethought rather than foreseeing, his knowledge of what will happen in creation history has to be based in his own forethought, rather than on foreseeing. Underneath his foresight has to be his forethought.

 

Without the yes ans no option there is no choice. It is force.

 

Options we will have in heaven are not germain to this discussion.

Did Adam and Eve have a opportunity to choose to eat the fruit or to choose not to eat the fruit?

 

Of course not Amy.
ALL men are given truth by God to believe or reject (Rom 1 is the basis for general truth revealed to man by God Himself). What man does with the truths God gives him determines whether the Gospel itself is brought to them of distant lands where the Gospel is not. And this is something you can find of many missionaries giving testimony to. However Remember in Romans 1 that nature and the conscience of man are used by God to reveal Himself to them and that disobeience brings forth Gods judgment (of which they know). So even in the basic truth THEY KNOW to the truth of God and even to repent, but repent unto whom? It is here God knowing their hearts has already sent forth a one to proclaim the fulness of the truth to them who are without the truth in full but not without the truth period, so as to be without excuse.
Example - Much like Philip and the Etheopian. Or Paul and the Barbarians (shipwrecked), et...

We in scripture that not everyone God reveals Himself to will accept Him. We find this specifically shown in Rom 1:18-33 (or the end of it) and 2 Thes 2:10-12, Rom 10:21, Rom 11:23, and many others (king Agrippa is another that come to mind) but who reject the truth in which God reveals Himself to them.

The above is seen in more detail in previous thread, like the blindness thread and others. But it suffices to give a scriptural answer to you.

Jhn 3:8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." The wind doesn't just blow. It blows where "it wishes".[/QUOTE]What does that have to do with what I said Amy?
The wind does blow where it wishes and the world knows it is there but knows nothing more than that about it, so is everyone born of the Spirit. The world knows we are there but they don't know anything more than that concerning what, why, and for what purpose we do what we do any more than they do the wind that blows. Notice at the end it does not say, So is the Spirit of God but "so is EVERYONE who is born of the Spirit". "...being born of..." is something that has ALREADY happened, not GOING to happen.

 

Ok, but that is not James rendition of it. At least not as I have understood him. If it is then he can agree with you and let us know.

THIS is what I'm talking about regarding what is used to 'superglue' so to speak the Calvinistic position of many of its views. Since we do not know the source of God's knowledge (as in CAN HE muse things in His mind, or CAN HE see all events of all things and narrow them down to His liking) Fact is - we DON"T KNOW. So in order to maintain your view it is based not upon scripture but what you hope is correct because it gives you the best view of how you want to view God.

Thus it gets back to what I was saying to James:

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you agreed that there's no way anyone could say "yes" unless their eyes were opened by God, right? So God has to take action on an individual. You probably think He does it to everyone. On my side, we think God chooses some.

But let me get this straight. The yes or no option is so important to you, that you'd rather see a percentage of people say "no" and go to hell whose eyes were opened by God, than see them ALL go to heaven. That choice is so important that you wouldn't actually want all of them to be so overjoyed by the good news that it was a 100% guarantee that they'd all say "yes", right? That wouldn't be a choice, because nobody said "no". So the only way you'll be satisfied is if some percentage say "no" and go to hell. That's the only way to prove there was a choice involved.

Does that make you feel more special? I mean, without people saying "no" and going to hell, how could you feel superior to anyone else for having said "yes"? After all, what made the difference between you saying "yes" and them saying "no? You must be better, right?

 

The view that God must be the sole source of all his knowledge is indeed based upon scripture:

"I AM who I AM."

1. Who God is comes from himself.
2. Perfect knowledge is an aspect of God's being.
3. Therefore, God's perfect knowledge comes from God himself.