Why...

[David Lamb]

David --- No. You asked what I meant by "other texts." I didn't say you believed them. I merely cited a couple and said that people are drawn in.

In that case, I apologise for the misunderstanding. I suppose I was thinking back to your OP, where you wrote of those who

"...are relying on "the knowledge and faith of Calvinism." It is quite obvious that some are not using their own, God-given discernment of scripture but are relying on teachers of scripture."​

I agree it happens on both sides (thought I wrote it the first time but maybe not). Anyway, I was only responding to your question.

Again, apologies! But again, what you seem to me to have been saying (and of course I could be mistaken) is that those who believe the "Doctrines of Grace" must be wrong because they must be relying on works by mere men, such as Calvin, rather than (or in addition to) the bible. I was trying to explain that although men have written books, formulated statements of faith, etc., based on those doctrines, that doesn't mean that people believing those doctrines base their belief on those men's works.

Not sure I follow. Are you saying it was God's choice that the Jews or Romans kill Jesus rather than Him claim His kingdom at that time? Because I find Jesus saying "How many times would I have gathered you as a hen..." and the point where He said it being just one of those times. So wasn't rejection of the kingdom out of God's hands and against His will and just the first indication that God wouldn't have His will be done, at least not yet?

The phrase "by the determinate purpose and foreknowledge of God" seems fairly clear that it was God's choice. And in Luke 22.22, we have Jesus saying:

"And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!"​

In view of my previous misunderstandings, I'll ask rather than comment about your phrase, "rather than Him claim His kingdom at that time." Do you mean that you believe that "His kingdom" is the Jews? (Probably a subject for another thread

I'd have to think about whether His will was according to foreknowledge or predestination. Same issue with Adam. Did God purpose for Adam to fall or not? He had to "change His mind" and curse the perfect earth He had just made for Adam. In both cases, it seems to me He foresaw something that changed His initial plan.

Unless the English translation is mistaken, the words say, "by the determinate purpose and foreknowledge of God"; it is not a case of one or the other. As for God changing His mind, I cannot agree, for in the bible we find that salvation of sinners was planned by God before He even made the world. Peter says to Christians in 1 Peter 1.18-21

18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers,
19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
21 who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God​

There are other references too which indicate that salvation and the need for it did not involve God "changing His mind," for example: Ephesians 1.4, Ephesians 3.11, 2 Timothy 1.9, Titus 1.2.

If God planned salvation from from before the foundation of the earth, then He would have had to "change His mind" about sending His Son into the world to die for sinners, if the Fall had not been in His purpose, and if Adam had not sinned.

If God's initial plan included salvation and a Saviour (and the scriptures I have mentioned say it did), then there was no mind-changing on His part.

I don't believe I said that. I meant that some doctrines teach that God withholds the truth from some -- the non-elect who can't "hear." And if we believe and teach those doctrines, we are preaching the word of God.

Sorry yet again. I was only going by these words in your earlier post: "Isn't this what we should strive for in this forum? not to "restrict" salvation either in mind or in practice by any human creed but to bring the gospel to ALL".

Well, the idea with Oedipus would have been that, if he was saved, he was "saved" by "fate" -- by the decision of some god that he would be saved and not by any volition or will on his part. Is that you?

Definitely not. I believe what the apostles said to the Philippian gaoler, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved". (Acts 16.31). There is a balance in Scripture between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Jesus expressed it in John 6.37, 39 & 44:

"37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.
39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."​

And in his letter to the Christians at Ephesus, Paul tells them that even their faith is a gift from God. Ephesians 2.8:

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.​

Well, I just found that out again today on the golf course. raying: I tell you, you can get under conviction so much that it is like your flesh refuses to do right!

skypair

Just so. That's the sort of thing Paul had in mind in Romans 7.19 (and surrounding verses):

For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.​

I don't think he played golf, though! :laugh:

 

[David Lamb]

So even God doesn't have free will? "Bound" by His nature? OK -- BIG problem! If God is "bound," then there is a higher authority than He is. If God is not "free," then neither is man, I will grant you. To what fate is God bound, BTW?

