In Calvinism why are the sinners God made responsible for what God has made them?

[Fastfredy0]

Fastfredy0 said: Premise 1: a subset of "FREE WILL" is defined as the ability to self-determine whether to believe or not believe in regards to salvation

Premise 1 is a shallow understanding of what it means to believe. It is not correct. We do not decide one day to believe something. The mind does not work like that. It is like we do not decide one day to fall in love. The mind does not work like that. We consider evidence carefully and all the ramifications of deciding to accept it. It is not a choice of the will. Man does not work like that.

Well, I was trying to discuss all the facets of faith; just enough relevant info to set the premise.

We do not decide one day to believe something. The mind does not work like that. It is like we do not decide one day to fall in love. The mind does not work like that. We consider evidence carefully and all the ramifications of deciding to accept it. It is not a choice of the will. Man does not work like that.

Straw man fallacy. I never said we decide to believe in one day to believe salvificly, though it seems to have happened to guy on cross beside Christ.
Your terminology defining faith as "not a choice of the [man's] will" seems to contradict your thesis that man self-determines to believe or not..... that statement confuses me considered previous posts.
So, in conclusion... are you saying salvific faith is "not a choice of the [man's] will". If so, you are on my side. I agree the salvific faith is "not a choice of the will". (Aside: I inserted [man's] for clarity.


Re: Fastfredy0 said:
Premise 2: To be saved one must have FAITH and REPENTANCE

Premise 2: to be saved one must repent first. One can repent without believing. So that is also rather shallow.

Again, a straw man fallacy. I didn't say one must repent before or after anything.
I don't understand you. You are implying one can be saved without repentance (change of mind) + Faith. This is a doctrine I am unaware of. I guess if we disagree on this simplistic understanding of what one must do to be saved.
Proof that Salvation includes Faith + Repentance (aside: which equal conversion)
Mark 1:15 “The [appointed period of] time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent [change your inner self—your old way of thinking, regret past sins, live your life in a way that proves repentance; seek God’s purpose for your life] and believe [with a deep, abiding trust] in the good news [regarding salvation].” AMP
https://www.gotquestions.org/repent-and-believe-the-gospel.html


Fastfredy0 said:
Premise 3: Infallible scripture tells us the source of FAITH and REPENTANCE is God and therefore not man

Premise 3: the Bible does not tell us the source of faith and repentance as some refused to repent and it says so.
Do you need the Scripture for that.."they refused to repent..

This too is confusing. I talking about saving faith. Those who do not have faith are irrelevant to 'saving faith'. See Premise 2 setting the scope which talks about what one must do to be saved. Nothing about what one does who are not saved.

." That was a choice of the will. You describe it as something God sovereignly does from above. That is not how it works and we see this is preaching of Jesus, John and the disciples. They did not ask God to drop repentance and believing on the people. They talked to the people.

Well, this is our point of contention. You saying your right and giving no scriptures as evidence is meaningless in a debate. Again and again and again I think you miss the point of the debate which is:
Does God determine what we do or free will (man self-determines). If some people decide not to believe or decide to believe is NOT RELEVANT. What is RELEVANT is WHY THEY CHOOSE to believe.. (or NOT BELIEVE). I validate Premise 3 by pointing to many, many verses showing it was GOD that caused them to BELIEVE and this is the crux of the debate. WHY, WHY WHY did we choose, is the cause ourselves or GOD?

You assume it was capricious sovereignty or plain meanness of God. But that is incorrect. They CHOSE not to believe. They CHOSE not to believe GOd could defeat the giants. And God blamed THEM, not himself, for not believing. Do you know those passages when they were afraid of the giants? You claim I do not quote scripture but I refer constantly to scripture but whole passages, not isolated verses.

You say you point to whole passages but I don't recall you ever doing so. No idea about giants nor how that relates to salvation. It is common courtesy and incumbent upon you to give references and then exegete if asked.

You claim I do not quote scripture but I refer constantly to scripture but whole passages, not isolated verses.

You point in such a vague way as to be of no use. Name the book of the bible and the relevant verses.

"Take not thy Holy Spirit from me." Opps, God takes the Holy Spirit from people. Why? "Create in me a clean heart oh God." Why? Because the author had sinned and was not clean. Who cleans? God. Who sins and needs cleansing? man. "If we confess our sins God is faithful and just and will forgive." What must we do of our own free will? Confess. Why if that is all a game and God made us sin in the first place?

Again ... you assume "FREE WILL". You try to insert it when it is not mentioned. There is no verse in the bible saying we did anything via FREE WILL.

Well, that went south badly.

If anyone else wants to grasp my point it is this:
We are trying to answer the question: Does God cause us to believe or is man self-determine via our free will (self determined and not God doing it)
To offer as proof I used a post to show God caused us to be saved (believe salvificly). I cited 30ish verses, some more explicit than others to show it was God that caused us to believe. John 1:12-13 being the nuclear bomb that says GOD's will is the cause and to reinforce that idea it the verses state the it is NOT MAN'S WILL. This verse alone should solve the debate.

Aside: I really didn't follow you response.

Oh well ... I could say more ... but I've said my peace.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Fastfredy0 said: Premise 1: a subset of "FREE WILL" is defined as the ability to self-determine whether to believe or not believe in regards to salvation


Well, I was trying to discuss all the facets of faith; just enough relevant info to set the premise.


Straw man fallacy. I never said we decide to believe in one day to believe salvificly, though it seems to have happened to guy on cross beside Christ.
Your terminology defining faith as "not a choice of the [man's] will" seems to contradict your thesis that man self-determines to believe or not..... that statement confuses me considered previous posts.
So, in conclusion... are you saying salvific faith is "not a choice of the [man's] will". If so, you are on my side. I agree the salvific faith is "not a choice of the will". (Aside: I inserted [man's] for clarity.


Re: Fastfredy0 said:
Premise 2: To be saved one must have FAITH and REPENTANCE

Again, a straw man fallacy. I didn't say one must repent before or after anything.
I don't understand you. You are implying one can be saved without repentance (change of mind) + Faith. This is a doctrine I am unaware of. I guess if we disagree on this simplistic understanding of what one must do to be saved.
Proof that Salvation includes Faith + Repentance (aside: which equal conversion)
Mark 1:15 “The [appointed period of] time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent [change your inner self—your old way of thinking, regret past sins, live your life in a way that proves repentance; seek God’s purpose for your life] and believe [with a deep, abiding trust] in the good news [regarding salvation].” AMP
https://www.gotquestions.org/repent-and-believe-the-gospel.html


Fastfredy0 said:
Premise 3: Infallible scripture tells us the source of FAITH and REPENTANCE is God and therefore not man


This too is confusing. I talking about saving faith. Those who do not have faith are irrelevant to 'saving faith'. See Premise 2 setting the scope which talks about what one must do to be saved. Nothing about what one does who are not saved.


Well, this is our point of contention. You saying your right and giving no scriptures as evidence is meaningless in a debate. Again and again and again I think you miss the point of the debate which is:
Does God determine what we do or free will (man self-determines). If some people decide not to believe or decide to believe is NOT RELEVANT. What is RELEVANT is WHY THEY CHOOSE to believe.. (or NOT BELIEVE). I validate Premise 3 by pointing to many, many verses showing it was GOD that caused them to BELIEVE and this is the crux of the debate. WHY, WHY WHY did we choose, is the cause ourselves or GOD?



You say you point to whole passages but I don't recall you ever doing so. No idea about giants nor how that relates to salvation. It is common courtesy and incumbent upon you to give references and then exegete if asked.

You point in such a vague way as to be of no use. Name the book of the bible and the relevant verses.


Again ... you assume "FREE WILL". You try to insert it when it is not mentioned. There is no verse in the bible saying we did anything via FREE WILL.

Well, that went south badly.

If anyone else wants to grasp my point it is this:
We are trying to answer the question: Does God cause us to believe or is man self-determine via our free will (self determined and not God doing it)
To offer as proof I used a post to show God caused us to be saved (believe salvificly). I cited 30ish verses, some more explicit than others to show it was God that caused us to believe. John 1:12-13 being the nuclear bomb that says GOD's will is the cause and to reinforce that idea it the verses state the it is NOT MAN'S WILL. This verse alone should solve the debate.

Aside: I really didn't follow you response.

Oh well ... I could say more ... but I've said my peace.

It's really quite simple. At any one time God lets you have the freewill that you have.

