Perishing without having ever heard the gospel they end up in....

[Agent47]

David Basinger echoed it by saying that we "need not maintain that God’s creative goals require that many people in the Third World be allowed to starve or that many children be allowed to suffer abuse. We are free to maintain, rather, that these evils, and also their patterns of distribution, are byproducts of a world containing freedom – byproducts that God, as well as each of us, wishes had not occurred.”

True. I hold to this. But I can't absolve God if He infallibly decreed the Fall. Adam was not free because God's decrees are irresistible. At the very appointed time he was to Fall, he had to fall.

That's why Arminianism account makes sense; God permitted Adam to Fall.

 

[JonC]

@JonC,
I have been consistent. God knew Adam would Fall, he planned for it knowing it would happen. But for you, he did more than knowing; he infallibly decreed it

Decreeing the Fall is decreeing the inevitable consequences of the same namely sin and death.

Only you charge God with decreeing the Fall which you lamely and in vain attempted to distinguish from sinning.

I've already warned you once....or maybe that was TCassidy....someone warned you once about falsely declaring the beliefs of others. So I will warn you once again.

I said that our view of God as planning was what?... Hint - it starts with an "a" and ends with a "nthropomorphism".
I agreed that God "decreed" Adam's sin in only one way - what was that, Einstein? (Hint, it was by creating man with the knowledge that Adam would sin and by allowing Adam the freedom to sin).

But you are right. You have been nothing if not "consistent".

 

[Agent47]

I've already warned you once....or maybe that was TCassidy....someone warned you once about falsely declaring the beliefs of others. So I will warn you once again.

I said that our view of God as planning was what?... Hint - it starts with an "a" and ends with a "nthropomorphism".
I agreed that God "decreed" Adam's sin in only one way - what was that, Einstein? (Hint, it was by creating man with the knowledge that Adam would sin and by allowing Adam the freedom to sin).

But you are right. You have been nothing if not "consistent".

Do you believe God infallibly decreed and not merely permitted Adam to Fall but not to Sin?

 

[JonC]

True. I hold to this. But I can't absolve God if He infallibly decreed the Fall. Adam was not free because God's decrees are irresistible. At the very appointed time he was to Fall, he had to fall

I know this is your position. I told you before that I enjoy learning other people's beliefs, and knowing them from the other person's perspective (which is the only way you can really understand another belief).

I read a few of Basiger's articles challenging the traditional concept of God back in the 90's. I don't know your age, but I don't think that the position was as popular back then (but I don't know, we are always prone to measure things by our own setting). He was professor of philosophy at Roberts Wesleyan College. He wrote “The Case for Freewill Theism”. I believe that that book may help your arguments here (at least in the logic of your arguments….I know you know what you believe).

The quote that you affirm as your belief, however, was from "The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God". This is why I hinted that you may affirm that position. Both books are well written (although I think the latter makes several unsupported assumptions...it is, though, more a collection of essays by open theists).

Mine are hard copies, but I think both are available in e-format if you are interested.

 

[JonC]

Do you believe God infallibly decreed and not merely permitted Adam to Fall but not to Sin?

I believe that "nothing comes to pass unless the Lord commands it". Do you believe that?

 

[Agent47]

I know this is your position. I told you before that I enjoy learning other people's beliefs, and knowing them from the other person's perspective (which is the only way you can really understand another belief).

I read a few of Basiger's articles challenging the traditional concept of God back in the 90's. I don't know your age, but I don't think that the position was as popular back then (but I don't know, we are always prone to measure things by our own setting). He was professor of philosophy at Roberts Wesleyan College. He wrote “The Case for Freewill Theism”. I believe that that book may help your arguments here (at least in the logic of your arguments….I know you know what you believe).

The quote that you affirm as your belief, however, was from "The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God". This is why I hinted that you may affirm that position. Both books are well written (although I think the latter makes several unsupported assumptions...it is, though, more a collection of essays by open theists).

Mine are hard copies, but I think both are available in e-format if you are interested.

I'll try and get them. Thank you sir.

It's 0716H Sunday morning. Time for fellowship.


I really appreciate your energy and approach to debate sir. I've learnt a lot.

If I don't respond in the next 8hrs, please bear with me.

 

[JonC]

I'll try and get them. Thank you sir.

It's 0716H Sunday morning. Time for fellowship.


I really appreciate your energy and approach to debate sir. I've learnt a lot.

If I don't respond in the next 8hrs, please bear with me.