Yes, God is "bound" by His nature, but not in any limitting way, and certainly not by any hypothetical "higher authority". God is a God of truth, so He cannot lie. He is perfectly holy, so He cannot sin. He is a God of order, not of chaos, so He cannot say one day that we can only come to Him through His Son, then the next day, "I've changed my mind today. You have to believe on Oedipus (or Thor, or Ra, or.....) before you can come to Me." I said that God is bound but not in a limitting way, for as we read in Isaiah 46.9-10:

9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’​

 

[skypair]

The phrase "by the determinate purpose and foreknowledge of God" seems fairly clear that it was God's choice. And in Luke 22.22, we have Jesus saying:

"And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!"​

Both predestination and free will are scriptural. It is up to us to discern how they apply and interact in God's plan.

I find the key passage is Rom 8:29-31 which has been discussed ad nauseum, right. But basically God foreknew -- then He predestined believers and foreordained all things. Now looking back, some say God wasn't/couldn't first just foresee our acceptance or rejection of Christ. Why not? That would support the notion that we have free will, for one thing.

They say that God foreknowing was actually Him making us who we would be predestining every event and then foreordaining His entore plan.

As I am discussing with Larry, this means that we have 2 "gods" -- one of "free will" and one of "fate." In ancient cultures, we would have been fine with that (witness the totem pole). In those days (even up to the end of the Reformation) it was more important, men felt, to have a unified society than to understand Who true God was. Today within a religion that only allows one God, we are denominating Him according to the "God" we believe in.


That is, we don't have the problem of the "wheat and tares" which is OT Israel. We have the problem of the "mustard tree." From one seed, Christ, we have one trunk, Christianity, numerous "branches," denominations, and "birds," demonic spirits, are flocking to many of these branches! We are thus united in salvation (Eph 4:3) throughout many denoms (as Rev 2-3 avers) but we cannot seem to get united in one knowledge and faith of Christ (Eph 4:13).

What is the reason for the branches in the first place? To serve the function of "restrainer!" So that the true church would never merge with the harlot, Babylon religion in Rome! And the Protestant/Reform was the first major working of the Spirit against the "mystery of iniquity" branch.

But this is where Reform comes in -- though they found a different God, they ended up defining Him as God only of fate and grace (overreaction to RCC God of free will and works). He's BOTH, David! We see BOTH in scriptures! "Having a name that liveth but art dead" (Rev 3:1) isn't that much progress from the "God of idols" and Jezebel that they left.

In view of my previous misunderstandings, I'll ask rather than comment about your phrase, "rather than Him claim His kingdom at that time." Do you mean that you believe that "His kingdom" is the Jews? (Probably a subject for another thread

His coming kingdom and the one He offered at the time was with Israel "reigning" over the world but serving Him. This is the manner by which they would be a "blessing to the Gentiles nations of the world" as promised to Abraham, etal. Roles would have been reversed. They would have brought salvation to us rather than we to them.

Unless the English translation is mistaken, the words say, "by the determinate purpose and foreknowledge of God";...

And it is hard to distinguish looking backward, which came first -- foreknowledge or determinant purpose. Like I said, the only passage I know of that teaches the order explicitly is Rom 8:29-31.

it is not a case of one or the other.

Right. Neither God of fate nor God of free will but of both.

As for God changing His mind, I cannot agree, for in the bible we find that salvation of sinners was planned by God before He even made the world. Peter says to Christians in 1 Peter 1.18-21

And also in scripture we find that "God of free will AND FATE" changed His mind regarding the flood, the destruction of Lot, the death of Hezekiah, the gathering of Israel as a hen, destroying Nineveh, etc. Why? Determinate purpose OR foreknowledge and mercy? Both -- foreknowledge and then, explaining His own "changed mind," foreordination to have mercy.

20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you​

Yes, but can you see that by explaining it this way, we are not made privey to the process of "foreordination" -- we are supposed to find and to understand that information elsewhere.

There are other references too which indicate that salvation and the need for it did not involve God "changing His mind," for example: Ephesians 1.4, Ephesians 3.11, 2 Timothy 1.9, Titus 1.2.

Yes, indicating that He won't change His mind regarding the salvation of even one saint -- at least not after He changes His mind to save them based upon their BELIEF!

If God planned salvation from from before the foundation of the earth, then He would have had to "change His mind" about sending His Son into the world to die for sinners, if the Fall had not been in His purpose, and if Adam had not sinned.

No, actually the scenario you offer would be that God couldn't FORESEE how to integrate His plan in a world where He had let man have personal sovereignty and make sovereign choices. Do you think God can't "see?"

If God's initial plan included salvation and a Saviour (and the scriptures I have mentioned say it did), then there was no mind-changing on His part.