Like a rat in a maze, the rat is free to move about freely in the confines of the maze that have been set for it. The confines of the maze can be changed according to the will of the person controlling the maze. And the rat can be lured into, or repelled from, any area of the maze by the controller of the maze. In this scenario both the rat and the one who controls the maze have and exercise their free will.

Both of you have been overthinking the whole thing.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Both of you have been overthinking the whole thing.

Dorothy Mae is using her superior intelligence to bully me ... I call foul (satirical, good-natured summary below)

Once upon a time, in a small village in Switzerland, there lived a girl named Dorothy Mae. She was known for her superior intellect, and never hesitated to use it to win an argument. One day, the forum users were discussing the latest theological query, and as usual, an argument ensued.
Dorothy Mae, not wanting to be left out and using her self-determined genus, inserted herself into the argument, using her vast knowledge of godly pursuits to completely outsmart Fastfredy whom the Lord has determine would rely on inferior mental resources. She recited facts and and logical conjectures, spouted off metaphysical theories, and presented deep hypotheses to support her points and confound the weak minded.
The forum and Fastfredy, which were no match for her intellect, were left speechless. They sheepishly admitted defeat despite relevant confirming scripture and acknowledged her as the victor. From that day on, Dorothy Mae was known as the smartest person in the forum, and everyone was careful not to get into an argument with her.

Aside: I still say you should have given me a handicap .... ... I wonder if I could be a special Olympics debater.
Been fun.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I answered the question at least twice. See Job chap 38-40.

No, you pull out isolated scriptures that do not represent the view of the speaker/writer. Those words do not answer the question. What you are lacking is applying real life to your theory of theology. This is where we have a problem and part ways. You quote scripture like a law book insist that this is how God is and refuse to look at real life and refuse to actually apply that theology to your real life choices. If Calvinists believe God is controlling the whole world, really believe this, then they ought to never ever get mad at any choice any man makes because they believe it was God forcing that man to make that choice. They ought to get mad at God. They ought to never pray because God has preprogrammed all that will happen in their theology and so prayer makes no sense.

Why do you think God allows evil?

I know the answer but it is not in scripture and so until you are willing to think about these matters, you will not accept it and just accuse me of not quoting scripture again.

Before Moses there was no written material scripture. None. And yet men walked with the same God and believed the same things and those who wrote the scriptures knew that same Being and believed the same things because that Being does not change.

David had the Books of Moses. That is it. And yet he walked with God and understood him quite well and wrote out of that understanding. That ability to walk with God and get from God understanding about him and his interactions with man, "his ways" as the Bible describes it, is still there. What God says always matches scripture not because God is bound to keep to that but because He never changes. Scriptures matches God not the other way around.

So the answer to this question is not found in scripture and you only want scripture. Reasoning is not to be considered. I could tell you that I understand why God allows evil but I cannot give you a Bible verse and so it is no use to explain it.

So, you contend that in heaven we may choose to sin?

Again, there is no scripture describing out experience in Heaven so there is no answer that you will accept. Reasoning is not honored.

Re: Sin in the world

It's the answer God has given us. If you can tell me more as to why GOD allows sin, I am all ears. I predict no further answer than what I gave. Deut. 29:29

This is the standard Calvinist answer, "we do not know." This is what I encounter without fail. There is no understanding, just quoting verses. You are worthy of a better theology my brother.

God reveals the secrets things to some who fulfill the conditions and one of them is a firm belief that God is morally good, only does moral good, never does what is unjust. The Calvinist attributes what is clearly seen as morally wrong to God and so no understand can or will be given. I know why GOd allows sin. I understand. I am in the royal family (as are you) and so Proverbs 25:2 applies. I dislike referring to personal experience as a reference but this is an exception. God has explained many things to me and they make perfect sense. They are concealed and not revealed in scripture but no Scripture speaks against them.

Aside: Your verse does not address the subject matter. God told Job to stand up and listen to him is irrelevant. Now I grant my statement was too general; that there are a small minority whom God loves dearly like Job.

"There are a small minority whom God loves dearly like Job" makes me so sad. Oh my brother, do you see that this view is an unjust accusation against God and really against scripture? "For God so loved the world" not a few. But if you insist, I am one of those few and I can tell you that this accusation is false. He loves the world. Jesus wept over Jerusalem, the whole city (remember that reference?) and not just a few. (Those "few" as you call them remembered Jesus' warning to leave the city when it was surrounded by armies and so escape the calamity that Jesus wept over.)

Re: my term; "pond scum". You, as usual, have given no scripture to support you contention that man is not "pond scum". (Note: I grant "pond scum" not found in scripture. I used it as an ad hominem to show that God does think much of men, save those He puts in Christ.)

Do you think Jesus died for pond scum? And I did give a scripture. God told Job he was a man and ought to do the Jordan Peterson thing and stand up with shoulders squared and converse with Him like a man. God does not have your view of man. Don't you want to change to God's view? Isn't it tempting to see man as God does?

Unlike you for the most part, I will support my premises with scripture .... let's see ... hmmm

Premise 1: Vast majority of mankind will spend eternity in Hell ...worse than "pond scum" as the non-existence of "pond scum" is preferable.

That is their own choice. In your theology it is God's choice. Injustice beyond any injustice any man has ever done.

Premise 2: Deuteronomy 18:12; Deuteronomy 25:16; psalm 5:5; Psalm 11:5; Proverbs 3:32 ... I could go on

None of those verses say God is sending people to hell without hope of escaping. "Whosoever will...:"

Premise 3: Last supper John 15, 16,17
Conclusion: Man is "pond scum" save for those God cleaned up, whom He loves before the foundation of the earth and has imputed the righteousness of Christ

What can I do? You want to see man as pond scum although I doubt you see your beloved ones as that. You freely choose to see God as cruelly sending them there without any hope of escaping. My only sorrow is one day you will stand before him and unless you have repented of these accusations, you will have to give an answer as to why you were happily accusing the Holy One of such evil. You can try to get the scripture quotes out of your mouth in your defense but the words will dribble down and fall on the ground because as you speak them, you will see that the never communicated what you were taught they meant. For this I am deeply sorry. You are worthy of a better theology.

And so you know, you will never understand the answers to the questions you pose because these things are hidden from the wise and intelligent on their own steam, learning from their own pursuit but revealed to babes, to those who humble themselves and fulfill the requirements for God to give them understanding as Jesus opened the minds of the men on the road to Emmasus. He quoted scripture but went beyond the words giving understanding. He has not stopped giving understanding but a man must engage the mind. Reading the words on a page will not do.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Dorothy Mae is using her superior intelligence to bully me ... I call foul (satirical, good-natured summary below)

Once upon a time, in a small village in Switzerland, there lived a girl named Dorothy Mae. She was known for her superior intellect, and never hesitated to use it to win an argument. One day, the forum users were discussing the latest theological query, and as usual, an argument ensued.
Dorothy Mae, not wanting to be left out and using her self-determined genus, inserted herself into the argument, using her vast knowledge of godly pursuits to completely outsmart Fastfredy whom the Lord has determine would rely on inferior mental resources. She recited facts and and logical conjectures, spouted off metaphysical theories, and presented deep hypotheses to support her points and confound the weak minded.
The forum and Fastfredy, which were no match for her intellect, were left speechless. They sheepishly admitted defeat despite relevant confirming scripture and acknowledged her as the victor. From that day on, Dorothy Mae was known as the smartest person in the forum, and everyone was careful not to get into an argument with her.

Aside: I still say you should have given me a handicap .... ... I wonder if I could be a special Olympics debater.
Been fun.

I did not read this as I can already see it is personal attack. I do not have superior intelligence. I am an over 60 woman endeavoring to find the stupid mistakes I make before others do. And I make them. So far they still want to keep me at work despite me forgetting stuff and mixing up stuff.

What I do have is decades walking with God and asking Him for understanding both in the life I life interacting with people and what He does and and why. I will give some examples so that you see that intelligence is not the key to understanding God and man.

I was in my early 20s driving home from a meal with my family who were not kind to me and it was obvious there was no love in the family but a scrambling competition. I was weeping as I drove. I cried out to God, "why don't they love me?" He said, "because they do not have it to give." That understanding changed my view as I saw it was true. I was not angry nor hurt. I was deeply comforted and that has been the pattern of my life and walk with Him. I have asked Him questions like the Queen asking Solomon and God gave answers. I cannot think of any burning questions He did not answer. So I am not of superior intelligence as a reason for me answers. I am in dialogue with the God who is. And it is true, in my first exchange some years ago with Calvinist and their lawyer like quoting of scripture, I asked God what I am to do. He told me every time and I grew in understanding.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Fastfredy0 said: Premise 1: a subset of "FREE WILL" is defined as the ability to self-determine whether to believe or not believe in regards to salvation


Well, I was trying to discuss all the facets of faith; just enough relevant info to set the premise.

