How long have you studied election?

So if you remove the primary cause then the secondary causes would remain the same? Can you prove that?

 

The question is not "could" he, but rather, "would" he.

Could he have chosen not to deny Christ? I believe so. Would he have? Most certainly not.

I was confused by this statement:
" how God can foresee His own actions and yet the truthmaker for His foreknowledge of His own actions happens when He acts."

Please clarify.

 

So if you remove the primary cause then the secondary causes would remain the same? Can you prove that? </font>[/QUOTE]If by this you mean the initial Creator, substitute atheistic evolution, etc. to achieve the same end.

 

Calvinistic theology includes the notion that God ordained from the beginning all things that come to pass, and that He did it in such a way that the choices of the creatures are not forced. The creatures do what they choose to do. Atheistic evolution cannot ordain or decree or foreknow anything, so any speculation about what would happen in that case is irrelevant.

 

Calvinistic theology includes the notion that God ordained from the beginning all things that come to pass, and that He did it in such a way that the choices of the creatures are not forced. The creatures do what they choose to do. </font>[/QUOTE]But the choices they make would differ if not for the direct influence of God in those decisions, according to this theology.

 

On God's own purpose.

On God's own purpose.

Nope, because if he had, election wouldn't be according to God's purpose, but rather according to my goodness.

Nope, because then it election wouldn't be according to God's purpose, but according to my faithfulness.

God's purpose.

Yes.

For he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we may be holy and unblemished in his sight in love. He did this by predestining us to adoption as his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the pleasure of his will—to the praise of the glory of his grace that he has freely bestowed on us in his dearly loved Son.It's according to the pleasure of his will (or according to his own purpose.) It's to the praise of the glory of his grace. And his grace is bestowed freely upon us.

Because election has it's basis in nothing other than God's purpose, God's grace is bestowed freely--it's not called out because of anything within us, or anything we do, but only according to God's purpose.

In Christ we too have been claimed as God’s own possession, since we were predestined according to the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will so that we, who were the first to set our hope on Christ, would be to the praise of his glory.

Here, too, election is based on "the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will." It is based on God's purpose, and God's purpose alone, so that it's God's glory that receives the praise.

I just did.

Then you've read no Calvinistic theology books, have you? That's why it's called unconditional election. It's based on nothing within me to recommend me--not my goodness, or intelligence, or giftedness, or even foreseen faith. Only God's purpose.

 

No, according to this theology there would be no people, and therefore no choices, if not for the direct influence of God in all things. But that's not the point. The point is that God being the primary cause of all things does not in any way lessen the freedom or the culpability of any secondary cause of anything.

 

"Forced," "Freedom," "Cause" -- all terms with differing definitions from the Calvinist to the Arminian camps.

No wonder this argument has gone on for centuries. I'm just glad that no one is burning anyone at the stake anymore!

Our viewpoints have differing presuppositions, and there is truly no way to prove or to disprove
completely either side's presuppositions. What I see on here is clashing which basically accomplishes one thing: each camp reinforces its own positions.

 

Well, hopefully it accomplishes another thing - each camp gets a better understanding of what the other camp really believes. Unfortunately that doesn't happen very often, it seems. Anyway, any discussion of foreknowledge and determinism and predestination and all of that needs to address the relationship of primary causes and secondary causes.

How do my definitions of "forced", "freedom" and "cause" differ from yours?

 

Well, hopefully it accomplishes another thing - each camp gets a better understanding of what the other camp really believes. Unfortunately that doesn't happen very often, it seems. Anyway, any discussion of foreknowledge and determinism and predestination and all of that needs to address the relationship of primary causes and secondary causes.

How do my definitions of "forced", "freedom" and "cause" differ from yours? </font>[/QUOTE]Freedom- the ability to exercise the will consistent with one's capability

While my definition of freedom is probably rather close to yours, for me, a person's capability is more extensive than the traditional Calvinist view. I say that if one does not have a choice between at least two options, the choice is not free, but forced.

Forced - a description applied when one does not have the ability to choose beyond one course of action (e.g. if an individual lacks the ability to come to Christ, then this decision cannot be considered free, for the person lacked an alternative.)

Cause--that which is the primary initiator of an action or state
(e.g. I would contend that if the tenets of Calvinism are true, reprobate individuals are not the cause of their own sin. Because they lack the ability to choose to come to Christ, their situation is forced. This situation was caused by a chain of events external to their lives (the fall of man, the decree of God allowing the fall, etc.) and was forced upon them. Therefore, they have no free choices because there are no alternatives. The individuals would not be the primary initiators of this state/series of events.)

Those are my definitions. I know that you will probably disagree with the implications of my definitions, and that's ok. Anyway, here they are.

 

Seriously?? You don't see it very clearly? God has not cast off his people whom he foreknew. If that simply meant knowing something ahead of time, it makes no sense. God knew all of hte nations of the earth ahead of time. Here, this word very clearly refers to choice. It can't get much more obvious.

 

Just as an argumentative point, you can't just assert your conclusion. You actually have to prove it, and in theology, with Scripture. In Scripture, foreknowledge carries the idea of predetermination. However, that is not my point here. I will grant your statement for the sake of argument, and point out how you missed the point.

Now think carefully ... You just said that she was able to make God's knowledge incorrect. That is impossible.