Right, none in the "course of time." The "course of time" is for "calling, justifying, glorifying" IAW Rom 8:30-31, right? Changing His mind was done in the process of "foreknow-foreordain" -- what I would call the "free will-fate" process God being the God of both, not just one or the other (Cal. vs Arm.) as Calvinism tries to make it. Do you see that paradigm creates 2 "Gods" out of One?

Definitely not. I believe what the apostles said to the Philippian gaoler, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved". (Acts 16.31). There is a balance in Scripture between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Jesus expressed it in John 6.37, 39 & 44:

"37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me [FREE WILL], and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out [FATE]. ."​

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry, you are already NOT getting what Eph 4:3 and 4:13 say. Eph 4:3 says we are already UNITED in Christ if we are saved. Eph 4:13 says we need to grow in "unity" of what our "knowledge and faith" means!

No, I get it. But unity is based on what we believe. Our lack of common belief on some things means that our unity and fellowship is limited.

So even God doesn't have free will? "Bound" by His nature? OK -- BIG problem! If God is "bound," then there is a higher authority than He is. If God is not "free," then neither is man, I will grant you.

I think the big problem is your misunderstanding. God is his nature. God is what his attributes are. That is not a higher authority at all. That is simply God.

To what fate is God bound, BTW?

I don’t know. You would have to ask someone who believes in fate.

Which "will" you now admit is neither free in God nor in man, right?

No, it is free. It is free to do anything that is in accordance with the nature.

Do you still feel this? Like I have said before, does God not sin because He can't or because He won't (WILL not)? God could sin. It is transparently obvious that Christ could have sinned but didn't. It is YOUR notion of free will that is flawed.

You are incorrect. God “cannot sin.” It is impossible because it is contrary to his nature. The Bible plainly declares this through statements such as “God is light” and statements such as “impossible for God to lie.” Neither could Christ have sinned.

And so deceased babies go to hell. Or just some of them go to hell because some are "elect" without believing. I know -- we been there before. And that makes sense to you.

I didn’t say it made sense. I said it is what Scripture seems to teach.

And most get NO chance to be saved. That's also "Greek mythology."

I didn’t find it in Greek mythology, and I wouldn’t say that most have no chance to be saved. The Bible tells us that man knows God exists and chooses not to believe.

"One Lord..." Are we going to get past this to "one faith?" Either He is like YOUR "Greek god" of FATE or my Christian God of FREE WILL, wouldn't you agree??

No, I don’t agree at all since I don’t worship a “Greek god of fate.” That is plainly disingenuous for you to say. Incidentally it continues to prove what I have said all along that you simply do not know what you are talking about. You have decided what we believe and nothing will persuade you to the contrary.

Either some babies are saved without believing OR they at some point will be able to exeercise their free will IAW every human being that was ever born, right? Fate or free will.

No, not right.

Do you not see that the God you describe, despite your protests, is a God who predestines everything? IF He predestines everything, then all man has is fate.

You are wrong.

But no. We can't decide or do that on our own, Larry. We cannot even be like a "light switch" turning glory on and off. If all is fate/God, then the sin we will to do after we are saved is "of God" as well as the good that we "decide" to do.

Here you are just plain confused again. The fact that we do what God has decreed does not mean we were forced to do it or had no choice. We have explained this many times and you simply choose not to believe what we say. I presume it is easier to make your false accusations rather than simply disagree.

Oedipus' god was a god of FATE!!

That is something you will have to take up with Oedipus. As a biblical theologian, I am not greatly concerned by that.

Basically, the god Calvin describes is using us, even us believers, as "pawns" on a chessboard! He is just moving us at His whim and for His glory and that is the impression SATAN wants you to get (similar to the one he gave Eve) -- of a self-centered God who has already "picked" His "elite"/"elect" and even they have no options but His will.

This is not Calvinism. You don’t get to make up your own facts. Why would you even say this? At some point, Skypair, I would think you would catch on to the fact that you do not know what you are talking about and you would stop posting this nonsense. Why don’t you?

At some point, we have to recognize that you do not appear to share some fundamental values like honesty and integrity. I can find no other reason why you would continue to say stuff that is false, that you have been told is false, that you have had explained to you. Why would you repeat it when you know it is false?

I don't care whether you agree with me or not. You are welcome to believe what you want. But how in the world will you gain unity with someone you insist on lying about? I don't get that. I think it is wrong. and I think it is shameful.

 

[npetreley]

Neither could Christ have sinned.