But there is no self-determined possibility to be saved or avoid hell. None. So that cannot apply. We do not entirely determine this although we play a pivotal role. God does not determine it entirely either but he plays the major role.

Straw man fallacy. I never said we decide to believe in one day to believe salvificly, though it seems to have happened to guy on cross beside Christ.
Your terminology defining faith as "not a choice of the [man's] will" seems to contradict your thesis that man self-determines to believe or not..... that statement confuses me considered previous posts.
So, in conclusion... are you saying salvific faith is "not a choice of the [man's] will". If so, you are on my side. I agree the salvific faith is "not a choice of the will". (Aside: I inserted [man's] for clarity.

When a jury decides a matter, the weigh the evidence. When a man is considering a matter, whether it be true or not, he considers the evidence. Then, the weight of the evidence moves him to believe something or not. It is not merely a choice of will. One does not say "I will believe" as that is not how we work. Coming to believe the claims of Christ is a journey, not a momentary decision or if it is, it is commonly like he one who receives the word with Joy but with trouble comes abandons it. A faith not springing from carefully considering the matter is a faith that will not stand long.

Re: Fastfredy0 said:
Premise 2: To be saved one must have FAITH and REPENTANCE

Again, a straw man fallacy. I didn't say one must repent before or after anything.
I don't understand you. You are implying one can be saved without repentance (change of mind) + Faith. This is a doctrine I am unaware of. I guess if we disagree on this simplistic understanding of what one must do to be saved.
Proof that Salvation includes Faith + Repentance (aside: which equal conversion)

The order is repentance and then faith. This is actually important. A man sees his sin which God reveals and repents. Faith is not first.

Mark 1:15 “The [appointed period of] time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent [change your inner self—your old way of thinking, regret past sins, live your life in a way that proves repentance; seek God’s purpose for your life] and believe [with a deep, abiding trust] in the good news [regarding salvation].” AMP
https://www.gotquestions.org/repent-and-believe-the-gospel.html


Fastfredy0 said:
Premise 3: Infallible scripture tells us the source of FAITH and REPENTANCE is God and therefore not man


This too is confusing. I talking about saving faith. Those who do not have faith are irrelevant to 'saving faith'. See Premise 2 setting the scope which talks about what one must do to be saved. Nothing about what one does who are not saved.

Jesus only talked about having faith. He did not, nor did his followers refer to a special "saving faith" as though there are different kinds.

Well, this is our point of contention. You saying your right and giving no scriptures as evidence is meaningless in a debate. Again and again and again I think you miss the point of the debate which is:

I give them but not with blinking lights. If a man is unfamiliar with the Bible, then of course it will look like I never quote them. But if a man is educated in the Bible, had read it thoroughly and can recognize that the thoughts are not mine but from scripture, then he will recognize it. And by the way, this is exactly how the writers of the Bible wrote. Few of them gave their reference and Jesus himself only said "it is written" which I could do too. I could insert "it is written" but this is not what is done in our culture. But it does tell me that you likely do not recognize scripture unless there is a reference.

Does God determine what we do or free will (man self-determines). If some people decide not to believe or decide to believe is NOT RELEVANT.

Whether people choose to believe or not is everything. How can you say it is not relevant? It determines their behavior and their eternal destiny. It is everything.

What is RELEVANT is WHY THEY CHOOSE to believe.. (or NOT BELIEVE). I validate Premise 3 by pointing to many, many verses showing it was GOD that caused them to BELIEVE and this is the crux of the debate. WHY, WHY WHY did we choose, is the cause ourselves or GOD?

Did Jesus explain why people choose to believe? If not, why is this important to you? I know the answer to that. It is because Calvinism does not care if a man believes or not but only what God is doing so he can be accused of being responsible personally for each man's choices. The weight of the decision, and make no mistake, understanding we choose is a very weighty matter, is shifted to God and the Calvinist is free.

You say you point to whole passages but I don't recall you ever doing so. No idea about giants nor how that relates to salvation. It is common courtesy and incumbent upon you to give references and then exegete if asked.

We are not in a theology course. No one in the scripture, nor did Jesus speaking, given references. Why? Because his audience knew the Scripture and needed no reference. They KNEW it was there. I write, if I may be so bold, as the writers of the Bible did, without references assuming the read has a basic knowledge of the literature being referred to. If I were to discuss Shakespeare with someone, I would not need to know which play, act and scene a reference is coming from as that is irrelevant. What is being said is important, not who said it where. When I person quotes scripture but leaves out bits that do not suit their purpose, I instantly know that this is what they have done. The reference or lack there of does not change anything. Lawyers need the chapter and paragraph of the book, believes who live the words do not.

You point in such a vague way as to be of no use. Name the book of the bible and the relevant verses.

OK, you do not know the Bible that well and need the reference. Sigh! I thought with all your reading you would be very familiar with scripture as I am. You can leave off the references and tell me what you think it says but you need to references and preferably without actually writing what it says so that the reader is not made aware that is does not at all say what you insist. This latter is extremely common in those who just site book, chapter and verse. Look it up and it does not come close to saying what they insist. I began to think such posters (not you as your references do have to do with the subject) hope no one looks it up. The problem with single sentences quotes is they are so easily twisted. One poster got mad at another for taking one sentence out of her post and quoting it. But she, as to you, takes one sentences out of letters in the NT and makes a whole theology out of it ignoring the rest of what that same write said earlier in that same book. This is what I am dealing with. Cherry picking out scripture and twisting it to say what the writer did not think or say.

Again ... you assume "FREE WILL". You try to insert it when it is not mentioned. There is no verse in the bible saying we did anything via FREE WILL.

Choose means you have free will to choose. It is not a game whereby God and only God is really choosing.

Well, that went south badly.

If anyone else wants to grasp my point it is this:
We are trying to answer the question: Does God cause us to believe or is man self-determine via our free will (self determined and not God doing it)
To offer as proof I used a post to show God caused us to be saved (believe salvificly). I cited 30ish verses, some more explicit than others to show it was God that caused us to believe. John 1:12-13 being the nuclear bomb that says GOD's will is the cause and to reinforce that idea it the verses state the it is NOT MAN'S WILL. This verse alone should solve the debate.

Aside: I really didn't follow you response.

Oh well ... I could say more ... but I've said my peace.

It seems that you have already made up your mind so why are you pursuing this. You have decided God decided who is saved and who goes to hell and sovereignly manipulates man to this end. You are not really asking, are you?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Fastfredy0, my dear brother,

I think we are soon reaching the end of the exchange but maybe it goes on for a bit. We are certainly meeting at a crossroads where are journeys have been quite different. It is been one of the best if not thee best exchanges I have ever had with a Calvinist and that speaks well of your character, my friend. But your worldviews and approach to things of God are quite different from mine.

Let me see if I understand you. You found a coherent theology in Calvin's Systematic Theology and educated yourself thoroughly in these works spending a great deal of time and energy reading and thinking about this view and came to accept it finding it satisfying emotionally and intellectually. You went to the source of Reformed thinking, Calvin, and have a very deep education in that position. You have since engaged with those who do not hold that view and tested their answers to the scriptures your position uses to support its theology. You enjoy these exchanges and you enjoy thinking about this and the challenge the exchanges brings. Your sources and links support your view and you use them to convince others of the truth of your position, that it alone reflects scripture, and so you copy and paste those arguments in a discussion. They are rich and many. Have I described your position such that you agree with my assessment? I tried to reflect your position as YOU would describe it to be. Did I succeed or fail? ( I did not include your coming to faith, your "testimony," as we do not differ there and this was not to be an exhaustive "epistle of Fred" just a synopsis.)

Can you explain my position as I would agree it to be? Can you do this in such a manner as I would say "yes that is my position?" I have to admit, I seriously doubt you can do this because of how you approach matters employing not thinking but quoting. To quote me would be too much work even for me who knows what I said, and to think about what I said it going through some pretty strenuous mental gymnastics for you, but maybe I am wrong.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Fastfredy0

I got to thinking and thought I was unfair asking you to put my position in words when I really just gave the history of how you got to your thinking and you know next to nothing about my history as I did not share very much. So let me state your theology position and maybe you can state mine. Of course I have an advantage as yours is on the net:

The theology of Calvinism has been immortalized in the acronym TULIP, which states the five essential doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints.