Maybe, maybe not ... but irrelevant for this ponit. The fact that God knows something before it happens means that it cannot happen any other way. She has to choose the sandwich God knew she would choose, regardless of how God came by that knowledge (proactive or reactive). If you think about it for a moment, it should jump out immediately what I am saying.

Without God, you have no basis to even formulate an argument. A world without God cannot even be conceived.

But this is irrelevant to the actual point. The fact that God knows beforehand what she will do means, by definition of God's infallible knowledge, that she cannot do anything else. She cannot choose the other sandwich for the simple reason that God knows what she will do.

It is admittedly not an argument for teh faint of heart, but it is certainly a true argument that cannot be refuted without resorting to open theism, in which God doesn't know the future because it is unknowable.

Your scenario has someone who is able to make God's knowledge fallible. No orthodox theologian can stand that.

Now, if by "able" you mean she had the physical ability to reach the other, then that is certainly true. But ability, in this discussion, is usually about something that can actually take place, not about mere ability.

 

Actually you did. On page 3, you said The so-called "election" came AFTER they were "saved" through faith and repentance in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You should know what you have said before you ask if you have said it. And the capital letters making up AFTER are your caps, not mine. You seemed to wish to emphasize the point you now deny making.

Where? I don't see anything about election in Acts 2:47, much less about cause. Of course, that was already pointed out to you, and you seem to just have ignored the truth.

You are just making that up. The Bible says they were added to the church, not to the elected ones. 2 Tim 2:10 makes it clear that people are elect before they are saved. They are not added to the "elect ones."

/qb]Which is what Calvinism teaches.

/qb]That is just plainly dishonest, yet again. We have answered this question many times. God chooses people based on his grace and glory. Election is based on God, not man. That has been answered ad nauseum. It is completely unacceptable for you to act like it hasn't been.

When will you learn?

 

Now we are right back to the fact that God predeterminds everything. If the girl could not choose the other then God determind that she could only choose the one. So all the way back to adam God has predetermind man to sin and left him no choice. Who is the author of sin in this scenio? What folly.

 

Well, Tim, at some point you have to wrestle with reality.

Can someone choose to do anything that God does not know they will do? To me, this is so simple, but because it doesn't fit in some people's little God box, they reject it. You have either say that she can choose only that which God knows, or that God's knowledge is not necessarily true.

The author of sin is never God. Man is responsible for his own choices. That is clearly what the Bible teaches and is what Calvinism teaches. But you guys have your little logical God boxes all neatly tied up and taped shut ... but you have left some things out.

 

Larry, it seems now you are changing your statements. I really am perplexed at this. YOu say God predeteminds everything and then tell me He is not the cause of sin. Did he make adam sin? Was that His plan from the beginnning? He created Adam to sin? What am I missing?

 

Larry, can you not understand that there IS a real difference between "foreknowledge", and "foreordaining"? Check a basic English dictionary, and you will see the difference. Both words are used in the New Testament. In the Greek we have, "proginosko", to "foreknow"; and "proorizo", "to mark out beforehand". Why do Calvinists load "foreknow" to mean something that it is not? Why make it mean "predestiante", when clearly it never does? Romans 8:29 clearly shows that both words are different, where Paul says: "for whom He did foreknow , He also did predestinate ..." Nor does "foreknow" have the meaning "forelove". Don't try to reinvent the meanings of words to fit your theology.

You say that the author of sin is not God. This is correct. You then go on to say that this is what Calvinism teaches. WRONG. You would like it to teach this, but the reality is that it DOES NOT. Calvinism does teach that God has preordained "ALL THINGS", even our sinful acts. This is not hyper-Clavinism, but standard Calvinistic doctrine. Read what Dr Machen, a Calvinistic theologian says:

"We have said that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. The sinful actions of sinful men are things that come to pass. Yet we deny that God is the author of them and we put the responsibility for them upon man...He does not cause them to do those things against their will, but He determines their will, and their freedom as persons is fully prserved when they preform those acts. The acts remain their acts, even though they are led to do them by the Spirit of God" (The Christian View of Man, pp.43-44)

Look at the Calvinstic contradictions. Look at the blasphemy here. God, says Machen, "determines their will". I am convinced that Calvinists are both self-blinded and do NOT understand the English language in these matters. I read in the Oxford dictionary on "determined", "to direct, to impel, to bring to its determination or resolution" Now, it is admitted that God "directs" or "impels" (to drive, to force) the will of man to commit acts of sin, like, murder, rape, homosexuality, incest, etc, but, somehow, man is said to be "responsible" for his actions. If God, Who is a greater force, "impels" you to do something, it is the same that He "forces" you to do it. This, as we have seen is the meaning of the words in the English language which we have to accept, unless we are dishonest. Machen also says that we are "led (to guide, to direct, to induce)" by the Spirit" to commit sinful action. The language clearly shows, that the actions of man are determined by a force, (God in this case) outside of themselves. HOW in the name of justice, then can man be held responsible if they are doing in effect, what God by His Holy Spirit compelled them to do? Where is the freedom of choice in this?

Argue all you will, but the facts lie before us, that in Calvinism God IS the author of sin, and this is clearly admitted to by the words like those used by Dr Machen. You simply cannot go about redefining the meanings of words to fit your theological system.

 

"(yes Calvinists believe that one must repent, accept the gospel, etc. in order to be saved) "

Not all, see

http://www.BiblicalUniversalism.com/

 

Those guys aren't Calvinists. I'm not sure what they are, but Calvinists they ain't.