I don't mean to derail the thread, but I'm glad you said that. I know others who believe that satan's temptation was meaningless unless Christ could sin. But I disagree. I agree with you that Jesus could not have sinned.

 

[TC]

Things I learned from this thread.

If a Calvinist writes a book it is horrible because it causes people to trust in man's wisdom instead of God's word. But if a Freewiller writes a book, it's ok because it is what I believe.

If you read a Calvinist's book, you are trusting in man and not in God. But if you read a Freewiller's book, it's ok because it is what I believe.

If you are a Calvinist then you trust Calvin (even if you have never read his writings) over God. If you are Freewill then you trust God no matter how many free will authors you may have read because that is what I believe.

If you are growing in the knowledge and faith of Jesus Christ you will become Freewill. If you do not become Freewill then you are just not growing because I say so.

 

[npetreley]

Things I learned from this thread.

If a Calvinist writes a book it is horrible because it causes people to trust in man's wisdom instead of God's word. But if a Freewiller writes a book, it's ok because it is what I believe.

If you read a Calvinist's book, you are trusting in man and not in God. But if you read a Freewiller's book, it's ok because it is what I believe.

If you are a Calvinist then you trust Calvin (even if you have never read his writings) over God. If you are Freewill then you trust God no matter how many free will authors you may have read because that is what I believe.

If you are growing in the knowledge and faith of Jesus Christ you will become Freewill. If you do not become Freewill then you are just not growing because I say so.

That was a pretty good abstract. :thumbs:

 

[Jarthur001]

Things I learned from this thread.

If a Calvinist writes a book it is horrible because it causes people to trust in man's wisdom instead of God's word. But if a Freewiller writes a book, it's ok because it is what I believe.

If you read a Calvinist's book, you are trusting in man and not in God. But if you read a Freewiller's book, it's ok because it is what I believe.

If you are a Calvinist then you trust Calvin (even if you have never read his writings) over God. If you are Freewill then you trust God no matter how many free will authors you may have read because that is what I believe.

If you are growing in the knowledge and faith of Jesus Christ you will become Freewill. If you do not become Freewill then you are just not growing because I say so.

Best post of the month along this debate line. I will help remind others of this slanted view sometime. Thanks.

 

[skypair]

No, I get it. But unity is based on what we believe. Our lack of common belief on some things means that our unity and fellowship is limited.

Right. But assuming we are saved, we have the same God, baptism, etc. -- we just need to know Him better.

I think the big problem is your misunderstanding.

Mine, but not yours.

God is his nature.

Because it can't be otherwise or because He won't be otherwise? You have this thing about "nature" that doesn't allow God to sin nor man to do good, right? In both cases, there is a "law of nature" overseeing the will. But in God's case, if there is a law that disallows God sinning, then by your description, it comes from a higher power than Him else He would have free will too.

In man, you reckon such sin nature and man's inability to not sin to be from God, right? Apparently in your paradigm (though you may not have seen it), God has a nature that He CAN'T sin -- He has no free will either. Perhaps He too is a victim of fate. Fate just merely means that we have no choices or if we exercise them, there is no cause and effect relationship with the outcomes.

No, it is free. It is free to do anything that is in accordance with the nature.

That pretty much puts a pretty bow on Calvinisn, doesn't it? Calling "nature," not God, the determinant. We've already agreed that man can be relieved of that nature -- why not God of His?

You are incorrect. God “cannot sin.” It is impossible because it is contrary to his nature. The Bible plainly declares this through statements such as “God is light” and statements such as “impossible for God to lie.” Neither could Christ have sinned.

So in your thology, Jesus wasn't "in all ways tempted as we are yet without sin." Cause when we are tested, we have a choice to make. You say Jesus didn't though? Couldn't have bowed down to Satan and received the kingdoms of the world? Couldn't have called 10,000 angels to catch Him lest He break His foot? Couldn't turn stone to bread cause He is hungry? Or do you think Jesus wasn't God?

Perhaps you would agree that God won't sin because He has given us His word to that effect and shown that He can keep His promises?

I didn’t say it [bqbies go to hell] made sense. I said it is what Scripture seems to teach.

Well then this is the first place where we can have unity of the knowledge of Christ -- babies are NOT condemned, Larry. Not by the Bible, not by God. They, like Adam before the fall, are INNOCENT and will have their chance to trust Christ following the resurrection of the just (Isa 49:20-23).

