Now you can supply where he "exalted" choice above God.
Your slander is becoming something of legend around here.
-
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!
How do we define what is good and evil?
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
Your slander is becoming something of legend around here.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
As Webdog requested, could you supply my actual quote where I 'exalt choice above God?'
I simply refer you back to the Tozer quote, which you affirmed. "Man’s will is [contra-causually] free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow [contra-causual] moral freedom upon his creatures. He would be afraid to do so." - AW Tozer
This demonstrates my actual view that man's contra-causal freedom is an expression of God's sovereignty, not a denial of it. How impotent is a god whose attributes are threatened by the existence of contra-causually free creatures?
glfredrick
New Member
With the statement bolded above, you set up Satan's will as above God's will. You do likewise for the will of man -- or have you turned over a new leaf of late that remains as yet unannouced?
Can Satan act unilaterally apart from God ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES?
preacher4truth
Active Member
What is a 'pond' of God? :laugh:
Pawn maybe?
Regardless, satan is under Gods authority, and even accomplishes His will via him, or without him.
There's simply no comp.
Pawn maybe?
Regardless, satan is under Gods authority, and even accomplishes His will via him, or without him.
There's simply no comp.
glfredrick
New Member
What is a 'pond' of God? :laugh:
Pawn maybe?
Regardless, satan is under Gods authority, and even accomplishes His will via him, or without him.
There's simply no comp.
What we might say is that Satan is a "contingent being" -- a "created" entity, solely dependent on THE Necessary Being, that is God. Satan had one shot at free will, as would any free creature who was neither a slave to sin nor a slave of God (definition of "free"). He squandered his one opportunity then coerced Adam to do likewise. Now, there are NO free creatures. All are slaves, either to sin, or by God's grace, slaves to Christ by the imputed righteousness that is Christ's ALONE to give.
The ocean. :laugh:
preacher4truth
Active Member
You're correct in that none are free, but, according to Scripture all lost are enslaved to sin.
Of course we have those on here who tell us that pre-salvation they were seeking God, loved God, did good, belonged to the 'Good Ol' Boys Club INT'L'. Yet somehow when I look at their pejorative laden posts on here towards 'cals' I wonder what happened to all their seeking after God once they made their 'choice'?
:wavey: :thumbsup:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
By that reasoning then everyone who refuses God's appeal to be reconciled has a perfect excuse for their "choice" to refuse. It wasn't a free choice. It was God's choice. God didn't grant them what they needed to respond to that appeal. You give every unbeliever the perfect excuse for their unbelief. I say they are much more evil than you do. I say they refused despite God's provision, not because of God's lack thereof.
Your view says man refused because they were born that way by God's choice ('not guilty by reason of insanity or 'inability')
My view says man refused because they freely chose that way despite God's choice to love and provide salvation for them (guilty in every way, and without excuse)
So do you. You have the same situation as us. We have sinners that don't want to believe despite having the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. You believe that God could save them but doesn't.
Actually, it's because of Adam's sin.
Again, the guilt is because of sin. People go to hell because they are sinners. All people deserve hell because all people are sinners. There are some that are saved from the penalty of sin. They do not go to hell because Christ paid it for them. The rest go to hell because they have unpunished sin. Salvation is something that God does, not man. God could save every single person that has ever lived if he wanted to. He hasn't. So even you must admit that sinners have "an excuse" for being in hell because God could have saved them.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
jbh, I consider you a reasonable and object brother, for the most part, but this is just factually incorrect.
1. Your view has sinners that don't want to believe the gospel because they were born totally unable to willingly believe the gospel due to God's choice to judge mankind for the Fall.
2. Our view has sinners freely (contra-causally free that is) choosing to accept or reject God's genuine appeal to be reconciled to Him. In other words, there is nothing hindering them from accepting God's appeal for them to be reconciled, thus they are completely without excuse for not accepting it.
You must acknowledge that distinction even if you don't agree with our view. Be objective about it and I know you will have to accept this clear distinction and accept the implications as they are.
So, who chose to punish mankind by making us all total depraved because of Adam's sin? Mother Nature?
I'm not trying to be silly, I'm serious. Who, if not God, made that determination? You can try to bury that fact, but it doesn't just go away because you are unwilling to address it.
There nothing "hindering" them from believing in my view from God's part. It's their will that hinders them. God is not keeping them from believing.
I'm not unwilling to address anything. Man sinned. God rightly punishes man for sin. Have you read Romans 5:12?
You didn't respond to my last point.