I tried to think of more details but all of them fall into the description above. I know it is not fair that your position can be copied and pasted but my position can't be but nevertheless, even though it cannot be copied and pasted and has no label can you put it into words that I would say it true? Just wondering?

 

[Fastfredy0]

No, you pull out isolated scriptures that do not represent the view of the speaker/writer. Those words do not answer the question. What you are lacking is applying real life to your theory of theology. This is where we have a problem and part ways. You quote scripture like a law book insist that this is how God is and refuse to look at real life and refuse to actually apply that theology to your real life choices. If Calvinists believe God is controlling the whole world, really believe this, then they ought to never ever get mad at any choice any man makes because they believe it was God forcing that man to make that choice.

Technically, we don't believe God forces people to do things (well, He forces us to have 1 head and 2 arms and such). God controls our desires. So, for instance, we believe God gave us a depraved nature, whereas, I assume you believe 100.0000% of the population all of their self-created (self-creation being impossible) Free Will decided to be depraved. Mathematically,the chances of billions of people all FREELY picking to be depraved is IMPOSSIBLE.
In summary, I agree to your summary the Calvinism is God-centered theology based on whatever the Bible says whereas non-reformed theologies are man-centered and determined by how they think God should be which at times contradicts scripture ... but I know that either side can bend scripture to their liking as man is depraved.


Fastfredy0 said:
Why do you think God allows evil?

I know the answer but it is not in scripture and so until you are willing to think about these matters, you will not accept it and just accuse me of not quoting scripture again.

Well, this reinforces what I just wrote. To a large degree your theology and man-centered. Reformed theology does its best to follow scripture wherever it may lead.

Before Moses there was no written material scripture. None. And yet men walked with the same God and believed the same things and those who wrote the scriptures knew that same Being and believed the same things because that Being does not change.

Statements without evidence. In point of fact, at least where salvation is concerned the bible says the only Israel has God known which pertains to salvation. Stated in the negative, that is to say non-Jews all going to hell (yeah, minor exceptions like RUTH and gal that helps 12 spies) :

Ephesians 2:12 remember that at that time you [gentiles] were separated from Christ [excluded from any relationship with Him], alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise [with no share in the sacred Messianic promise and without knowledge of God’s agreements], having no hope [in His promise] and [living] in the world without God. (There's at least 1 other verse like this that is not coming to mind... and some other technical stuff that would be too long winded to go into.)​

Looking at this from a man-centered theology I would suppose that God loves everyone and He is obligated to be fair and give everyone a chance and therefore make conclusions.
Again, I ascribe to a God-centered theology in which I look at what God says is true and try to understand it, though I am fallible.

David had the Books of Moses. That is it. And yet he walked with God and understood him quite well and wrote out of that understanding.

This is misleading. David wrote as inspired by the Spirit as are all the books of the bible. Understanding God quite well may be also misleading. For a human Davide understood God very well; but to understand the infinite by the finite is impossible. Isaiah 55:8 (Note: God-centered theology references scripture, man-centered theology does not ... granted a generalization)

So the answer to this question is not found in scripture and you only want scripture. Reasoning is not to be considered. I could tell you that I understand why God allows evil but I cannot give you a Bible verse and so it is no use to explain it.

Agreed, save as a curiosity ....



Fastfredy0 said:
So, you contend that in heaven we may choose to sin?

Again, there is no scripture describing out experience in Heaven so there is no answer that you will accept. Reasoning is not honored.

Well, there is in fact scripture describing our experience in Heaven like Revelation 21:4 and Isaiah 65:17.
Regarding sin in heaven we have Revelation 21:27 But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life ... now, I grant "nothing unclean" could refer to us all taking a shower or bath, but I think it refers to sin.
Aside: So you are so fixated on man's FREE WILL that you think we will be able to sin in heaven. Does one go to hell if one sins in heaven or is therefor another way to wash away sin if we do so in heaven? Hmmmm.... that opens up a lot of questions.


Fastfredy0 said:
Re: Sin in the world
It's the answer God has given us. If you can tell me more as to why GOD allows sin, I am all ears. I predict no further answer than what I gave. Deut. 29:29

This is the standard Calvinist answer, "we do not know." This is what I encounter without fail. There is no understanding, just quoting verses. You are worthy of a better theology my brother.

Well, unless one is God one cannot know everything. If not knowing something about God invalidates one's theology .... then we are all 'screwed' ....

 

[Fastfredy0]

od reveals the secrets things to some who fulfill the conditions and one of them is a firm belief that God is morally good, only does moral good, never does what is unjust. The Calvinist attributes what is clearly seen as morally wrong to God and so no understand can or will be given.

False premise. Reformed theology believes God is morally good and just. You think otherwise because you think God is under the law rather that above it. God is just by definition and thus whatever He does is just ... and good, and wise, and holy ....yahda, yahda.
If I apply your standards to God then your theology lead you to think God sins (Aside: I DEFINITELY don't think you think God sins)
O.K. ... let's play by your standards (IMO)

Premise 1: It is sinful to kill innocent babies
Premise 2: Many babies were kill in Noah's flood
Conclusion: God sinned by man's standard (I go to jail if I did it)

Premise 1: God caused man's desire to be sinful (depravity)
Conclusion: God sinned by man's standard (I go to jail if I did it)

Premise 1: God told the devil to harm Job
Conclusion: God sinned by man's standard (I go to jail if I did it)

Premise 1: Every day there are murders, robberies, rapes .... yahda, yahda
Premise 2: God is almighty; moment by moment He is the cause of our existence (Acts 17:28; Job 34:14-15)
Premise 3: God let's it happen
Conclusion: God sinned by man's standard (I go to jail if I did it)

Hmmmm, I just remembered ... I think, as I recall, you are a deist (One who holds the opinion that there is a God, but no divine providence governing the affairs of men) ... and that might get you off the hook to a degree.
Aside: We both don't think God every sins. We both think the consequences of the other's theology logically would lead there.

Aside 2: I'm always answering questions.... I gave you 30ish FREE WILL questions you didn't answer....maybe I will see them later) John 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, to keep them from seeing with their eyes and understanding with their heart and being converted; otherwise, I [their God] would heal them.” Aside: I could list 20ish similar verses

God has explained many things to me and they make perfect sense. They are concealed and not revealed in scripture but no Scripture speaks against them.

Well, if God has revealed things to you without a shadow of a doubt then it should be added to canon.
Aside: Sometimes God has revealed false ideas to people .... John 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, to keep them from seeing with their eyes and understanding with their heart and being converted; otherwise, I [their God] would heal them.” Aside: I could list 20ish similar verses
Aside 2: I know you love God greatly, so when I say something you disagree with, keep that in mind

"There are a small minority whom God loves dearly like Job" makes me so sad. Oh my brother, do you see that this view is an unjust accusation against God and really against scripture? "For God so loved the world" not a few. But if you insist, I am one of those few and I can tell you that this accusation is false. He loves the world. Jesus wept over Jerusalem, the whole city (remember that reference?) and not just a few. (Those "few" as you call them remembered Jesus' warning to leave the city when it was surrounded by armies and so escape the calamity that Jesus wept over.)

Well, we could go into whether or not God loves everyone without exception but prefer not to go there now. Short response:

• Psalm 5:4 For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil [person] dwells with You. 5 The boastful and the arrogant will not stand in Your sight; You hate all who do evil.
• Habakkuk 1:13 Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, And You cannot look favorably on wickedness.
• there is NO VERSE saying God loves someone we know went to hell
• God's agape love is a volition to favor. If God loves everyone without exception then 99% of the people He favor are/will be in hell forever (Aside: age of accountability speculation, if true, would have 30-40% of humanity in heaven - the math is speculative ... I could explain but another tangent)

Do you think Jesus died for pond scum?

No. He died for the elect only. The non-elect are "pond scum". If Christ also die for the "pond scum" then the all-wise, all-knowing Savior died in vain in regards to that subset of humanity. I could go into a lot more detail, but another tangent. Again, I would supply scripture; though there is a little scripture that implicitly supports you view.

ought to do the Jordan Peterson thing

Oh, I love Jordan Peterson .... too bad he is not a Christian. He does speak favorably about the bible. He's a Canuck. Aside: I'm 1/2 Canuck.

God does not have your view of man.

I am sure He doesn't have your view or mine. We both think our view is closer to God's view. I know God's view (not total view) is found in scripture and whereas I use scripture more than you one would probably bet on my view being closer to God's view.

Don't you want to change to God's view? Isn't it tempting to see man as God does?