The reason I bring it up time and again is that if what I say is true, it destroys most of Calvinism. You no doubt detect that and yet cannot find or cannot admit the truth (not in your "nature" :laugh: ). You go with the "theology" of sin nature taught by Calvin rather than, IMO, the Bible. Ezek 18:20 is your answer as to whether sin passes from Adam unto all -- it doesn't. But it would destroy total inability to admit this "nature" and to say that natural men no longer can know good.

No, I don’t agree at all since I don’t worship a “Greek god of fate.” That is plainly disingenuous for you to say.

As we used to say at summer camp skit, "If it looks like poop, smells like poop, and tastes like poop -- it's poop alright!" Correct me at what point I am wrong concerning Calvinism on this but basically man can only do what is in his own nature unless God intervenes. God has a plan and His plans will be done, not ours.

Here's the big one in my mind: God doesn't change His mind/plan just because we pray. We could never see Elijah pray 3 times over the widow's dead son and that be the reason God restored his life. No. It was God's plan all along and God "made" Elijah respond that way to the boy's death. So all is fate. Like Sproul said (and I assume you would as well), "Praying doesn't change God's mind."

But here's one more bit of evidence for the "God of fate" you say you don't worship --- even intervention is the "hand of fate."

But look -- show me something that doesn't happen because God planned it that way and because God changed His mind so I can start taking back what I said about you.

Incidentally it continues to prove what I have said all along that you simply do not know what you are talking about. You have decided what we believe and nothing will persuade you to the contrary.

I am convinced that your "mirror" is "dark." You do not see yourself as clearly as you think. And as you "look into a glass" (scripture), you are changed to what you think you see. I know my wife hates it when I don't like what she picks to wear sometimes. This is one of those issues.

Here you are just plain confused again. The fact that we do what God has decreed does not mean we were forced to do it or had no choice.

His decree" of condemnation of the lost is without choice on their part, is it not? The choice of the "elect" is only apparently by choice because they do something other than what they were doing. Again, so we are talking about the same thing --- "fate" means that even though we apparently choose, there is not one atom of God's plan for our lives or our destinies that we can change (whereas at this point, free will would say we can pray receiving salvation in Christ and it would change God's mind/plan regarding our destiny.). Do you believe this? Or would you like to take a stab at redefining "fate" for me so that it is NOT what you believe?

This is not Calvinism. You don’t get to make up your own facts. Why would you even say this? [That we are "pawns" God uses for His own "self-centered" glory]

Actually, I read the premise in Sproul's book positing what free willers might be thinking. Apparently it is not a charge that Calvinists consider unthinkable of themselves.

Anyway, that is how Greek "fate" works. If you are to understand my contentions and, perhaps your own theology, it might be worth being a bit more "concerned" as to what Greek "fate" is and comparing it to what you believe. I'm slowly getting this "model" of Calvinism wherein I see them worshipping a different God strictly of fate (whereas mine is of both free will and fate). And in days gone by, we would have included Him in our pantheon and kept our society together. But now with us both admitting that there is only one true God who is to be worshipped "in spirit and in truth," we can't really do that, can we? And we can't really have "Christians" going through life as if their decisions and acts were meaningless moves on a chessboard, can we?

Are you familiar with "all is fate?" You appear to make choices. So does everyone around you. But on account of fate, they can't (there's that word again). Fate, some higher power, has already decided what will happen.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Things I learned from this thread.

If a Calvinist writes a book it is horrible because it causes people to trust in man's wisdom instead of God's word. But if a Freewiller writes a book, it's ok because it is what I believe.

The OP posited that, as brothers, we ought to be able to grow into "unity of knowledge and faith in Christ." Paul didn't mince words about those who come into the church "unawares" to us and subvert the "simplicity that is in Christ." Indeed, the "mustard tree" has many "foul spirits" "lodging" in her branches, wouldn't you say?

If you mean to be a help, then clear up some of these issues such as "god of fate" vs. "god of free will and fate."

skypair

 

[npetreley]

Response by template:

"God is God"

You have this thing about "God" that there must be some external "Law of God" that oversees His will...

 

[Amy.G]

Things I learned from this thread.

If a Calvinist writes a book it is horrible because it causes people to trust in man's wisdom instead of God's word. But if a Freewiller writes a book, it's ok because it is what I believe.

If you read a Calvinist's book, you are trusting in man and not in God. But if you read a Freewiller's book, it's ok because it is what I believe.