Again, the guilt is because of sin. People go to hell because they are sinners. All people deserve hell because all people are sinners. There are some that are saved from the penalty of sin. They do not go to hell because Christ paid it for them. The rest go to hell because they have unpunished sin. Salvation is something that God does, not man. God could save every single person that has ever lived if he wanted to. He hasn't. So even you must admit that sinners have "an excuse" for being in hell because God could have saved them.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
So, you don't believe God is the one who decided that all men would be born totally depraved as a result of the fall? Was that an accident? Chance? I really don't understand what you do with this question? Do you just pretend it doesn't exist?
And, in your system, he chose to punish them by making them to be born totally depraved, right?
Don't need to. If the point above is conceded then the point below is moot
This is a non-sequitur...
You are equating our view that men don't have any excuse because they freely chose to rebel, with your view that God could have irresistibly saved them but didn't. This assumes that our view is that God wanted to irresistibly save everyone but couldn't. That is NOT our view, so this is NOT our problem.
He punished them because they are sinners. Just as I said. Again, have you read Romans 5:12? You seem to be arguing against it.
Not moot. I conceded no point. Don't back out and not answer. I think it was you that said that it says more about non answers than answers...
1. I know that's not your view. That's my point.
Non-sequitur? Where does my logic not follow through? It doesn't. Don't use term just for the sake of using terms.
You still didn't answer the question. Can God save everyone? Yes. Does he? No. Then man can have an excuse. Don't chicken away. Face up to it. Your argument that man has an excuse is moot because unless one denies that God has the power to save everyone, then according to your argument man has an excuse. God could have saved him. He doesn't save him. This is now twice that you have ignored this point. You keep saying that man has an excuse, but man doesn't have an excuse.
Last edited by a moderator:
convicted1
Guest
What is a 'pond' of God? :laugh:
Pawn maybe?
Regardless, satan is under Gods authority, and even accomplishes His will via him, or without him.
There's simply no comp.
Well, satan is actually lower than pondscum, you know? :laugh:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I'm not denying that you believe that. I'm just saying that it was God's choice to punish them by making them born totally depraved and thus UNABLE to willingly repent of their sin...according to your system. In your view, Adam's fall resulted in all mankind being punished by God and that punishment was to receive a nature from birth by which they could not willingly repent even when called by God to do so.
How is that not accurate?
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned
I affirm that verse. I just reject the Calvinistic interpretation which suggests that death = total inability to respond to a life giving message. I believe the Holy Spirit wrought gospel truth is more powerful than man's natural depravity. God's revelation is more powerful than ANY condition of man, otherwise it wouldn't be very revealing now would it?
You denied the fact that God is the one who chose to make fallen mankind totally depraved and then you seemed to concede that is was God who punished mankind. Which is it?
Can God save everyone irresistibly? Yes.
Notice I put the word 'irresistibly' in there to draw an important distinction. Your system assumes God saves irresistibly our system does not.
So, all you have argued is that because God doesn't choose to irresistibly save every man then those not saved have an excuse? That presumes God doesn't want men to make a contra-causually free choice, but that he wants to save them regardless of their wills, which is an assumed rejection of our premise and thus question begging. I referred to non-sequiter because your logic doesn't follow into our system because we accept contra-causual freedom, while you don't.
No one is 'chickening' away. You just are not understanding your own fallacy. I can point you to a few scholarly articles on this topic if that will help?
Try this: Suppose you are a father of two small boys. You command them both to sit down at the dinner table. One complies but the other does not. Now, you have the ability to physically force him to sit down, but suppose you choose NOT to use physical force and instead tell him that if he chooses not to sit down that he will go to bed without dinner. He continues to rebel and so you send him to bed. Now, suppose I hear about this story and I tell you that you failed and that your son is stronger than you because you wanted him to sit down but he never did. How would you answer? Wouldn't you say something like, "NO, I'm stronger than he is and I COULD have forced him, but that is not what I wanted, I'm the father and I made a choice. I wanted him to freely choose to sit down own his own or suffer the consequences of his disobedience. He chose to rebel so he suffered the consequences. He clearly understood my command and he chose to disobey so he has no excuse."
But suppose I continued arguing with you and said, "No, your sons will is greater than your will and you are weak. You wanted him to obey and he didn't so he is stronger than you. And since you could have forced him to sit down and didn't, he really does have an excuse for not obeying. You could have physically made him sit down but you didn't so that is his excuse for not obeying."
Do you see how preposterous this line of reasoning sounds? That is what you sound like to me right now.
(Note: I KNOW you don't believe God forces people to be saved, that is not the point of the analogy so please don't say it, that doesn't in any way change the point of the analogy)
Last edited by a moderator:
glfredrick
New Member
What if the father "incentivized" his wayward son to sit and that efectively became the utterly preferable choice? THat would not necessarily involve any wrath or punishment, and it might be the most loving of all possible acts! The son then might still sit by his own free will, and yet the will of the Father is also met. It is in the dual meeting of wills that God's sovereignty resides.