Thanks, I've also enjoyed our conversation (even though it may not always seem so). You've helped me revisit and work on a few things I've been neglecting on this topic.

You will make it back before me. My son is going down tomorrow to talk to present himself for baptism (to be baptized next Sunday). He has been wrestling with being baptized for about 6 months (he was baptized when he was younger, but believes it was because of his friends and wants to be baptized as a believer). Have a wonderful fellowship and time of worship. I'm going to bed.

 

[Agent47]

I believe that "nothing comes to pass unless the Lord commands it". Do you believe that?

Yes I do. As much as the Lord repents over what He commands

You were unambiguous in another thread; God decreed the Fall, but permitted Adam's disobedience. Look, if you are somewhat embarrassed of this,won't bring yourself to repeat it, you may change your mind.

Blessed Lord's Day sir

 

[JonC]

Yes I do. As much as the Lord repents over what He commands

You were unambiguous in another thread; God decreed the Fall, but permitted Adam's disobedience. Look, if you are somewhat embarrassed of this,won't bring yourself to repeat it, you may change your mind.

Blessed Lord's Day sir

Ah...caught me just as I was about to leave. "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in" .

I may not have been the most articulate, but I was not being unambiguous.

In Proverbs we read that man controls his intent, his plans, and his will. But those same passages tell us that God controls the action, how those things materialize (if they do). And God tempts no one to sin, but sin comes about when we are tempted by our own lusts, and our lusts gives birth to sin (sin is not merely an action, it is an intent).

So what I am trying to tell you is that there is nothing that occurs that is not a part of God's "decree"/ "eternal counsel"/ "eternal purpose". God's plan for Creation did not change with the Fall. The "plan" was always redemption and a New Creation. So Adam's sin was a component in God's plan (it did not fall outside of God's use in bringing about this New Creation of which Scripture speaks). But God did not "cause" Adam to sin. It is not a hard concept to grasp. God's purposes is being fulfilled, but God does not cause sin itself.

 

[Alcott]

Scripture says one must accept the gospel to be saved; not that one must reject it to be lost. That may be a difficult teaching for this topic, and even more so about baby/child unbelievers topic.

 

[JonC]

Scripture says one must accept the gospel to be saved; not that one must reject it to be lost. That may be a difficult teaching for this topic, and even more so about baby/child unbelievers topic.

It seems that way, but I don't know why it is (at least for this topic). The lost are already condemned for rejecting Christ (God manifested and evidenced to them apart from the gospel). John 3 is very clear about this, but it seems to be all but ignored so far on this thread.

 

[Agent47]

A
So what I am trying to tell you is that there is nothing that occurs that is not a part of God's "decree"/ "eternal counsel"/ "eternal purpose".

I think the implication of what you said has hit you.

Again, you were categorical that God decreed and not permitted the Fall.

You equally denied God decreeing Adam's sin/disobedience; you insist it was permitted.

Clearly in your belief set there is a distinction between 'permitted' and 'decreed'. Attempting to obfuscate this by redefining the terms is dishonest. I know well what is a decree. I also know what is permission.

But.If you wish, we can play this game.

Did God decree Adam's Fall?
If yes,explain what it means that God decreed Adam's Fall

 

[Agent47]

Scripture says one must accept the gospel to be saved; not that one must reject it to be lost. That may be a difficult teaching for this topic, and even more so about baby/child unbelievers topic.

Were all those who died before the gospel lost?

 

[Alcott]

Were all those who died before the gospel lost?

If they weren't, and therefore there IS another way to be saved, would God have had his own son in the flesh killed?

 

[Agent47]

If they weren't, and therefore there IS another way to be saved, would God have had his own son in the flesh killed?

So Moses is in hell?

 

[JonC]

I think the implication of what you said has hit you.

Again, you were categorical that God decreed and not permitted the Fall.

You equally denied God decreeing Adam's sin/disobedience; you insist it was permitted.

Clearly in your belief set there is a distinction between 'permitted' and 'decreed'. Attempting to obfuscate this by redefining the terms is dishonest. I know well what is a decree. I also know what is permission.

But.If you wish, we can play this game.

Did God decree Adam's Fall?
If yes,explain what it means that God decreed Adam's Fall

No, the implication of what I said has always been the same here. This is why I gave you specifics instead of a "Yes" or "No" answer to your questions (although it seems you have applied my answers to your presuppositions).

As I said before, and will say again, the Fall was in accord with God's eternal purposes. Scripture is clear on this, so I do not see why we need to go 'round and 'round here. What part of nothing is given action without God's command or decree do you reject (what part of Lamentations 3 do you find man's opinion rather than God's Word)?

