The conflicted Calvinist

[HisWitness]

Well, it depends on what you mean by control. Did Jonah try to flee from God on a ship? Yes. Did God cause a great storm so that the sailors would throw him overboard, and prepare a whale to swallow him? Yes.

So, God absolutely made sure that Jonah went to Nineveh and preached. Nevertheless, Jonah gave God a hard time and was very rebellious. He did not go when he was first told and fled on a boat. And even after God had the whale swallow him and spit him up, Jonah was angry and complained the whole time. He was more concerned with a gourd than the many people who lived in Nineveh.

So, we see Jonah acting on his own in rebellion to God, yet God made sure he went to Nineveh and preached. So, we see the free will of man, and God bringing his purpose to pass at the same time.

But it sure would have been easier if Jonah had listened the first time. :thumbsup:

well thats just it God doesnt control mankind to run away from him--but while man is running to prepare and make a way of man's return.that is what's meant by control--even in man's disobedience--God controls the circumstances and events to have man come to obedience.

 

[Winman]

in the case of a religeous sinner--he returns the wallet that he might be made known as a righteous man in the eyes of the people--for he loves the glory of man.

And how is that different from a saved person? If I found a wallet (and I actually have on 3 different occasions), I would return it because I know that is what God wants me to do and that would please him.

The unsaved person is trying to please God as well. How is that one bit different from me?

Now, I do not believe returning that wallet will save me, while the unsaved person might, but nevertheless, I am trying to please God just like the sinner.

So even Christians have selfish motives.

 

[HisWitness]

And how is that different from a saved person? If I found a wallet (and I actually have on 3 different occasions), I would return it because I know that is what God wants me to do and that would please him.

The unsaved person is trying to please God as well. How is that one bit different from me?

Now, I do not believe returning that wallet will save me, while the unsaved person might, but nevertheless, I am trying to please God just like the sinner.

So even Christians have selfish motives.

Saved returns the wallet because they love God and want to please him and be right with their fellowman.or it should be anyway

unsaved returns the wallet trying to please God with their works and trying to appear good in the eyes of man to have man's glory--This kind of work is wickedness--for the scripture sayeth that all of unsaved man's Righteousness is as filthy rags in the eyes of God.

 

[Winman]

Saved returns the wallet because they love God and want to please him and be right with their fellowman.or it should be anyway

unsaved returns the wallet trying to please God with their works and trying to appear good in the eyes of man to have man's glory--This kind of work is wickedness--for the scripture sayeth that all of unsaved man's Righteousness is as filthy rags in the eyes of God.

You misunderstand that scripture. It is not saying that doing good is evil, if that were so, all laws would be nonsensical. If it is just as evil to tell the truth as it is to lie, then what purpose does any law serve?

The scripture says it is our sins that have carried us away, not the good things we do.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

No garment starts out filthy. You may be wearing filthy rags right now, but originally your clothing was new and clean. No leaf starts out brown, withered and dead, but ALL leaves originally are green, tender, and alive.

It is our sin that mars and dirties our garment, it is our iniquities that takes us away.

Telling a lie is not a sin. It will not earn salvation, because the wages of sin is death, but telling the truth is right and good.

This view that good is evil is nonsensical. In your view, there is no such thing as good for the unsaved, everything is evil. This is an extreme and non-scriptural view, Jesus said sinners can do good.

Luk 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.


Jesus knows what true good is, and he said "sinners" do good. Yes, it is better to be good to those that hate you, nevertheless, it is good to do good to those who do good to you.

You have fallen for a false argument.

 

[quantumfaith]

Saved returns the wallet because they love God and want to please him and be right with their fellowman.or it should be anyway

unsaved returns the wallet trying to please God with their works and trying to appear good in the eyes of man to have man's glory--This kind of work is wickedness--for the scripture sayeth that all of unsaved man's Righteousness is as filthy rags in the eyes of God.

HW, I just simply have a difficult time here with your analysis

1. Often, I think, even one who is a member of the household of faith does noble things with selfish motives or impure motives, such as the accolades of others.

2. Some, outside of the household of faith, can and do....do noble things out of pure altruistic motives.

I don't think it is quite as "digital" as you make it out to be.

 

[Luke2427]

HW, I just simply have a difficult time here with your analysis

1. Often, I think, even one who is a member of the household of faith does noble things with selfish motives or impure motives, such as the accolades of others.

2. Some, outside of the household of faith, can and do....do noble things out of pure altruistic motives.

I don't think it is quite as "digital" as you make it out to be.

I agree with your first statement.

As to your second statement, we need further clarification.

What do you mean by altruistic?

The Bible is not unclear on this matter. WHATSOEVER is not done in faith is SIN.

