Christianity and the Meaning of Life

[Guest]

Christian Soldier writes:

No, HE won't cast out a believer. However, if a believer falls away of his own free will, thats a problem for him.

Once again, you try to smuggle in "free" will without first demonstrating that there is such a thing. I have given logical syllogisms showing from Scripture that "free" will is impossible. Arguments based upon indicative verses. You have provided no evidence from Scripture, yet we should mindlessly believe you. Sorry, but I believe that the Bible alone is the Word of God. You do not have any authority in this matter. You have simply lost this debate.

And, it is evidenced by the Holy Ghost that the subjects referred to in the quoted passage from Hebrews were saved.

Sorry, but you fail to deal with the conditional statement the entire passage in Hebrews depends upon. Conditional statements do not imply that created beings can violate the decrees of God. Let me remind you that we are not talking about "what if," but we are talking about "what is." I suggest you read Martin Luther's book, "The Bondage of the Will."

Instead of getting mad and just reacting why not get mad and launch a massive study in the history of theology about the topic of "free-will."
Where are all the books through the ages demonstrating "free will" from the Bible? Something you should think about.
Your personal theology, at least in this thread, implies flat out Pelagianism, and not simply semi-Pelagianism.

Thanks for your responses though.
Red Beetle

 

[JM]

RED, you should post more in the apologetics forum. There are a few open theists there to talk with.

Any thoughts on justification from eternity?

Peace,

jm

 

[Drew]

Calvinism proven from Scripture
God is a being who works all things after the counsel of His will
Man's will is a thing
Therefore, God is a being who works man's will after the counsel of His will

See how simple that is?

I think that the above argument fails. Are you (RED) going to assert that it succeed for the same reason that the following argument succeeds?

Example 1
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal

The Socrates argument is indeed correct, but I believe that the "Calvinism proven" argument is not.

Here is the reason: Unlike statement 1 from the Socrates example ("Socrates is a man"), statement 1 from the "Calvinism" example ("God is a being who works all things after the counsel of His will") is subject to at least 2 very different readings, one of which I think causes the argument to fail.

What does it really mean to "work all things after the counsel of his will"? Well, it could mean that God controls all things, including man's will. Is there a way that God can work things to the counsel of his will without "interfering with" or in any way "working" man's will?

I think that there is a way. The argument to support this other reading is somewhat "technical" and I hope to take a shot at it later. In short, it is based on the notion that a sufficiently complex and powerful God can indeed fulfill his purposes even with certain variables (e.g. man's will) not fully under His control. Roughly speaking, if I play tennis against the world's best player (I suck at tennis), he can assure victory even though he does not fully control me. That he can assure victory is not obvious, I admit. And the analogy may not be the right one.

In the meantime, though, in order to claim the "Calvinism" argument as sound, you need to make a case that your statement 1 is indeed correct. It is certainly not self-evidently correct in the same way that the statement "All men are mortal" is correct.

I think your argument is vulnerable to the counter-claim that God works the set of all things to his will as a set, and not necessarily as individual items.

 

[stovebolts]

Hello Red Beetle,

You seem like a very well read, articulated gentleman with a high degree of education. I hope that you won’t mind me, a simple layman to impose a few questions upon you in the realm of election and its effects on ones free will.

While admit ably, I struggle with the whole concept of Free Will, or lack thereof, I must say that it may very well be due to my current understanding of election. Here is my conundrum.

Now then, I am not claiming to be a scholar here, and I admit up front that I may be wrong or that there is a verse that may shed some light on this subject that I am not aware of or I simply overlooked. If so, please show me, I will not take offence. That being said;
Enoch walked with God, yet I do not believe there is any mention of Enoch being part of the Elect. Noah had great faith and obedience; yet again I read nothing of Noah being elected. We then come to Abram, a great man of faith, I suppose we could infer that Abram was elected, but one thing we do know, is that the land of UR did not hold YHVH as the supreme deity of the pantheon. Regardless, the OT I believe is silent on this matter. But what it is not silent on is Abram’s obedience and faith.

When I view the Elect in the OT, I seem to view the elect as the Israelites when they are liberated from Egypt. However, as seen with Korah, not all of the elect were saved even though all of the elect participated in the covenant at the bottom of the mountain.