Your false dichotomy assumes that we EITHER have libertarian free will OR that the Father is coercive and, for lack of a better term, "mean" to us to force us to capitulate against our will. I find that God, being ALL GOOD ALL THE TIME, can easily cause us to greatly desire His will without "forcing" us into that practice in any way, shape, or form. He can do so by making the choice to follow His will the obvious choice.
Your false dichotomy assumes that we EITHER have libertarian free will OR that the Father is coercive and, for lack of a better term, "mean" to us to force us to capitulate against our will. I find that God, being ALL GOOD ALL THE TIME, can easily cause us to greatly desire His will without "forcing" us into that practice in any way, shape, or form. He can do so by making the choice to follow His will the obvious choice.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
No, it would be libertarian free will or irresistible grace. If you want to use the word 'coercive' fine, but its your word, not mine.
As the NOTE at the bottom said, the 'force' wasn't the point of the analogy. The child being forced in the chair was merely representative of 'irresistible' work of the father as compared to the father allowing the child to respond freely, that is all. I could have made the option of the father putting a medication in the child's drink which makes him want to be compliant. Would that better represent your view? Either way, the POINT of the analogy was to show jbh how his argument regarding the boy being without excuse remains.
Romans 5:12. The punishment of God was to all men because of Adams sin. "Death passed to all men."
Very well, but my point was that the sin of Adam resulted in death to all.
God made man upright. (Ecclesiastes 7:29) Man however sinned and thus are now under the penalty of that sin. (Romans 5:12). God did not originally make man evil.
God is the one that saves. Man does not save. So good, you agree that God could save every single person in the world if he wanted.
Why add to what I said? You make it sound as if God saving everyone would be bad. How dare God not punish me for my sin!!! (I know you're not saying that, but that's what I think when I see people to object.)
Besides, that's way beyond the point of anything being spoken of here.
Again, your missing the point. I'm not making an argument. Ok. Got it! Good. I'm showing you that your argument is not consistent. I throwing your argument back to you. Understand now?
I edited that portion out. But I'm not misunderstanding any fallacy because I have no fallacy. I'm showing you that your argument doesn't hold water. I'm throwing it back to you. It's interesting that you keep calling it a fallacy when I'm using your argument to you.
well, as I stated above, you have greatly missed my point.
good. you see how wrong your argument is don't you. You spent this whole post showing how ridiculous it is. Thanks for saving me the time.
Let me sum it of for you to help. You made an argument that man has an excuse in my view. I say no he doesn't. I showed you that if you use the same line of reasoning, I could say the same with what you believe. In other words, in neither of our cases does man have an excuse. In both cased, man willfully sins. Man is responsible for that sin. God could have saved man, but has chosen not to save every single person. The reasons why are not relevant at the moment per my point. But in both cases, God has not chosen to save everyone.
No...satan and fallen angels are already reprobated....no provision has been made for their salvation.
16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham
6And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Right, and 'death' according to Calvinism is interpreted as 'total inability.' Thus, God's determination was to punish all mankind for Adam's sin by making them all to be born totally unable to respond to His appeal to be reconciled. That is your view plain and simple. You can sugar coat it however you'd like but that is what you believe, isn't it? If not, how is it not correct?
Right. And who sets the penalty? You want to avoid that point because you see how it makes God appear and you don't like it. God set the penalty, which in your system, is that mankind CANNOT respond to HIS supposedly genuine appeals for reconciliation, so you have God on the one hand punishing mankind for sinning by making them born unable to repent and on the other hand calling them to repent. It's like disciplining your dog by tying him to the post then later calling him to come to you and then shooting him for not coming. It certainly doesn't put God in a good light which is why you don't want to acknowledge that He is the one who decided the penalty for the fall.
No, I don't understand and neither do you. My argument is against the presumptions of Calvinism which teaches that men CANNOT believe or repent unless made to through an effectual work of God and since I don't accept that presumption the argument wouldn't apply to me. I affirm contra-casual freedom, you don't, so the argument doesn't apply to my view.
Use the analogy to show how that argument would apply to my view? You are not making any sense brother.
You deny that God choosing not to grant someone the ability to believe is a good excuse for unbelief? How?
Willfully? That means two completely different things in our two views. Man's will is determined by God's choice in your view, not the man. Unless a man is first regenerated by God's choice, he is UNABLE from birth to be willing by God's choice, according to your view, thus giving him the perfect excuse.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status