NO SINNER does ANYTHING for the proper motive, that being the glory of God.

Paul said, "I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwells NO good thing."

This is why Proverbs states that even "The plowing of the wicked is abomination."

When the motive is not the glory of God, it is sin. When the deed does not come from a heart of faith, it is sin. Everything.

Romans 3 is not ambiguous here: among the masses of unregenerate humanity, "There is NONE that does good, no, not one."

 

[quantumfaith]

I agree with your first statement.

As to your second statement, we need further clarification.

What do you mean by altruistic?

The Bible is not unclear on this matter. WHATSOEVER is not done in faith is SIN.

NO SINNER does ANYTHING for the proper motive, that being the glory of God.

Paul said, "I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwells NO good thing."

This is why Proverbs states that even "The plowing of the wicked is abomination."

When the motive is not the glory of God, it is sin. When the deed does not come from a heart of faith, it is sin. Everything.

Romans 3 is not ambiguous here: among the masses of unregenerate humanity, "There is NONE that does good, no, not one."

By statement 2, I simply mean that there are times when individuals do things entirely devoid of an intrinsic or extrinsic reward or value.

 

[Skandelon]

Skan, I understood your argument, and it makes perfect sense. If a Calvinist believes that God determines what a person believes, then it is nonsensical to try to correct it. Simple.

True. More than that, according to their belief even their correction has been determined by God. So, they have God determining beliefs that God is determining to correct. Thus, its not making THEM nonsensical, they are just the vessel, it makes God nonsensical.

 

[Skandelon]

Why is it "God in vessel __________"

I author a book in which I ordain EVERYTHING that comes to pass.

I write that Superman rebukes Lex Luthor for stealing uranium.

That does not have ME, the author, doing this. It has me, the author, determining that Superman do it.

So, you changed the analogy from God determining vessels to God determining characters in a book and you think you've avoided the charge being brought against your view???

It simply does not follow that the Creator, because he has ordained all that comes to pass, HAS TO BE THE ONE WHO IS ACTUALLY DOING EVERYTHING.

It is non sequitur.

Hate to keep pulling back up old conversations, but wasn't it you that argued that God does the deed but because he does it for the right motives it is not evil?

Your argument has been that God IS DOING EVERYTHING, but its not evil because he does it for a good motive and now you are saying that view is a 'non sequitur.' I understand that people's views change and adapt over time, but when I speak to you I have to presume your view is the same unless you tell me otherwise, so which is it?

 

[jonathanD]

xI am the Lord, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
yI equip you, though you do not know me,
6 zthat people may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other.
7 I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and acreate calamity,
I am the Lord, who does all these things.

 

[Skandelon]

Not if evil is not a thing. I can will this room to be dark by turning off the light but that does not make me the author, in the sense of the creator, of darkness. Why? Because darkness is not a thing. It has no essence.

The intent to kill is a thing, Luke. The intent to rape, the intent to deceive, the intent to be my own God, the intent to eat a child, the intent to shoot up a school, the intent to fly a plane into a building are all THINGS that have COME TO PASS, so I don't see how this point holds any water.

Who first determined to kill Able? Cain or God? Did God originate that desire, create Cain to unchangeably have that desire so that he certainly would carry out the predetermined will of God? Is that your view, or not?

 

[Skandelon]

xI am the Lord, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
yI equip you, though you do not know me,
6 zthat people may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other.
7 I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and acreate calamity,
I am the Lord, who does all these things.

Amen. Hopefully you are fully aware of the differences between darkness/calamity and moral evil/sin. Most commentators draw that stark distinction in this passage, so I can only hope that you do as well.

 

[jonathanD]

Amen. Hopefully you are fully aware of the differences between darkness/calamity and moral evil/sin. Most commentators draw that stark distinction in this passage, so I can only hope that you do as well.

I'd be very interested in their justification and explanation of a STARK distinction. I think the point of the text stands either way.

What I can't get my head around is how those with an arminian soteriology affirm a perfectly effective creator with exhaustive foreknowledge, but affirm a libertarian view of freedom.

At least Bell, Boyd, and Paget are consistent.

 

[Skandelon]

I'd be very interested in their justification and explanation of a STARK distinction. I think the point of the text stands either way.

You think the point is the same either way? It is the same to say that God creates darkness and God creates moral evil? What of His Holiness?

I think you'll find that even among the Reformed scholars you have little support for such claims regarding this passage. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but its not the most accepted or orthodox of views. ...but to each his own, I guess.

What I can't get my head around is how those with an arminian soteriology affirm a perfectly effective creator with exhaustive foreknowledge, but affirm a libertarian view of freedom.