Another item I seem to get stuck on is this. YHVH didn’t give the promise land to the Israelites because they were holy, but because they were to be a light to the nations. Now, just like the Israelites, we cannot earn our salvation, nor do we deserve it for both the land as a gift to the Israelites and our eternal destinations are synonymous.

For me to get my head around the whole idea of only the elected being saved and our lack of free will, I’ll first need to get around the idea that those that were not of the elect per se were indeed being saved, such as those belonging to Nineveh, or Ruth as two simple examples. Furthermore, if the purpose of the Elect was to be a light for all the nations, then doesn’t that infer, such as explained by the later prophets that those outside the elect would be saved?

I’ve much more to write, but I’ll stop here for now. If you choose to answer my questions, I give you my thanks in advance.

Jeff

 

[JM]

Jeff, this might help.

Abraham’s justification was used by Paul in Romans 4 to illustrate God’s pattern for saving all believers in all ages, so have a look there. [see also Hebrews 11 for heros of the faith].

Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

Dr. John Gill on Hebrews 13:20, "...The "covenant" spoken of is not the covenant of works made with Adam, as the federal head of his natural seed; there was no mediator or shepherd of the sheep that had any concern therein; there was no blood in that covenant; nor was it an everlasting one: nor the covenant of circumcision given to Abraham; though possibly there may be some reference to it; or this may be opposed to that, since the blood of circumcision is often called by the Jews, "the blood of the covenant" (d): nor the covenant on Mount Sinai, though there may be an allusion to it; since the blood which was then shed, and sprinkled on the people, is called the blood of the covenant, Exo_24:8 but that was not an everlasting covenant, that has waxed old, and vanished away; but the covenant of grace is meant, before called the new and better covenant, of which Christ is the surety and Mediator; see Heb_7:22. This is an "everlasting one"; it commenced from everlasting, as appears from the everlasting love of God, which is the rise and foundation of it; from the counsels of God of old, which issued in it; from Christ's being set up from everlasting, as the Mediator of it; from the promises of it which were made before the world began; and from the spiritual blessings of grace in it, which were given to God's elect in Christ before the foundation of it: moreover, it will endure for ever; nor will it be succeeded by any other covenant: and the blood of Christ may be called the blood of it, because the shedding of it is a principal article in it; by it the covenant is ratified and confirmed; and all the blessings of it come through it, as redemption, peace, pardon, justification, and even admission into heaven itself; and Christ, through it, was brought again from the dead, because by it he fulfilled his covenant engagements, satisfied divine justice, and abolished sin, yea, death itself.

The Covenant that operates above all Covenants [made in time] is the everlasting or eternal Covenant made within the Godhead between God the Father, God the Son and carried out by God the Holy Spirit. This has been the orthodox Christian position and built upon during the Reformation.

Tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gi...4/book4_01.htm
http://www.pbministries.org/books/gi...2/book2_06.htm

It was stated this way on the net by a poster, “Christ was in God before the creation. Old testament saints are saved the same way that we are by His grace. Noah found Grace. Abraham found grace. All who are saved are by the will of the Father through His grace and mercy. There is one body, Old Testament and new for God is not partial to man in the ways we think.â€Â

Peace,

~JM~

 

[Veritas]

For what its worth, I believe there is an election of grace, or a predestination to salvation.

"God hath from the beginning chosen to salvation," 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the "remnant," the "seed" which "the Lord left," Romans 9:27- 29, the "election," Romans 11:7

On the other hand, I also believe that there is no election of wrath, or predestination to damnation. I think Scripture plainly reveals the truth that the love of God for the world of lost sinners is universal, all men are embraced without exception and Christ has fully reconciled all men unto God

1 Timothy. 2:4: "God will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

I believe no man is lost because God has predestined him to eternal damnation. Eternal election is a cause why the elect are brought to faith in time, Acts 13:48; but election is not a cause why men remain unbelievers when they hear the Word of God. Men remain unbelievers because they resist. Acts 13:46; 7:51; Matthew 23:37. (and therein lies our free will)

I think scripture distinguishes between the universal will of grace and the election of grace, and at the same time does not place the two in opposition to each other. I think that Scripture teaches that the grace dealing with those who are lost is altogether earnest and fully effective for conversion.