Well, God is immutable and perfect so my changing his view is impossible and if possible it would not be for the better. I desire to see everything as God does, but to do that is to be God.

 

[Fastfredy0]

What can I do? You want to see man as pond scum although I doubt you see your beloved ones as that. You freely choose to see God as cruelly sending them there without any hope of escaping.... why you were happily accusing the Holy One of such evil

Well, unless you are an inclusionist (believe people can got to heaven with no knowledge of Christ) then you also believe "God as cruelly sending people the hell with any hope of escaping" and you are "accusing the Holy One of evil. Proof of which follows:
Aside: Clarification ....neither of us believe God is an any way evil. Again, neither of us believe God is an any way evil.
It would be more accurate to say that you believe, given your understanding of what is evil, that my theology taken to its logical end would result in a conclusion that God does things that are evil. Similarly I will prove IMO that your theology would have you thinking God is evil if you put your premises together.
Aside: You don't seem to understand how a syllogism works IMO. If a premise(s) are true then the conclusion is true assuming if nothing is missing. You have taken several premises and gone off on a tangent.
Example: I gave a premise about people going to heaven and you take the premise and talk about people going to hell which has nothing to do with the premise leading to a conclusion.
Simpler example
Premise 1: Joe as a nickel
Premise 2: Jack as a nickel
Premise 3: there are only 2 nickels on the planet
Conclusion: Only Joe and Jack have a nickel
.... to which you might reply, well Joe also has a dime so premise 1 is wrong ... that has nothing to do with it. Anyways ... I can't make it any simpler .... I'll leave it at that

Back to my proposed conclusion that if I apply your theology then your theology will lead to God being evil (again, neither believes this conclusion... just showing logically that the conclusion is correct if the premises are correct and there no missing relevant thoughts.
Premise 1: An example of sin is not giving someone a choice to believe in Christ for salvation
Premise 2: Billions of people have died and not heard of Christ
Premise 3: Knowing of Christ is essential for salvation
Conclusion: God is evil

or, if you are an inclusionist and thus premise 3 is false ... let's try this

Premise 1: An example of sin is not giving someone a 'FAIR choice' to believe in Christ for salvation
Premise 2: A 'FAIR choice' means that with the evidence and desires of a person would likely have 1/2 believe in Christ. (God cannot by fair and tip the scales for favor a particular choice)
Premise 3: vast majority don't believe in Christ (Proof: narrow is the way and few that find it)
Conclusion: God is evil as He has tipped the scales to make it improbable to believe (Aside: He tipped the scales via giving us a depraved nature and even if you believed in mythical "prevenient grace" (God compensating for the depravity He saddled us with) He has not given use enough "prevenient grace" to give man's Free Will a 'sporting chance' where "sporting chance" = 50%)

 

[Fastfredy0]

And so you know, you will never understand the answers to the questions you pose because these things are hidden from the wise and intelligent on their own steam, learning from their own pursuit but revealed to babes, to those who humble themselves

You are IMO referring to Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth [I openly and joyfully acknowledge Your great wisdom], that You have hidden these things [these spiritual truths] from the wise and intelligent and revealed them to infants [to new believers, to those seeking God’s will and purpose].AMP

Premise 1: God has hidden truth leading to repentance (v.21 and 25 above)
Conclusion: God determines who repents. FREE WILL is thus proven false or at best should be called "Partial Free Will" which is contradictory

Thanks .... great verse for my side ... (aside: there and very few verses that might implicit lean your ways. You're wise to above what God has written if you are to promote FREE WILL. The philosophy's and understanding of men is your FREE WILLS supposed strength.

I did not read this as I can already see it is personal attack. I do not have superior intelligence. I am an over 60 woman endeavoring to find the stupid mistakes I make before others do. And I make them. So far they still want to keep me at work despite me forgetting stuff and mixing up stuff.

It was meant to be a playful interlude. I apologize as you have obviously not taken it that way.
I find your conversation invigorating. Sorry, not my intent.
Aside: I actually used AI to create the story and then edited a few things. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/

 

[Fastfredy0]

But there is no self-determined possibility to be saved or avoid hell. None. So that cannot apply. We do not entirely determine this although we play a pivotal role. God does not determine it entirely either but he plays the major role.

Gee, you just set the debate on its butt. I mentioned a few times that the thesis needed restating and refining.
Hmmmm .... well, I am at a loss now. I am not sure where your head is. Sounds like partial Free Will, the definition of which is .... I don't know. Oh well ...

A faith not springing from carefully considering the matter is a faith that will not stand long.

Agreed ... 1 Cor. 2:13-14 ... and considering the matter is dependent upon the Spirit who gives understanding. The natural man is not up to the task.

14 But the natural [unbelieving] man does not accept the things [the teachings and revelations] of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness [absurd and illogical] to him; and he is incapable of understanding them, because they are spiritually discerned and appreciated, [and he is unqualified to judge spiritual matters].
.... hate to keep harping ... but, the natural man is incapable of understanding; that the Spirit that gives one understanding ... then it is God determining and the natural Free Will of man is useless. That being said and give your first quote above, I know longer no what your stance is on the subject.

The order is repentance and then faith. This is actually important. A man sees his sin which God reveals and repents. Faith is not first.

Hmm ... I would have said FAITH and REPENTANCE come simultaneously .... hmmmm ....
Why would someone repent if they did not believe?
Is there a time delay and what would that time delay be? Like, it could be a year for instance?
You got a proof text? I don't have a proof text either way?
Hmmmm, I think the logical order would be faith and then repentance as you can't change your mind with a reason to do so which would be faith, but the chronological order would be simultaneously because there is no reason to repent (change your mind) other than faith.
What's your reasoning?

Jesus only talked about having faith. He did not, nor did his followers refer to a special "saving faith" as though there are different kinds.

Well, I didn't mean there were different kinds of faith leading to salvation. There can be faith like faith a ball goes down it I let go of it, faith the sun will come up..... so I added the adjective "saving" to distinguish it from these other examples of faith.
Aside: the aspects of a faith that saves is interesting.... my theory is that if you ask 10 Christians for what must be believe to be saved you will get 9 different answers with some similarities.

But it does tell me that you likely do not recognize scripture unless there is a reference.

That's a possible explanation.

Did Jesus explain why people choose to believe? If not, why is this important to you?

Yes He did explain why people choose to believe. It is important to God because:

1. Job 41:11 Who has first given to Me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heavens is Mine.
2. Isaiah 42:8b My glory I will not give to another
3. 1 Corinthians 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles [it makes no sense to follow God if logic says it is folly unless the Spirit intervenes], 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God … 26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called [effectual call]. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. [Who does God elect and why]
4. 1 Corinthians 4:7 "Who maketh thee to differ from another? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?". God had given them everything they had; everything includes faith for those elect
5. Galatians 6:14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Would not the precept of someone having faith via “free will” be a work and contradict the concept of salvation by grace where grace is dependent upon the total unmerited position of any man? The person of the “free will” persuasion states: “because I have determined your offer of salvation to be true I have been saved”; the person who believes God choses them states: "O Lord, why me"? One can brag before God, the other cannot. (Ephesians 2:9). Consider: If the believer of divine election is incorrect he temporarily deprives himself of the praise for a short while. If the believer of free will is incorrect he deprives God of the glory of His decision.
6. Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this [referring to salvation through faith] is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works (not founded upon anything in the believer himself), so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. If synergism is embraced, then there is the very real but subtle danger that men could boast that they made use of God's grace or had more wisdom than the man who rejected Christ. They could boast that they are different for, unlike others, they responded to Christ. The autonomous natural man would, then, ultimately determine His own salvation, not God. Furthermore, a gift is a work. A work is a purposes achieved by physical or mental exertion. To believe is a difficult task; the Bible says it is foolishness to the unsaved and no one seeks God.
7. It can be taken as a given that if any part of our salvation was actually based upon human works or merit, men would as a result boast, even if their "part" in the process was infinitesimal compared to that of God. Therefore, salvation must be totally of God.

No one in the scripture, nor did Jesus speaking, given references. Why?

Ah, because when God speaks He needs no references.

I write, if I may be so bold, as the writers of the Bible did, without references assuming the read has a basic knowledge of the literature being referred to.

Well, either I don't have basic knowledge of the bible or your hypothesis is incorrect. Consider me a 'scriptural dummy' and to facilitate my deficiency it would be best to give a bible reference. It is easy: put 4 or 5 worlds into google search engine and append 'verse' and it will usually give you the scriptures. .... Example: I don't know the reference for 'turn the other cheek" ... I just now googled it after appending 'verse" and .... presto ... Matthew 5:38-40
I googled your statement "repentance before faith verse" .... and I got nothing relevant to the chronological sequence. So given my assumed "lack of basic knowledge of the bible", please help me.

