Christianity and the Meaning of Life

[Guest]

Drew Writes:

The fact that free will is not mentioned is not of relevance. The trinity is never mentioned in the Scriptures. Each text in the scriptures need not be footnoted. Consider John 3:16

No, the term trinity is never mentioned. But countless logical arguments / syllogisms have been given by countless people in the past proving deductively that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God. A multitude of verses have been pointed to in support of the Godhead.

You have not given one verse in support of "free" will.

You bringing up the Trinity proves my point perfectly.
Who ever heard of an orthodox theologian arguing for the Trinity, while claiming that he believes in the authority of Scripture, yet refuses to give any verses from Scripture? Your use of logic in this matter is laughable.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Drew]

You have only denied. You have not shown a contrary from Scripture.

Guilty as charged. But I did not simply "deny", I provided a plausibilty argument "(yet to be critiqued, I might add) about how your argument from Eph 1:11 has a problem.

Like I stated before, you claim you hold to the Scriptures as an authority, but you refuse to obey 1 Peter 3:15.By not adhering to this command of Scripture you contradict your claim that the Bible is authoritative.

This makes no sense to me at all.

People have the right to point out errors in a specific argument that someone else has put forth without the moral obligation to provide a case for the opposite position. 1 Petetr 3:15 does not oblige people to drop work and other obligations to defend a doctrine because someone on an internet forum demands this.

Unlike certain people, I would want to invest the time and care to produce a quality argument that cannot be dissembed easily. That takes time that I am not willing to invest.

Does this make me disobedient to the dictates of the Scriptures? Let the readers decide.

I will let the readers decide whether this demand of yours is laughable as you claim my logic is.

 

[Guest]

I do not know who you are arguing with here.

I never claimed that God does not determine men's will at times. In fact, I have clearly stated that I hold such a position.

This has no bearing on my post whose essence was "On what basis do you generalize from one episode of "turning the heart" to a position that God "governs all His creatures and all their actions"?

Care to answer the question?

First, let me say that I am glad that you admit that God determined the minds of these men to evil. This is a good victory for Christianity against "free" will.

The verse I cited gave an instance of God determining the minds of thousands, perhaps millions. I did not try to base my entire argument on that one verse, as anyone reading this thread can easily tell you. That is why I listed others. This verse shows that God determines men to do evil. Your attempt to claim that I base the entire argument on this one verse is childish.
In Christianity, we believe that a doctrine must be formed on a multitude of different verse throughout the Bible. Unlike you, we do not make our arguments outside the authority of Scripture.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

I have been asking for an argument from the Bible alone that supports "free" will. Does Drew have an argument for "free" will based on the Scriptures?

I never claimed to have such an argument and all readers will know this.
They will also know that I am not obliged to provide a Scriptural argument in support of free will in order to critique a weak argument against free will.

I may indeed undertake such an effort if time permits. In the meantime, we all have the right to point out errors in arguments for doctrine X without the moral obligation to provide an argument for the doctirine of "not X".

The answer is no. Drew has no argument.

Drew has found no errors in my argument.

Drew also thinks that he is not obliged to provide an argument for "free" will, although Scripture, which Drew claims is authoritative, says he is obliged to provide such an argument when people ask for it (1 Peter 3:15). Drew simply does not know the basics of Scripture.

Simply disagreeing with someone is not the same thing as finding an error in an argument. Drew may one day undertake to prove to the world that "free" will is deducible from Scripture, and one day pigs may sprout wings and fly across the Atlantic Ocean. Don't hold your breath.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

This makes no sense to me at all.

People have the right to point out errors in a specific argument that someone else has put forth without the moral obligation to provide a case for the opposite position. 1 Petetr 3:15 does not oblige people to drop work and other obligations to defend a doctrine because someone on an internet forum demands this.

Unlike certain people, I would want to invest the time and care to produce a quality argument that cannot be dissembed easily. That takes time that I am not willing to invest.

Does this make me disobedient to the dictates of the Scriptures? Let the readers decide.

I will let the readers decide whether this demand of yours is laughable as you claim my logic is.

I am not interested in your excuses.
Christians are interested in what the Scripture teaches.
I accept your admission that you are not prepared for this subject and this type of debate.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Drew]

Your attempt to claim that I base the entire argument on this one verse is childish.

This is misleading as many of your posts are. The fact is that the verse in question is consistent with "God sometimes controls the will of man position". Please explain why such a reading is not plausible.

In Christianity, we believe that a doctrine must be formed on a multitude of different verse throughout the Bible. Unlike you, we do not make our arguments outside the authority of Scripture.

I suspect that some readers will see your constant efforts to paint me as not according sufficient respect to the Scriptures as a tactic to avoid the content of my plausibility arguments in respect to some of the scriptures you have posted.