 

[christian_soldier]

Instead of getting mad and just reacting why not get mad and launch a massive study in the history of theology about the topic of "free-will."

I'm not mad. See, I'm smiling.

However, if I were mad, how could I be otherwise, lacking free will and all. :-?

Do you have the supernatural ability to thwart God's will for my mood? :x

:angel:

 

[Guest]

Drew wrote"

The Socrates argument is indeed correct, but I believe that the "Calvinism proven" argument is not.

Here is the reason: Unlike statement 1 from the Socrates example ("Socrates is a man"), statement 1 from the "Calvinism" example ("God is a being who works all things after the counsel of His will") is subject to at least 2 very different readings, one of which I think causes the argument to fail.

First of all, the classical example with Socrates and my argument are both valid syllogisms. For those that have not trained in logic what this means is that the conclusions from both arguments necessarily follow from their premises. The arguments, whether you agree with the veracity of them or not, are valid.

Now, you are incorrect when you state that the first premise in the "Socrates argument" is: Socrates is a man. It is not the first and general premise. The first and general premise of Example 1, or, as you call it, the "Socrates argument" is: All men are mortal.
The next premise is the particular premise, and it is in this premise that the term Socrates is introduced: Socrates is a man.

In my argument, the first and general premise deals with the counsel of God. You seem to be confused in your comparison of my argument and the so-called "Socrates argument".

Anyway, your objection with my argument is not with the validity of the syllogism, but with meaning of my first and general premise. You equivocate a different meaning to this premise, claim that my meaning is wrong, then claim that my argument fails. You certainly can claim that there is a different meaning to the first and general premise of my argument, but, you will need to understand a couple of things should you wish to enter this debate.


First, if you are going to disagree with a premise in my argument, then you need to give your own definition. You do not give a definition, but you do claim that you have one. In fact, you claim that it is complex and you hope to give it later. This is simply begging the question. You need to prove what you claim. Until you do this, you simply don't have a dog in the fight.

Second, you need to make your argument from Scripture, as I did. You will need to demonstrate from Scripture that man has "free" will. I am not interested in secular reasoning apart from Scripture. I am arguing from Scripture Alone. Any argument not made from Scripture is simply not acceptable in this debate. I will not let you assume the Bible teaches "free" will. You, like Christian Soldier, will need to first demonstrate that the Bible teaches "free" will, before you argue the "notion that a sufficiently complex and powerful God can indeed fulfill his purposes even with certain variables (e.g. man's will) not fully under His control."

The "tennis" analogy is an inductive argument based on probability. As in all inductive arguments, if you can not close the induction, then you can not deduce with certainty. The best you can do is guess that the better player will win based upon past experience. This is why you state, "victory is not obvious, I admit." This is known as the fallacy of induction.

And the analogy may not be the right one.

No, I don't think it is a good analogy.

In the meantime, though, in order to claim the "Calvinism" argument as sound, you need to make a case that your statement 1 is indeed correct. It is certainly not self-evidently correct in the same way that the statement "All men are mortal" is correct.

Well, here you fail to realize that people with different presuppositions will interpret the terms: "man" and "mortal" differently, and can just as easily say that your use of those terms are not self-evident. For example, the study of anthropology is very different if you are a logical positivist, than if you are a Christian. The positivist will claim that part of the definition of man contains the negative proposition: Man is an animal not created. The Christian will claim that the definition of "man" presupposes the doctrine of not only creation, but also God. Terms must be defined, especially when someone, like you, enters an argument without identifying what they believe.

Here are some more indicative verses which back up the Biblical teaching that God determines the will of man, and thus supports my meaning in the first and general premise of my argument for Calvinism.

1)
"The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord" Proverbs 16:1.
Here we see God determines not only man's thoughts, but his vocal remarks. Notice there is not one mention of a "free" will.

2)
"The King's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will" Proverbs 21:1.
Notice that here it is clearly implied that God determines the very will of the King. The King's mind is said to be in the very hand of God. This colorful language demonstrates the complete control God has over the mind of man. How do you like the Holy Spirit's analogy? The mind of the king is compared to a river which God can turn as He pleases.