I did not redefine terms. I used Scripture to define "decree" (literally....I gave you Scripture to define the term....yet you say this is "redefining".....that alone should give you a hint of how far you are drifting into your own theological biases). Your rejection of that definition in favor of what ever "floats your boat", well, that is not my problem.

The game we are playing is tiptoeing around your view because you want to reject where your logic leads you. Calvinism looks to these things as predestined as God "decreeing" in terms of causing them to occur in time according to His plan (Beza) or inherently a part of Creation and therefore God's plan (Edwards). Arminianism affirms predestination but bases it on divine pre-knowledge, with some events necessary and others contingent...but all certain. You, however, affirm the "Open Model" as defined by Basinger. The only difference seems to be you are unwilling to admit that God cannot know the outcome of contingent future events and your logic remain intact.

 

[Alcott]

So Moses is in hell?

I don't think so, but that's another gospel somersault. Moses was not perfect, unquestionably. So there had to be a sacrifice-- a shedding of blood sacrifice-- without which thee is no forgiveness for sins. Then in Hebrews 10 it is made clear that animal sacrifices could never atone for sin, but they just looked forward to the real blood sacrifice that could. So, it would seem that Moses developed a complex system of temple worship and sacrifice that cold not achieve its purpose. Surely it took grace for Moses to be chosen, and faith on his part to do all this... and that's how we're saved.

 

[Agent47]

I don't think so, but that's another gospel somersault. Moses was not perfect, unquestionably. So there had to be a sacrifice-- a shedding of blood sacrifice-- without which thee is no forgiveness for sins. Then in Hebrews 10 it is made clear that animal sacrifices could never atone for sin, but they just looked forward to the real blood sacrifice that could. So, it would seem that Moses developed a complex system of temple worship and sacrifice that cold not achieve its purpose. Surely it took grace for Moses to be chosen, and faith on his part to do all this... and that's how we're saved.

Saved outside the cross

 

[Agent47]

No, the implication of what I said has always been the same here. This is why I gave you specifics instead of a "Yes" or "No" answer to your questions (although it seems you have applied my answers to your presuppositions).

As I said before, and will say again, the Fall was in accord with God's eternal purposes. Scripture is clear on this, so I do not see why we need to go 'round and 'round here. What part of nothing is given action without God's command or decree do you reject (what part of Lamentations 3 do you find man's opinion rather than God's Word)?

I did not redefine terms. I used Scripture to define "decree" (literally....I gave you Scripture to define the term....yet you say this is "redefining".....that alone should give you a hint of how far you are drifting into your own theological biases). Your rejection of that definition in favor of what ever "floats your boat", well, that is not my problem.

The game we are playing is tiptoeing around your view because you want to reject where your logic leads you. Calvinism looks to these things as predestined as God "decreeing" in terms of causing them to occur in time according to His plan (Beza) or inherently a part of Creation and therefore God's plan (Edwards). Arminianism affirms predestination but bases it on divine pre-knowledge, with some events necessary and others contingent...but all certain. You, however, affirm the "Open Model" as defined by Basinger. The only difference seems to be you are unwilling to admit that God cannot know the outcome of contingent future events and your logic remain intact.

You write so much, say so little. I know why; theological and verbal circus is necessary to salvage Calvinism. It's never salvaged but verbiage gives a semblance of such.

God decreed in eternity to Elect you through the gospel

1. Offers His son,
2. Positions you to hear the gospel
3. Regenerates you
4. Irresistibly draws you to him
5. You are saved
6. Once saved he preserves you to the grave.

The purpose,intent of the mind of God is deliberately pursued to certainty. You have no qualms ascribing Election to him. In fact you shudder at the mere suggestion that you had a role in it.


You claim.He decreed Adam to Fall.How did he do it?

 

[JonC]

You write so much, say so little. I know why.

God decreed to Elect you. Did he in the same manner decree Adam to Fall?

I do believe that God saved me. I also believe that the Fall was a part of God's "eternal purpose".

Think of what you are denying by rejecting this. You are denying that Christ is the "Lamb slain before the foundation of the earth" because you are denying that God planned on the Fall before Creation.

Since you reject the Fall and the redemption of man as a part of God's purposes, how do you reconcile Psalm 22 (which was written centuries before the crucifixion) with the events of the Cross? Was it just a lucky guess on God's part? Or do you believe someone the Psalm to be pseudohistory?