The reference or lack there of does not change anything. Lawyers need the chapter and paragraph of the book, believes who live the words do not.

Well, I'm not a lawyer so either I'm not a 'believer who lives in the word' or you hypothesis is wrong.

Cherry picking out scripture and twisting it to say what the writer did not think or say.

Well, the assumption is that one is "twisting" scripture.
You have a bias as you probably think a scripture that one interprets differently than you is twisted.
The point of the matter is it is MUCH EASIER to twist God's message by making statements not found in scripture and attributing them to God;s view point than it is to twist God's view point by quoting statements found in scripture.
Statements in scripture can be verified. Statements not found scripture cannot be verified save by scripture which you castigate as an inferior communication method.
Short Story ... Doctrine quoting GOD's word is vastly superior to depraved man's statements that can't be easily verified for truth. Statements not referring to scripture add another layer of incredibility, vulnerability and manipulation.
Aside: I can't believe you are debating that the use scripture is not inferior to using God's word. WOW!
Aside2: I know it is to your advantage to not use scripture so you rarely do. I use it a lot as it supports my ideas IMO.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Choose means you have free will to choose. It is not a game whereby God and only God is really choosing.

"Choose" means you have a choice. That's why they put adjective FREE in front of WILL so as to qualify the noun.
I say FREE means you are FREE to choice X or Y according to your desires, said desires determined by God and your statement indicates you do not know what FREE means in the context of FREE WILL.

Note: I define my view point often. I am completely confused as to what idea you are defending. To many contradictory statement IMO and this yet another definition. Maybe you should says exactly what your definition of FREE WILL is.

It seems that you have already made up your mind so why are you pursuing this. You have decided God decided who is saved and who goes to hell and sovereignly manipulates man to this end. You are not really asking, are you?

In debate one states his position (and doesn't keep redefining it or making statements that contradict their original position). Of course I made up my and and so did you. You decided God decided to let man decide who is saved and who goes to hell. You are not really asking, are you? This is a diversionary tactic I guess.
Debate: To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. Not,"you are not really asking are you"?

I think we are soon reaching the end of the exchange but maybe it goes on for a bit. We are certainly meeting at a crossroads where are journeys have been quite different. It is been one of the best if not thee best exchanges I have ever had with a Calvinist and that speaks well of your character, my friend. But your worldviews and approach to things of God are quite different from mine.

agreed

Let me see if I understand you. You found a coherent theology in Calvin's Systematic Theology and educated yourself thoroughly in these works spending a great deal of time and energy reading and thinking about this view and came to accept it finding it satisfying emotionally and intellectually.

True .... like a Berean I verified the works of a multitude of teachers (wisdom in the council of others) of God's word (not just Calvin ... Sproul, Edwards, Pink, Charnock, Hodge, Pope, Grudem, Augustine ... yahda, yahda.

The Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the scientist, --a body of unorganized or only partially organized facts. It is necessary, therefore, if we are to know all the facts on any given subject for us to gather together the scattered teachings and to construct them into a logical and harmonious system. The function of systematic theology is to unfold the Bible using revelation and reason; where the former trumps the latter. It is the orderly collecting, scientifically arranging, comparing, exhibiting and defending of all facts from any and every biblical source concerning God and His works. Ideally, all facts forming a doctrine are harmonious; on occasion not all the facts are harmonious for man is finite and God is infinite. Isaiah 55:8 (AMP) “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts higher than your thoughts.
The treasures of divine truth are observed only by those who are trained to recognize them. The message of the Bible is complete. The mastery of any part necessitates the mastery of the whole. Author unknown

Your a scientist, yet you seem to neglect the science of theology; relying on the work of others, testing, verifying, comparing, studying ...

You went to the source of Reformed thinking, Calvin, and have a very deep education in that position.

It is a position of critical thinkers who admit fallibility and the bible's infallibility. It is a position that can withstand scrutiny. There are so many other positions (like everyone has a different one that you probably cannot find an alternate cohesive volume of thought. Look at the online statements of faith on line of any protestant church. It will be a page or two long. They dare not go further due to their lack of agreement which is confusion.
Aside: Reformed thinkers almost stand alone amongst protestant denominations in that they study various topics randomly strewn throughout the Bible and put them together in a cohesive package. Thus, for example, from God's attributes alone I know your idea of Free Will (which seems to change) is false. Consider:

• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's freedom to choice and since the superior rules His creation, His freedom must reign.
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's glory for God shares His glory with no one so salvation must be of Him alone
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's goodness because God cannot will any other thing but himself as his end, because there is nothing superior to himself in goodness.
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's grace as grace is not grace if it is dependent
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's independence. Romans 11:35
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's knowledge because God knew who would and would not be His children before the foundation of the earth and thus no source of knowledge but himself
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's love and wisdom because the happiness of the creature cannot be the final end of God's action. There would be no wisdom in this case, because the superior would be subordinated to the inferior.
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's sovereign mercy Romans 9:15; Exodus 33:19
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's impartiality because Romans 2:11 "God does not show favoritism" God is independent of His creation and therefore they have no effect upon Him. He alone predetermines the destiny of all people and things ....
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's perfection for it is not possible to have that which would be most desired if it is not determined by God.
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's sovereignty Romans 5:21 “Even so might grace reign“
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's sufficiency because His knowledge were gained from another who is below God, he would not be sufficient of himself, but be under an indigence.
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's claim that none can boast: Job 41:11 Who has first given to Me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heavens is Mine.

You enjoy these exchanges and you enjoy thinking about this and the challenge the exchanges brings.

It is good to test one's ideas. You challenge me several times: James 1:13 for example.

Your sources and links support your view and you use them to convince others of the truth of your position,

I can't say I convince anyone. Ben Shapiro - What you want to believe you tend to believe and you tend to look for excuses to believe it. .. .Yeah, I know, this doesn't apply to you.... *smile*

I tried to reflect your position as YOU would describe it to be. Did I succeed or fail?

I believe you understand my position. I thought I understood yours, but later on there were statements that seemed to contradict my understanding. You were very patient with me... thank you. Again, the story about you being smart was supposed by 'friendly banter' to lighten the mood. Guess I blew that. Not my intent... Sorry

your "testimony,

Born to Christian parents (not reformed), 4 grand parents all Christians, 2 children are Christians.
I don't know when I first believed. Around 5 I understood enough so that when my father took me aside I knew saving faith, what it was and that I had it. I believed as a child. What ever my parents told me was truth. (strange anecdote: I believed in Santa .. if belief that Santa was real got you to heaven I would have made it. Jewish next door neighbor told me Santa was not real when I was 6... .said to look for elastic holding up his beard. Well shortly afterwards, sure enough Santa had an elastic supporting his beard. My faith in Santa was gone). But my faith in Christ was and remained strong...like a child I believed.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Can you explain my position as I would agree it to be? Can you do this in such a manner as I would say "yes that is my position?"

I thought I could as one time. I touched on this above. A couple times I mentioned/implied a need to reaffirm what our definition of FREE WILL was as posts seemed contradictory to my initial assumptions.

I have to admit, I seriously doubt you can do this because of how you approach matters employing not thinking but quoting. To quote me would be too much work even for me who knows what I said, and to think about what I said it going through some pretty strenuous mental gymnastics for you, but maybe I am wrong.

I don't what to say. Language is subjective and communicating ideas imperfect and the forum is not an ideal communication platform and only the author really knows what the meant to say. I try to be, you call it lawyer like to aid understanding. You're a scientist .... you know the importance of precision (though easier with data and numbers and objective observations ....giggle.
Anyways, it been a lot of fun and you had me on my toes and thinking .... thank you for putting up with me, for being understanding and patient ....thanks for responding to most of my 'stuff' ... it is a daunting task given the format of the forum. Thanks for not completely overwhelming me with you smart-i-ness (said in fun way). You are smart though.
To my sister in Christ ... thank you.

Bedtime for Bonzo ... too lazy to proof read, sorry

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Gee, you just set the debate on its butt. I mentioned a few times that the thesis needed restating and refining.
Hmmmm .... well, I am at a loss now. I am not sure where your head is. Sounds like partial Free Will, the definition of which is .... I don't know. Oh well ...

Maybe it would be best to avoid labels. It is fairly complex and cannot be summed up in an acronym or label. The common solution of answering that in a few sentences or worse without any consideration of real life, leads one to fallacy.