3)
"He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal subtilly with His servants" Psalm 105:25.
Here we see the Psalmist declare that God determined the minds of the Egyptians to hate the children of Abraham. Not one word of "free" will. God governs all His creatures and all their actions.

4)
"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows" Matthew 10:29-31.
Here we see Christ declare by implication that not even a small sparrow can fall to the earth without God's determinate counsel. From this our Lord argues from the lesser to the greater when He infers that just as the destiny of a simple sparrow is determined by God, so too is the destiny of man, who is far more important than many sparrows. This is why man need not fear when confessing Christ before God's enemies. No enemy can harm us unless the Sovereign God of the universe has decreed it. Therefore, Christ is teaching that God's determinate counsel is the basis of our comfort. For those of you who have access to the Heidelberg Catechism, then you might wish to read the first question and answer of that great catechism. It wonderfully communicates this idea.

And even if we are persecuted we know that God has so determined the minds of men, and the results of their hateful actions, that "all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose" Romans 8:28. Something wholly impossible without God determining history and the minds of men!

These are just a few verses through the Old and New Testaments which teach that the will of man is determined by God. These verses also fully support my interpretation of Ephesians 1:11, which states that God "works all things after the counsel of His own will." Therefore, my argument is not only valid, but it is also true. I state the argument one more time for the readers:

Calvinism proven from Scripture
God is a being who works all things after the counsel of His will
Man's will is a thing
Therefore, God is a being who works man's will after the counsel of His will

See how simple that is?

Thank you Drew for your remarks.

Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Here is the first Questiona and Answer of the Heidelberg Catechism:

Question One
What is thy only comfort in life and death?

That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ; who, with His precious blood, hath fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto Him.

Sola Fide!
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

StoveBolts writes:

I hope that you won’t mind me, a simple layman to impose a few questions upon you in the realm of election and its effects on ones free will.

Thank you for your remarks, but you will have to prove that there is "free" will. You seem to be assuming this notion from the start.

Enoch walked with God, yet I do not believe there is any mention of Enoch being part of the Elect. Noah had great faith and obedience; yet again I read nothing of Noah being elected. We then come to Abram, a great man of faith, I suppose we could infer that Abram was elected, but one thing we do know, is that the land of UR did not hold YHVH as the supreme deity of the pantheon. Regardless, the OT I believe is silent on this matter. But what it is not silent on is Abram’s obedience and faith.

Steve,
Election can be argued backwards from the fact that a man does have faith. Check out this verse in Acts: "...and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" Acts 13:48. This verse teaches that if a person has saving faith, then it is because God has elected them to receive the gift of faith from eternity. This is how we know that Enoch and the other Old Testament Patriarchs were elected from eternity.

Furthermore, if the purpose of the Elect was to be a light for all the nations, then doesn’t that infer, such as explained by the later prophets that those outside the elect would be saved?

The term "elect" in the above sentence is ambiguous. The first time "elect" is used it means the nation of Israel, but the second time you use it it means "those chosen to be saved." God has elected Jews as well as Gentiles to be saved.

Thank you for your remarks.
Red Beetle

You might be interested in listening to my lecture on 'Election' at this link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... nism&hl=en

 

[Guest]

Veritas wrote:

For what its worth, I believe there is an election of grace, or a predestination to salvation.

On the other hand, I also believe that there is no election of wrath, or predestination to damnation.

Logically, if you have two classes, and you elect one, then necessarily you reject the other. If a guy flips a coin, and you choose to call "heads", then you simultaneously decline "tails". So, when the coin comes up "tails", then you can not say, "Hey, I elected "heads", but that doesn't mean I rejected "tails", so I win the toss!" Such is clearly seen to be absurd.
The same applies to election and reprobation.
However, Jude, verse 4, clearly teaches that some have been appointed to damnation. The Bible says, "For there are certain men...ordained to this condemnation..."