If you are a Calvinist then you trust Calvin (even if you have never read his writings) over God. If you are Freewill then you trust God no matter how many free will authors you may have read because that is what I believe.

If you are growing in the knowledge and faith of Jesus Christ you will become Freewill. If you do not become Freewill then you are just not growing because I say so.

Frankly, I think we'd all be better off if we stopped reading all books except the only one that matters....the Bible.

IMHO......:1_grouphug:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Because it can't be otherwise or because He won't be otherwise?

Can’t be. If God’s nature changes, then God changes. He is what his attributes are.

In both cases, there is a "law of nature" overseeing the will. But in God's case, if there is a law that disallows God sinning, then by your description, it comes from a higher power than Him else He would have free will too.

No, it doesn’t come from a higher power. God’s nature is what he is.

Apparently in your paradigm (though you may not have seen it), God has a nature that He CAN'T sin -- He has no free will either.

The point is that God has a free will and cannot sin. Therefore, free will is not the ability to choose options. It cannot be such.

Fate just merely means that we have no choices or if we exercise them, there is no cause and effect relationship with the outcomes.

We don’t believe in fate.

That pretty much puts a pretty bow on Calvinisn, doesn't it? Calling "nature," not God, the determinant. We've already agreed that man can be relieved of that nature -- why not God of His?

Because to relieve God of his nature is to change what God is. You sound like you need an introductory course in Theology Proper. One of God’s attributes is holiness. If you change that, then he is not God.

So in your thology, Jesus wasn't "in all ways tempted as we are yet without sin." Cause when we are tested, we have a choice to make. You say Jesus didn't though? Couldn't have bowed down to Satan and received the kingdoms of the world? Couldn't have called 10,000 angels to catch Him lest He break His foot? Couldn't turn stone to bread cause He is hungry? Or do you think Jesus wasn't God?

I believe Jesus was tempted just as we are. He did have a choice to make. And he made it. He endured far more temptation than we ever have.

Perhaps you would agree that God won't sin because He has given us His word to that effect and shown that He can keep His promises?

No, I would not agree. That is far too inadequate to deal with the biblical revelation.

Well then this is the first place where we can have unity of the knowledge of Christ -- babies are NOT condemned, Larry. Not by the Bible, not by God. They, like Adam before the fall, are INNOCENT and will have their chance to trust Christ following the resurrection of the just (Isa 49:20-23).

No, they are condemned because they are in Adam. I didn’t make that up.

The reason I bring it up time and again is that if what I say is true, it destroys most of Calvinism.

And we have demonstrated time and time again that what you say is not true.

You no doubt detect that and yet cannot find or cannot admit the truth (not in your "nature"\). You go with the "theology" of sin nature taught by Calvin rather than, IMO, the Bible.

The key words there are IMO. That’s all you offer here.

Ezek 18:20 is your answer as to whether sin passes from Adam unto all -- it doesn't.

No, it doesn’t.

Correct me at what point I am wrong concerning Calvinism on this but basically man can only do what is in his own nature unless God intervenes. God has a plan and His plans will be done, not ours.

You’re not wrong on that.

Here's the big one in my mind: God doesn't change His mind/plan just because we pray. We could never see Elijah pray 3 times over the widow's dead son and that be the reason God restored his life. No. It was God's plan all along and God "made" Elijah respond that way to the boy's death. So all is fate. Like Sproul said (and I assume you would as well), "Praying doesn't change God's mind."

But that’s not fate.

But look -- show me something that doesn't happen because God planned it that way and because God changed His mind so I can start taking back what I said about you.

How could I show you something that doesn’t happen because God planned it that way? You cannot even show me that.

I am convinced that your "mirror" is "dark."

You are convinced wrongly.

His decree" of condemnation of the lost is without choice on their part, is it not?

No, they choose to sin.

"fate" means that even though we apparently choose, there is not one atom of God's plan for our lives or our destinies that we can change (whereas at this point, free will would say we can pray receiving salvation in Christ and it would change God's mind/plan regarding our destiny.). Do you believe this? Or would you like to take a stab at redefining "fate" for me so that it is NOT what you believe?

What you have described is God working out his purpose. That is not fate.

Anyway, that is how Greek "fate" works. If you are to understand my contentions and, perhaps your own theology, it might be worth being a bit more "concerned" as to what Greek "fate" is and comparing it to what you believe.

Why? I am a Bible believer.