Well, to dive into that can of worms we would first need to define what you think exhaustive foreknowledge entails/means and what you think libertarian freedom is, as those terms themselves are widely debated.

 

[HisWitness]

HW, I just simply have a difficult time here with your analysis

1. Often, I think, even one who is a member of the household of faith does noble things with selfish motives or impure motives, such as the accolades of others.

2. Some, outside of the household of faith, can and do....do noble things out of pure altruistic motives.

I don't think it is quite as "digital" as you make it out to be.

i did say or it should be on the first staement that leaves room for what you stated.

 

[jonathanD]

You think the point is the same either way? It is the same to say that God creates darkness and God creates moral evil? What of His Holiness?

Yes, the point that he is entirely sovereign and nothing happens outside of his reign is still the same.

You would surely agree that God knew what each creature would do at the moment of creation. To put it simply, he is not surprised. Surely you would also agree that he COULD have created them in such a way that they would do differently. I'm sure you'll say, "not without violating their freedom."

So, freedom then is the just cause for God's allowance of evil?

 

[Winman]

Yes, the point that he is entirely sovereign and nothing happens outside of his reign is still the same.

You would surely agree that God knew what each creature would do at the moment of creation. To put it simply, he is not surprised. Surely you would also agree that he COULD have created them in such a way that they would do differently. I'm sure you'll say, "not without violating their freedom."

So, freedom then is the just cause for God's allowance of evil?

I don't know what Skan believes on this matter, but I believe God HAD to give men free will. God is love, and by his nature he cannot enslave anyone, but must give every man free will. This makes sin necessary, it cannot be avoided. This is what Jesus said.

Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

There is much truth in this verse if a person studies it out. Jesus says "Woe unto the world because of offenses" showing man alone is responsible for sin. We know from scripture that God does not tempt any man to sin.

Jesus then says "it must needs be that offences come". I believe God MUST give men free will, therefore sin is necessary and cannot be avoided. The only way sin could be avoided would be not to create us, or to kill us before we could sin. But if God desires a relationship with us, he must permit the possibility of sin. So sin is necessary, even for God.

But then Jesus clearly says "Woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!". This clearly shows that sin originates in the man himself and not with God. Yes, God knows what men will do and allows sin for a season, but in the end God will judge every man according to his works. In the meantime, God is patient and longsuffering, desiring that every man comes to repentance.

 

[jonathanD]

I don't know what Skan believes on this matter, but I believe God HAD to give men free will. God is love, and by his nature he cannot enslave anyone, but must give every man free will. This makes sin necessary, it cannot be avoided. This is what Jesus said.

That's a stretch in my mind...and is certainly inference and not explicit in the text. Paul was a slave to Christ. The list of those who were slaves to the flesh is quite long.

This also assumes that an omnipotent God COULD NOT create men who would freely choose him without exception. Why not?

 

[Winman]

That's a stretch in my mind...and is certainly inference and not explicit in the text. Paul was a slave to Christ. The list of those who were slaves to the flesh is quite long.

This also assumes that an omnipotent God COULD NOT create men who would freely choose him without exception. Why not?

Jesus said "it must needs be that offences come". That is not inference, but a direct statement of fact. Jesus said it is necessary that sins come.

As far as Paul, I believe Paul was a willing servant.

Acts 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

Paul resisted the gospel for a long time. But once he realized Jesus truly was Lord, he was very willing to serve him. There is no compulsion implied here, in fact, Paul later said he was "obedient" to the vision which implies he could have disobeyed if he so chose to do so.

Acts 26:19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

Why would Paul make a point of not being disobedient if it was not possible?

And it is a contradiction to say God could make men free without the possibility of choosing against him. If a man has no choice he is not free.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I don't know what Skan believes on this matter, but I believe God HAD to give men free will. God is love, and by his nature he cannot enslave anyone, but must give every man free will. This makes sin necessary, it cannot be avoided. This is what Jesus said.

Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

There is much truth in this verse if a person studies it out. Jesus says "Woe unto the world because of offenses" showing man alone is responsible for sin. We know from scripture that God does not tempt any man to sin.

Jesus then says "it must needs be that offences come". I believe God MUST give men free will, therefore sin is necessary and cannot be avoided. The only way sin could be avoided would be not to create us, or to kill us before we could sin. But if God desires a relationship with us, he must permit the possibility of sin. So sin is necessary, even for God.

But then Jesus clearly says "Woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!". This clearly shows that sin originates in the man himself and not with God. Yes, God knows what men will do and allows sin for a season, but in the end God will judge every man according to his works. In the meantime, God is patient and longsuffering, desiring that every man comes to repentance.

This is a very good post.