I think Scripture plainly reveals the truth that the love of God for the world of lost sinners is universal, all men are embraced without exception and Christ has fully reconciled all men unto God

If this is true, then none could be damned. For, are we to believe that the puny will of man is capable of defeating the omnipotent will of God who wishes to save all men everywhere? Does God, who is omniscient, not know how to save those who do not wish to be saved? Does He not know how to convince resisters to simply believe the Gospel? Are we to believe that Almighty God's salvation depends upon the puny will of man? The Bible says that God's desires are always accomplished. We read, "But He is in one mind, an who can turn Him? and what His soul desireth, even that He doeth" Job 23:13. If God desires the salvation of all, then all are saved. The Bible also states, "But our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased" Psalm 115:3. It is clear that if God pleases to save all, then they would all be saved.

How can something finite and temporal (man) effect something infinite and eternal (God)? It is not the puny will of man who causes God to act, but it is the Almighty will of God that causes man to act. It is God who has mercy apart from the will of man. See Romans 9:16. "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

but election is not a cause why men remain unbelievers when they hear the Word of God.

This is true, election does not cause men to remain unjustified. Reprobation is the cause of this. God hardens their hearts: "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth" Romans 9:18.

Men remain unbelievers because they resist. Acts 13:46; 7:51; Matthew 23:37. (and therein lies our free will)

This is false. God determines the will of the reprobate by hardening their hearts. And, just because people do resist--this does not imply "free" will, for God is even the cause of this resistance. Psalm 105:25 is a typical example of this.

Thank you for your remarks.
Red Beetle

 

[DISconect2]

If I belived the same way you do RED BEETLE I would just give up. If this is true well....I am in serious trouble.

 

[JM]

If I belived the same way you do RED BEETLE I would just give up. If this is true well....I am in serious trouble.

I'd give up if God could do nothing without me allowing Him to do so. Where's God's freewill in all this discussion?

~JM~

 

[Drew]

Now, you are incorrect when you state that the first premise in the "Socrates argument" is: Socrates is a man.

Agreed. I made a simple transcription error.

First, if you are going to disagree with a premise in my argument, then you need to give your own definition. You do not give a definition, but you do claim that you have one. In fact, you claim that it is complex and you hope to give it later. This is simply begging the question. You need to prove what you claim. Until you do this, you simply don't have a dog in the fight.

You are not really being fair here. If I were really to beg the question, I would not made it clear that my intent was to provide an alternate definition. And I did actually give a hint of one when I stated

I think your argument is vulnerable to the counter-claim that God works the set of all things to his will as a set, and not necessarily as individual items.

I will (in a later post - time is pressing somewhat on me) expand on what I mean here. So please stand by. I am confident, though not certain, that I will be able to provide a coherent interpretation of your first premise that undermines your argument by showing that there is a possible reading to the first premise that causes the argument to fail.

You will need to demonstrate from Scripture that man has "free" will.

This is simply not true. You, as proponent of the argument, need to defend it against claims that the meaning of your premise 1 is unambiguous (admittedly the alternate meaning has yet to be fully explicated). All I need to do is provide an alternate interpretation of your first premise that is merely plausible - I do not need to show that this alternative is correct, only that it is plausible. I am not obliged to demonstrate that man has free will - if I show that premise 1 is ambiguous, then the argument fails. I need not provide a positive argument for free will.

I am not interested in secular reasoning apart from Scripture. I am arguing from Scripture Alone. Any argument not made from Scripture is simply not acceptable in this debate.

This is simply not possible. Your very arguments are based on "secular reasoning" when you appeal to terms like "general premise" and "syllogisms". etc. God has put the world together in such a way that we effectively have no choice but to deploy "secular reasoning" principles (e.g. notions of coherence, necessity, sufficiency, contradiction, etc.) in figuring out what the Scripture mean.

I will not let you assume the Bible teaches "free" will. You, like Christian Soldier, will need to first demonstrate that the Bible teaches "free" will, before you argue the "notion that a sufficiently complex and powerful God can indeed fulfill his purposes even with certain variables (e.g. man's will) not fully under His control."

Again, not true. I am under no such obligation. I am not the one who made an argument. I claim that your general premise is ambigious and intend to provide a plausible alternate interpreation that causes your conclusion to not be justified. Establishing that "a sufficiently complex and powerful God can indeed fulfill his purposes even with certain variables (e.g. man's will) not fully under His control." is a legitmate goal to establish the plausibility of my alternate reading of your general premise. And I am only obliged to show the plausibility of a reading of premise 1 that does not support your argument. I am not obliged to provide a positive argument for free will.