I'm slowly getting this "model" of Calvinism wherein I see them worshipping a different God strictly of fate (whereas mine is of both free will and fate)

I have no doubt that you are getting a sense of worshipping a different God than Calvinists.

 

[skypair]

????????

Larry,

I got one more thing I forgot to mention --- do you agree with this idea that if God didn't "fate" the "elect" to be saved, NNE would receive Christ?? I mean, call it "irresistible grace" or "effectual calling" or whatever -- basically it is not by human "free will" to believe what the Spirit says and be saved.

'Cause really, this is a "tenet" I have heard everywhere of Calvin's TULIP theory.

skypair

 

[skypair]

The point is that God has a free will and cannot sin. Therefore, free will is not the ability to choose options. It cannot be such.

How is it FREE, Larry?? Is God "God" if He is not FREE??

We don’t believe in fate.

So you say. I'm OK with your understanding of that so far.

Because to relieve God of his nature is to change what God is. You sound like you need an introductory course in Theology Proper. One of God’s attributes is holiness. If you change that, then he is not God.

I think what you are saying is that to "relieve God of His 'box'" that we have put Him in. Take holiness. What impact does it have on your theology if God is holy because He chooses to be rather than because He has to be??

I believe Jesus was tempted just as we are. He did have a choice to make. And he made it. He endured far more temptation than we ever have.

Yes. Just like God, eh?

No, I would not agree. That [promises] is far too inadequate to deal with the biblical revelation.

In what way? I'm not aware here so please explain.

No, they are condemned because they are in Adam. I didn’t make that up.

OK, you alluding to a scripture there and an interpretation of it. "In Adam all sin." right? Does that mean at birth? or eventually? Or is that your source?

And we have demonstrated time and time again that what you say is not true.

I don't recall but if you did, I don't know why I wasn't convinced. And for my part, I have also demonstrated time and again. Who's right, Larry?? Do you agree the correct answer is pretty critical to Calvinism??

The key words there are IMO. That’s all you offer here.

Not true. My very next comment answers to my assertion.

But that’s not fate.

That's a good idea -- what IS fate to you? And does God change His mind??

How could I show you something that doesn’t happen because God planned it that way? You cannot even show me that.

OK, did God plan to kill the widow's child? He's poor, yes. But he is young. Why would God "plan" for him to die?? Why would God then bring his soul back into him at Elijah's request? Do you know that this is the first time this ever happened in the whole Bible? Why would Elijah even pray that if he thought God never changes His mind? (no fair coming back with the "Calvinist copout," either. That merely shows you are not using the "mind of Christ" you've been given.)

No, they choose to sin.

According to you, they didn't/can't "choose" sin -- it is their "nature." How can you say they ever had a choice (or the God ever had a choice?)?

What you have described is God working out his purpose. That is not fate.

"Working out His purpose" in utter disregard of His creatures. That's almost offensive to me if you indeed agree that God is love!

I have no doubt that you are getting a sense of worshipping a different God than Calvinists.

Good. That's progress. Now you need to come over and worship the God of the Bible and not the "Fate God" of Calvinism! If you are starting to detect the distinction, let me tell you -- the God of the Bible is the God of free will and fate. He changes His mind in eternity past when His foreknowledge tells Him what His creatures will do with "go great a salvation!" or when they pray. The God of the Bible INTERACTS with His creation -- He is NOT the great "Puppet Master" called "Fate."

I am sure you believe in my God but just cannot admit it or, at least, acknowledge it. raying:

skypair

 

[npetreley]

This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.

Is God light because He chooses to be light? Can God choose to be darkness with no light in Him at all? Or it it simply an observed attribute of God, that He is light, and in Him is no darkness at all?

Hebrews 6:18 ..it is impossible for God to lie...

God can't choose to lie? Does that mean His will is not totally free? Or does it mean that truth is an observed attribute of God (God is truth), which means it is logically impossible for Him to lie?

Sin is disobedience to God. God cannot disobey Himself. Therefore it is logically impossible for God to sin. Does that mean His will is not totally free?

And so on.

 

[David Lamb]

The OP posited that, as brothers, we ought to be able to grow into "unity of knowledge and faith in Christ." Paul didn't mince words about those who come into the church "unawares" to us and subvert the "simplicity that is in Christ." Indeed, the "mustard tree" has many "foul spirits" "lodging" in her branches, wouldn't you say?