Why not take the high road and show how my counterarguments are wrong instead of calling me names and making an unsupported claim that I do not accord authority to the Scriptures?

 

[Drew]

Who else is willing to debate whether I have found an error in Red Beetle's argument? Anyone care to step to his defence?

 

[Drew]

I am not interested in your excuses.

It is not my fault that you were called on a faulty argument. You were trying to make a difficult case and are to be commended for it. I simply do not think I have the time to make the kind of argument that you are asking me to. If I were to try this, I would want to do a good job, and that will take too much time.

I accept your admission that you are not prepared for this subject and this type of debate.

I freely admit that I am not prepared to take the time to make the case you are asking of me. But it was not I who made a bold claim about the absence of free will in the first place. If you can't take the heat of challenge, perhaps it is you who are not really ready for responsible debate.

 

[Drew]

Now unless something relevant to the actual topic is forthcoming, I will probably leave the last words to RED BEETLE. I think it is time we all returned to the actual issue - a very interesting and important one indeed.

 

[stranger]

Yes, I can see that. The NASB is a faulty translation. The textus receptus is the best, but that does not change the fact that God is the ultimate cause of evil. You must take an unscriptural modified deist position like Drew and argue apart from Scripture that "free" will exists.
Where is your text teaching "free" will?
Maybe you can help Drew find it.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

Hi Red Beetle,

This issue is not the ultimate cause of evil but the creator of evil and the author of evil. The way you express yourself led me to think that you believe that God is the author of evil. The way you continue to talk strengthens that impression. Hence my earlier comment - you have to word things carefully.

The reformed and calvinist positions do not believe that God is the author of evil and this is consistent with what I find in scripture. So are you going out on a limb here or have I misunderstood your posts?

Drew's manners have not negated his arguments in my eyes. Keep well red beetle.

blessings: stranger

 

[christian_soldier]

christian_soldier wrote:
The notion that God is long suffering as He awaits the repentance of His 'elect' indicates the 'free will' of the potential repenter, to choose to repent or not.

How so? Explain how it indicates freewill?

The key phrase here is "to choose to repent or not".

C'mon, JM, I know you are not that obtuse.

 

[Guest]

Hi Red Beetle,

This issue is not the ultimate cause of evil but the creator of evil and the author of evil. The way you express yourself led me to think that you believe that God is the author of evil. The way you continue to talk strengthens that impression. Hence my earlier comment - you have to word things carefully.

The reformed and calvinist positions do not believe that God is the author of evil and this is consistent with what I find in scripture. So are you going out on a limb here or have I misunderstood your posts?

Drew's manners have not negated his arguments in my eyes. Keep well red beetle.

blessings: stranger

Stranger,
until you define what you mean by "author of evil", then it is foolish to ask people if they adhere to your term.
The history of Calvinism backs this up.
For example, in the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 3, section 1), the greatest Calvinist creed ever written, they use the term "author of evil". But, unlike you they have a clear understanding of what they mean by that term, and this is why they continue to say, "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.."

Those Calvinist theologians who wrote the Heidelberg Catechism stated, "That the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (who of nothing made heaven and earth, with all that is in them; who likewise upholds and governs the same by His eternal counsel and providence) is, for the sake of Christ His Son, by God and my Father; on whom I rely so entirely, that I have no doubt but He will provide me with all things necessary for soul and body: and further, that He will make whatever evils He sends upon me, in this valley of tears, turn out to my advantage: for He is able to do it, being almighty God, and willing, being a faithful Father" (Lord's Day 9, Question 26)
These Calvinist theologians had a clear understanding of the term you toss about, but clearly profess that God decrees evil to exist.


If you will be so kind as to give a definition, I would be more than happy to give you a word for word quote from John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. I can also give a nice citation from Dr. Gordon H. Clark, America's greatest Calvinist. But, until you define your term, you might as well say, "snark" as to say "author of evil."


Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Christian Soldier wrote:

The key phrase here is "to choose to repent or not".

The fact that one chooses does not imply there is "free" will. Choices are determined by God. Like the choice the Egyptians made to hate the Jews. Drew even agrees with this, just ask him, or read his post for yourself above.

Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Drew wrote:

This is petitio principii, that is, begging the question.
From start to finish you have done this.

Still waiting for that verse which teaches "free" will.

Red Beetle

 

[Vic C.]

Hi there. I have a few question. Hopefully you can answer them in a short and sweet way. I'm new at this Calvinism stuff. 8-)

Did Adam and Eve have freedom of choice, before the Fall?

If yes, then did they also have freedom of choice after the Fall?

If no, then when did they lose it and where in the Bible does it say it was taken away from them?

If Man has no freedom of choice whatsoever, then why did God give Moses Commandments to follow and even insisted they follow them or there would be consequesces?