Agreed ... 1 Cor. 2:13-14 ... and considering the matter is dependent upon the Spirit who gives understanding. The natural man is not up to the task.

14 But the natural [unbelieving] man does not accept the things [the teachings and revelations] of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness [absurd and illogical] to him; and he is incapable of understanding them, because they are spiritually discerned and appreciated, [and he is unqualified to judge spiritual matters].
.... hate to keep harping ... but, the natural man is incapable of understanding; that the Spirit that gives one understanding ... then it is God determining and the natural Free Will of man is useless. That being said and give your first quote above, I know longer no what your stance is on the subject.

You take one verse and say it describes all of mankind which is far to simple. I have heard men who are not confessed believers have amazing discernment of the thing of the spirit whereas confessed believers are blind as bats sticking to their label theology. You decide that "natural "means unbelieving, but believing itself is not a clear black or white. How is believing measured?

Hmm ... I would have said FAITH and REPENTANCE come simultaneously .... hmmmm ....
Why would someone repent if they did not believe?

I have a testimony and heard many a testimony in my life and when confronted with their sin and repentance, real repentance with weeping it was so deep, they were not believing. They were too busy repenting. Belief came later after experiencing forgiveness and cleansing. Faith is not merely mental ascending to an an idea.

Is there a time delay and what would that time delay be? Like, it could be a year for instance?
You got a proof text? I don't have a proof text either way?
Hmmmm, I think the logical order would be faith and then repentance as you can't change your mind with a reason to do so which would be faith, but the chronological order would be simultaneously because there is no reason to repent (change your mind) other than faith.
What's your reasoning?

OK, I am going to go to a personal question for which you should not answer me. And that is, have you ever experienced seeing your sin as God sees it? If not, please ask Him to show you your sin as he sees it to be. This has often been the first step into believing.

You want a text, when Peter preached to the crowd in Acts on Pentecost, their response was that they were cut to the heart. What is this "cut to the heart" experience? It is being convicted of sin. This comes first and it leads to repentance. Repentance leads to being cleansed and this leads to faith. Jesus told his disciples to preach "repent and believe" and the other way around. Repentance comes first as our faith is that Jesus cleanses us from sin but if we do not see the sin, there is no reason to believe. Now I did not quote the reference so you look it up and read the whole account.

Well, I didn't mean there were different kinds of faith leading to salvation.
Aside: the aspects of a faith that saves is interesting.... my theory is that if you ask 10 Christians for what must be believe to be saved you will get 9 different answers with some similarities.

Yes, I agree. I am just shy of using "Christianese" whereby we make up words only used in the church and have no meaning elsewhere. They make communication less open.

That's a possible explanation.

Yes He did explain why people choose to believe. It is important to God because:

OK, I will bite..why?

1. Job 41:11 e.
2. Isaiah 42:8b
3. 1 Corinthians 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles [it makes no sense to follow God if logic says it is folly unless the Spirit intervenes], 24
4. 1 Corinthians 4:7 "
5. Galatians 6:14
6. Ephesians 2:8
7. It can be taken as a given that if any part of our salvation was actually based upon human works or merit, men would as a result boast, even if their "part" in the process was infinitesimal compared to that of God. Therefore, salvation must be totally of God.

7. is a typical fallacy argument you ought to drop it. When a man is drowning in a swift river and a life preserver is thrown to him and he is told to hang on while 5 strong men pull him to safety, he thanks the men. He NEVER EVER says his hanging on saving him and he is proud of his strength. NO ONE EVER is proud that they repented and God forgave them of their sin. NO ONE EVER. DROP that typical Calvinist fallacy.

Not of those other verses answer the question as to why people believe. The focus is on what is in a person that causes them to believe, not what God values. What God values works for you as you believe, I assume, that God forces (you use a different verb) people to believe because it is important to him that some (not all for no reason any Calvinist can offer) believe. Since you think God is manipulating faith, the focus can be on Him forcing this. But I do not believe God forces faith on unsuspecting lucky ones and so am asking "why do people believe" themselves.

Ah, because when God speaks He needs no references.

The writers of the Bible were not God and they also gave no references and as you insist, references are for the reader, not the speaker.

Well, either I don't have basic knowledge of the bible or your hypothesis is incorrect. Consider me a 'scriptural dummy' and to facilitate my deficiency it would be best to give a bible reference. It is easy: put 4 or 5 worlds into google search engine and append 'verse' and it will usually give you the scriptures. .... Example: I don't know the reference for 'turn the other cheek" ... I just now googled it after appending 'verse" and .... presto ... Matthew 5:38-40
I googled your statement "repentance before faith verse" .... and I got nothing relevant to the chronological sequence. So given my assumed "lack of basic knowledge of the bible", please help me.

OK, sigh, but I my view is based on the whole of scripture, not isolated verses. And why can't you look up the reference from google? I can give it in quotes and you copy paste it into google. When you give chapter and verse with no words, I have to look it up. When I give from memory (thank you very much) the Bible, why can't you look it up? My quotes require no effort whereas yours often do.

Well, I'm not a lawyer so either I'm not a 'believer who lives in the word' or you hypothesis is wrong.

But you cite individual sentences taken right out of context like a lawyer does the law book. I do not blame you, this you would have gotten from Calvin who was a trained lawyer.

Well, the assumption is that one is "twisting" scripture.
You have a bias as you probably think a scripture that one interprets differently than you is twisted.

No, I take the whole chapter and not isolated verses.

The point of the matter is it is MUCH EASIER to twist God's message by making statements not found in scripture and attributing them to God;s view point than it is to twist God's view point by quoting statements found in scripture.
Statements in scripture can be verified. Statements not found scripture cannot be verified save by scripture which you castigate as an inferior communication method.

Aside: I can't believe you are debating that the use scripture is not inferior to using God's word. WOW!
Aside2: I know it is to your advantage to not use scripture so you rarely do. I use it a lot as it supports my ideas IMO.

I use scripture that you do not recognize. "Search the scriptures (all of them) to see if these things be so." I could take one verse that you quote out of context and go through the whole of the book it appears in to show that the calvinist interpretation is wrong and ignores the weight of the author's words in that same book. All of your quotes that initially lay all the work of salvation of God are blown away by Paul, for example, writing to the recipients to choose to do xyz. As soon as Paul writes a single sentence in the command form, and he writes tons, the weight of choices is placed squarely upon man. When Paul exhorts them to do this and that, it shows Paul (and God) believes that man ought to do of their own free will this and that. You can quote to me "it is God as work within you etc." and say it means God does it all, but I can give you Paul saying be diligent to do ....which show WE NEED TO BE DILIGENT. This is a typical example.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

"Choose" means you have a choice. That's why they put adjective FREE in front of WILL so as to qualify the noun.
I say FREE means you are FREE to choice X or Y according to your desires, said desires determined by God and your statement indicates you do not know what FREE means in the context of FREE WILL.

Then the will is not free but manipulated. You have mutually exclusive statements. If God is manipulating desires, of which we have the opposite evidence inside and outside scripture, then there is no free will. You ought to admit this.

You want scripture, "love the Lord you God with all your heart." It this just a game in your theology where God is making people love Him?

Note: I define my view point often. I am completely confused as to what idea you are defending. To many contradictory statement IMO and this yet another definition. Maybe you should says exactly what your definition of FREE WILL is.

I did it once already but here goes again, Man is mentally and emotionally free to make choices within what is offered and can choose to let forces outside of him persuade and is responsible for letting those forces do that and so the wise man considers carefully which outside or even inside forces will persuade him. He might consider the needs of others or the future repercussions of a choice. He might be moved by physical needs, his own I mean, or any number of factors. But he is free to choose among options. God is not manipulating hi although other men might if he is not careful. Every command by God to choose including "do not eat of the tree" supports this view.

In debate one states his position (and doesn't keep redefining it or making statements that contradict their original position). Of course I made up my and and so did you. You decided God decided to let man decide who is saved and who goes to hell. You are not really asking, are you? This is a diversionary tactic I guess.

Not really. I did not decide on any of the points I believe at this time in my life. I carefully considered the evidence in Scripture and real life and sought to know the truth. I did not decide what I want to believe. I decided I wanted the truth, cost what it may and it is EXPENSIVE.

True .... like a Berean I verified the works of a multitude of teachers (wisdom in the council of others) of God's word (not just Calvin ... Sproul, Edwards, Pink, Charnock, Hodge, Pope, Grudem, Augustine ... yahda, yahda.