If you mean to be a help, then clear up some of these issues such as "god of fate" vs. "god of free will and fate."

skypair

For me, and I suspect for many who believe the doctrines you seem to dislike so much, the greatest difficulty on this thread is that fact that you (Skypair) keep telling us what we believe ("God of fate," your repeated accusation that we believe what we believe because Calvin taught it, the implication, at least, that we don't hold that a sinner must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved, the implication that those who don't believe as you do have subversively "crept into the church unawares" and so on).

Sevaral have sought (in vain apprently) to tell you that we do not believe what you think we believe, but still the process is going on like a never-ending story.

I am "bowing out" of this thread because I don't have the time to continue with it. I wonder about its value anyway, as we all just seem to keep saying the same things over and over again. Before doing so, though, I would just like to try to answer your question in another of your posts to this thread, when you asked:

I am glad you are still able to regard us as "brothers".

 

[David Lamb]

Before doing so, though, I would just like to try to answer your question in another of your posts to this thread, when you asked:

Please ignore the above words in my previous message. I edited out a paragraph, but somehow I didn't quite delete the whole of it. Sorry.

 

[skypair]

For me, and I suspect for many who believe the doctrines you seem to dislike so much, the greatest difficulty on this thread is that fact that you (Skypair) keep telling us what we believe ("God of fate," (1) your repeated accusation that we believe what we believe because Calvin taught it, (2) the implication, at least, that we don't hold that a sinner must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved, (3) the implication that those who don't believe as you do have subversively "crept into the church unawares" and so on).

OK (1) and you didn't make that same comeback? It's important to keep in mind but I also assumed in the OP and since that you were saved. (2) Apparently that is not what comes first for you. What's first in Calvinism is regeneration or, alternatively, "election," is it not? Belief (= faith) comes afterward. Do you not see that personal "fate" has more to do with salvation than personal belief under that paradigm?? (3) The "mustard tree" a paradigm which I doubt you were aware of and is worth considering by way of warning. Get a grip -- it's applicable to every branch.

Sevaral have sought (in vain apprently) to tell you that we do not believe what you think we believe, but still the process is going on like a never-ending story.

I have not been shown how your God is not a god of fate, that's true. And for your part, all you can show me is a God that predestined everything before He foreknew it. That is what "fate" is. A God who takes no mind of what His creation does or doesn't do -- whose "plan" is unchangable at some point along its preparation -- is so sovereign that it is at least as if His creation had no life. Now compare that to the "foreknowledge" (of free will) AND "predestination" (of His plan) model I have been endorsing and see that God interacts with His creation just like the Bible says.

Free will and predestination are BOTH scriptural tenets. You apparently only see one. And I'm sure you won't worship a God that you can't see and don't know.

Apparently the "motive" of not wanting to make this a learning, edifying, brotherly experience outweighs the excuse of not having time for us.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Is God light because He chooses to be light? Can God choose to be darkness with no light in Him at all? Or it it simply an observed attribute of God, that He is light, and in Him is no darkness at all?

Yes. The way I see it, God knows ALL -- good and evil. The serpent was right. Adam and Eve could be like God in that respect if they ate the fruit. So the knowledge of evil is not darkness. We even know this from the NT. It is no sin to be tempted -- Jesus was tempted. There's no temptation without knowledge (i.e. infants, right?).

Yet knowing evil, God does not cause, do, or protect evil, does He? No. That would be darkness.

God can't choose to lie? Does that mean His will is not totally free? Or does it mean that truth is an observed attribute of God (God is truth), which means it is logically impossible for Him to lie?

If God can't do something, He is not God. It is a very elementary principle that God is omnipotent. Another is that no one sets the rules for God to follow. The impossibility of lying regards retaining His character as God as much as Jesus resisting temptation proved His character and that He was God.

Sin is disobedience to God. God cannot disobey Himself.

"cannot disobey Himself" or else what? I can show you what -- Rom says that if God owes man anything, then He is not God. With sin comes obligation to make something right.

Therefore it is logically impossible for God to sin. Does that mean His will is not totally free?

He could, therefore, sin if He was willing to put someone else on the throne. It's just like you. You sin -- you owe God -- you have put self or Satan on the throne. But now, because of sin, you've lost your freedom, right? Same would be true of God (i.e. Jesus in the wilderness).

So I would say it is still "Self-discipline" that keeps God from doing whatever He wants. However, we are in the realms of theory and there may be something you can point out that I didn't consider. If so, fire away! :laugh:

skypair