Why would there be consequences for something that is out of their control, as in they didn't have a choice to obey or disobey... yet some did disobey indeed.

Why would God create them, give them Laws to follow, then [alledgedly] declare Man has no freedom of choice, but punishes them for their non-choices?

That should do for now.

 

[christian_soldier]

Christian Soldier wrote:


Choices are determined by God.

Red Beetle

Mandates are determined by God, not choices.

I will leave you to your "ism" now.

God bless.

 

[Guest]

Drew wrote:

It is not my fault that you were called on a faulty argument.

Well, I have challenged you in the past to please demonstrate my so-called error. You have never done this.

Drew, maybe you haven't studied logic, and if you haven't then that's o.k., but please try and understand that simply claiming a person has made a mistake does not make it so.
You claim that there may be another "possible" way of interpreting this verse in Ephesians 1:11 other than the Calvinist way. No kidding. The Catholics certainly have their own interpretation, and like you, they give no Scripture backing their intepretation up and they make no effort to prove "free" will from Scripture. Like you, they claim the pope is even to busy to take up the study of this situation and speak ex cathedra on the specific verse.

But different existing interpretations do not prove that mine is wrong.
One rule of logic you might learn, if you ever study it, is that contraries can all be wrong, but they can't all be right. But pointing out that two ideas are contrary does not prove that your opponent's idea is the one that is wrong.

You have even said that the verse is "open". This is mere opinion on your part, for you have demonstrated no fallacy in my argument from the Scriptures. Therefore, your "open" claim is nothing more than a pyrrhonian theme. I may retort by saying that I believe that your claim that the verse is "open" is what is actually open. Open to the conclusion that based upon the entire context of Scripture, God really does determine whatsoever comes to pass--every thought and act of man--thus proving my argument. Pyrrhonistic skepticism is not Biblical, and it is only an attempt to confuse the situation to the point that the one using it can claim that there is simply not enough info to conclude anything. The downfall of open theism is that it can never make a consistent argument from the Scripture. It therefore will always resort to agnosticism and skepticism.

Your continuous denial of 1st Peter 3:15 only shows that you are not interested in what the Bible teaches and that you do not adhere to the notion that the Bible alone is the Word of God.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Mandates are determined by God, not choices.

I will leave you to your "ism" now.

God bless.

You have failed to give even one verse which teaches "free" will.
You do not adhere to the Bible as being the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice, or you would make an attempt to show "free" will from the Scriptures. Erasmus made that attempt, why can't you?

The big difference between Calvinists and those who believe in "free" will, as anyone can see by reading this thread, is that Calvinists make their arguments from the Scriptures. Those that believe in "free" will arbitrarily claim it's existence, but can never show it from the Bible. They have no basis for their belief in "free" will.

Sola Scriptura
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Hi there. I have a few question. Hopefully you can answer them in a short and sweet way. I'm new at this Calvinism stuff. 8-)

Did Adam and Eve have freedom of choice, before the Fall?

If yes, then did they also have freedom of choice after the Fall?

If no, then when did they lose it and where in the Bible does it say it was taken away from them?

If Man has no freedom of choice whatsoever, then why did God give Moses Commandments to follow and even insisted they follow them or there would be consequesces?

Why would there be consequences for something that is out of their control, as in they didn't have a choice to obey or disobey... yet some did disobey indeed.

Why would God create them, give them Laws to follow, then [alledgedly] declare Man has no freedom of choice, but punishes them for their non-choices?

That should do for now.

What you should do is get a copy of Martin Luther's book titled, "The Bondage of the Will". If you get this book, and if you read it, then you will know more about Calvinism than those who oppose it in this thread. All of the objections to Calvinism I have had to deal with here are very amature, but that book goes even deeper than what you will see here. And, it is written in a very reader-friendly manner. You can get a copy at Amazon.com. Here is a link for the book:
The Bondage of the Will

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[christian_soldier]

You have failed to give even one verse which teaches "free" will.
You do not adhere to the Bible as being the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice, or you would make an attempt to show "free" will from the Scriptures. Erasmus made that attempt, why can't you?

The big difference between Calvinists and those who believe in "free" will, as anyone can see by reading this thread, is that Calvinists make their arguments from the Scriptures. Those that believe in "free" will arbitrarily claim it's existence, but can never show it from the Bible. They have no basis for their belief in "free" will.

Sola Scriptura
Red Beetle

Perhaps it is merely the dry medium of the forum that creates the impression of pomposity, but I find no "meekness and fear" about your style of defense, though you seem fond of 1 Peter 3:15.

I have set forth several scriptures from which the concept of "free will" may be deduced. Perhaps the HS will guide you to the same Truth when the time has come that you find more glee in scripture than in the art of debate and "logic".

Farewell and may God bless you as you grow in Christ.