Aren't they all Cavinists? What about testing the theory in real life? As I said, I am trained as a scientist and therefore test theories in real life. When someone tells me that God is manipulating (using nicer words of course) everything everyone does or he is not God (not a biblical argument) then I look inside the inner workings of my decisions and I see clearly that is NOT the case. If it were I could only do what he wants. I look at the decisions of others and see evil, clearly NOT what he wants. So this theology that God is controlling every atom does not match real life nor does it match all the commands God gives man and then rewards or punishes according to what the man chose.

I fooled an atheist once who asked my why I believe the Bible is true and then jeered thinking I was going to say "because it says it is the true" (which is does not in those words) because I answered that I believe the Bible is the truth because when tested in real life, what it says actually matches real life.

The Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the scientist, --a body of unorganized or only partially organized facts. It is necessary, therefore, if we are to know all the facts on any given subject for us to gather together the scattered teachings and to construct them into a logical and harmonious system. The function of systematic theology is to unfold the Bible using revelation and reason; where the former trumps the latter. It is the orderly collecting, scientifically arranging, comparing, exhibiting and defending of all facts from any and every biblical source concerning God and His works. Ideally, all facts forming a doctrine are harmonious; on occasion not all the facts are harmonious for man is finite and God is infinite. Isaiah 55:8 (AMP) “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts higher than your thoughts.
The treasures of divine truth are observed only by those who are trained to recognize them. The message of the Bible is complete. The mastery of any part necessitates the mastery of the whole. Author unknown

This author did not walk with God. But this is a common view. God is a subject to be studied like chemistry, or biology or physics. HE is not a person to come to know but a subject. God hides from these sort of people. Luke 10:21

Your a scientist, yet you seem to neglect the science of theology; relying on the work of others, testing, verifying, comparing, studying ...

Guilty as charged regarding neglecting the science of theology. Instead, I love the Being who desires to be understood. I do not rely on anyone else's work, which is actually something you have confessed you do giving names. I was out on the mission field with God and my Bible and no one to teach me and I was hungry to learn. We complained to our director who told us to do what missionaries have done for millennia, and that is to get your Bible out and get your teaching from God directly instead of being fed. And I had to free a team to boot. I learned a great deal from asking Hi questions. Ps 119:99

It is a position of critical thinkers who admit fallibility and the bible's infallibility. It is a position that can withstand scrutiny. There are so many other positions (like everyone has a different one that you probably cannot find an alternate cohesive volume of thought. Look at the online statements of faith on line of any protestant church. It will be a page or two long. They dare not go further due to their lack of agreement which is confusion.
Aside: Reformed thinkers almost stand alone amongst protestant denominations in that they study various topics randomly strewn throughout the Bible and put them together in a cohesive package. Thus, for example, from God's attributes alone I know your idea of Free Will (which seems to change) is false. Consider:

• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's freedom to choice and since the superior rules His creation, His freedom must reign.
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's glory for God shares His glory with no one so salvation must be of Him alone
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's goodness because God cannot will any other thing but himself as his end, because there is nothing superior to himself in goodness.
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's grace as grace is not grace if it is dependent
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's independence. Romans 11:35
• 
  
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's claim that none can boast: Job 41:11 Who has first given to Me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heavens is Mine.

I would that you knew FREE WILL as God sees it, as God commanded it to be, as God will judge the outcome without blaming himself. He is not threatened by any man having free will but is rewarded by those who freely chose to love and honor him. We commonly think of what we inherit, but He inherits as well. Ephesians 1:18

It is good to test one's ideas. You challenge me several times: James 1:13 for example.


I can't say I convince anyone. Ben Shapiro - What you want to believe you tend to believe and you tend to look for excuses to believe it. .. .Yeah, I know, this doesn't apply to you.... *smile*

I believe you understand my position. I thought I understood yours, but later on there were statements that seemed to contradict my understanding. You were very patient with me... thank you. Again, the story about you being smart was supposed by 'friendly banter' to lighten the mood. Guess I blew that. Not my intent... Sorry

No worries, as I wrote you PM. I did not want our friendship damaged and so I stopped at the first insulting verb. No problem whatsoever. (I was somewhat flattered that you think I am that intelligent. I feel pretty stupid at times.)

Born to Christian parents (not reformed), 4 grand parents all Christians, 2 children are Christians.
I don't know when I first believed. Around 5 I understood enough so that when my father took me aside I knew saving faith, what it was and that I had it. I believed as a child. What ever my parents told me was truth. (strange anecdote: I believed in Santa .. if belief that Santa was real got you to heaven I would have made it. Jewish next door neighbor told me Santa was not real when I was 6... .said to look for elastic holding up his beard. Well shortly afterwards, sure enough Santa had an elastic supporting his beard. My faith in Santa was gone). But my faith in Christ was and remained strong...like a child I believed.

I would ask you to consider asking God to show you your sin as He sees it. It is life changing experience.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's freedom to choice and since the superior rules His creation, His freedom must reign.

Why is He not free to give free will to his creation so that they can learn to freely choose the good? Are you not restricting this freedom with this view?

• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's glory for God shares His glory with no one so salvation must be of Him alone

God's glory as described in Revelation meaning his appearance and the attendees worshipping is independent of man and his salvation. His glory is and always was. Man is unnecessary.

• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's goodness because God cannot will any other thing but himself as his end, because there is nothing superior to himself in goodness.

That is morally not good. Any being that cannot will any other thing but himself as the end is egoistical. This is not God's goodness but actually describes the Enemy who cannot will any other thing but himself as the end.

• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's grace as grace is not grace if it is dependent

*God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Humble YOURSELVES THEREFORE.." Grace is connected with our humbling ourselves and not God doing it sovereignly. Free will is vital to receive grace, not the opposite.

• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's independence. Romans 11:35

Aren't you limiting God in saying that if another being has free will, God has his hands tied and cannot deal with it. He is threatened by this state. Why cannot GOd decide he wants his children to have free will. Which parents would like to manipulate their offspring so that they cannot choose to love or choose anything at all?

• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's knowledge because God knew who would and would not be His children before the foundation of the earth and thus no source of knowledge but himself

OH, this is definitely limiting the intellectual ability of God and big time. He is just a lot smarter than this position gives him credit for being. Just because a man cannot imagine God giving free will and still knowing what will be done does not mean God cannot.

• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's love and wisdom because the happiness of the creature cannot be the final end of God's action. There would be no wisdom in this case, because the superior would be subordinated to the inferior.

If God's love and wisdom does not desire the well-being of his children, what does it desire?

• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's sovereign mercy Romans 9:15; Exodus 33:19

Your position conflicts with God's mercy given as scripture indicates: Matt 5:7, Matt 6:15, Luke 6:36

• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's impartiality because Romans 2:11 "God does not show favoritism" God is independent of His creation and therefore they have no effect upon Him. He alone predetermines the destiny of all people and things ...

The bold is not a scripture because you have none that say that. Now favoritism is unjust prejudice toward a group. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gave a number of blessing that will happen, favors, if you will, to those who ACT in a certain manner. He is impartial in that he grants these to anyone but, there are conditions to be met.

• .
• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's perfection for it is not possible to have that which would be most desired if it is not determined by God.

Why does not God have have perfection? Aren't you limiting God?

• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's sovereignty Romans 5:21 “Even so might grace reign“

God has sovereignly decreed that man and angels are free to make their own choices among the options. He sovereignly decided this.

• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's sufficiency because His knowledge were gained from another who is below God, he would not be sufficient of himself, but be under an indigence.

This deeply underestimates God's ability or sufficiency making it dependent upon man having no free will. God is bigger than that.

• I know FREE WILL conflicts with God's claim that none can boast: Job 41:11 Who has first given to Me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heavens is Mine.

Jeremiah 9:24...... Of this I boast and God is glad when a man can truthfully boast of this. And God asks man to give to him in sacrifice since Abel and Cain gave sacrifices. God was pleased with one of them.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Fastfredy0

In the above post I mention Cain and Abel and assume you know the story. Is that a statement without a scripture for you? Curious.

A correction, Jesus told his followers to preach “repent and believe” not “believe and repent.” Repent refers to our behaviour. Believe is accepting the teaching and claims of Christ as true. I will look for references now and hope to be back before 30 minutes.

Matt 4:17, Mark 6:12, Luke 3:3

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I say FREE means you are FREE to choice X or Y according to your desires, said desires determined by God

Does God give us the corrupt desires of the flesh, or does he allow the desires of the flesh to be corrupted?

10...those who indulge the corrupt desires of the flesh and despise authority. 2 Peter 2:10