I will follow up as time permits.

 

[Drew]

Calvinism proven from Scripture
God is a being who works all things after the counsel of His will
Man's will is a thing
Therefore, God is a being who works man's will after the counsel of His will

Let's examine premise 1 ("God is a being who works all things after the counsel of His will"). What meanings can we legitimately ascribe to this Scriptural statement?

One meaning that makes sense is that God controls each and every variable (thing) in the Universe in order to fulfill his will. If this is the intended meaning of the writer, then, since Man's will is such a variable, God indeed controls man's will in accordance with God's will.

Fine.

But what about the following alternative intent behind premise 1: God works the set of all things in accordance with his will, and in fact does not control all members of that set. Is such a reading plausible? I think that the 2 following questions need to be answered in this respect:

1. Is such a reading consistent with the wording?
2. Even if such reading is consistent with the wording, is it in fact plausible that God can achieve his purposes without controlling all the members of the set?

Re question 1, I would say that the wording indeed allows such a reading. The text does not say God works each and every thing in accordance with his will. If it did, my alternate reading would be sunk. It is entirely plausible that the intended meaning is that the set of all things, as a collective, is "worked" with the possibility that God does not control all members of the set as individuals.

What do I mean when I say that God can work all things "as a collective", yet does not control some members?

Consider a set of variables V = {V1, V2,....Vn}. Let's say that God controls all variables except V3, which we will assume to represent man's will. What I mean is that God can work (control) all the other variables to achieve a certain purpose "P" even if He has given up control of V3. Is this imaginable? Yes it is. Consider the following analogy:

Consider a football field that runs north-south. Along the 50 yard line are three large rocks. Somewhere along the southern goal line there stands a hunter with a rifle and a rocket propellled grenade launcher. There is a rabbit hiding behind the middle of the three rocks. Let's say that the hunter wishes to kill the rabbit. This is his purpose "P".

The hunter knows which rock the rabbit is presently hiding behind. All the hunter's equipment works perfectly - he controls these variables. And he is also a perfect shot - this also is under his control. He controls his own actions in respect to aiming and firing the rocket launcher and blasts the middle rock to bits.

The rabbit, whose next action is not under the hunter's control, is now exposed. The rabbit is "free" to run for either of the remaining rocks, or to remain still, or to run about madly, or to do something else. He has a number of options available to him and the hunter cannot control which option the rabbit elects to implement.

Is the rabbit doomed? Yes he is, precisely because this hunter controls enough variables to assure that he will be able to shoot the rabbit, even though some variables are not under his control. If he has a perfect rifle, if he never loses concentration, if the rocks are far enough apart, and if the rabbit is only so fast, etc. the hunter can guarantee a kill, even though the rabbit has a degree of freedom to act independently of the will of the hunter.

The key point, and it cannot be emphasized enough, is that the whole thing is a system, and this particular system is put together in such a way as to ensure the hunter's kill. There are obviously other systems that are not. If the system is such that the hunter is not a perfect shot and he only has one bullet in his rifle (and no more grenades), he cannot ensure a kill. But I am not talking about such a system. I am talking about the entirely plausible system that basically guarantees a kill.

Jumping out from this analogy:

Is the real world like this in respect to our free will and God's will fulfillment in respect to one or more purposes "P"? I am not sure that it is. What is clear, though, is that it is very much an open question as to whether it is. And once this openness has been established, the answer to question 2 is seen to be "yes". Remember, by my hypothesis, the hunter had a purpose in respect to killing the rabbit, but he did not have a purpose in respect to what the rabbit would do when his hiding rock got blasted.

In summary: I believe that I have made a case that premise 1 of the "Calvinism" argument is open to a particular plausible reading that does not requires that God control all things (as individuals). If the plausibility of this alternate reading is successfully established, then I claim the original argument (quoted at the very top) fails because it makes it possible that man's will, while a "thing", is not one of the things that God controls to achieve His will.

 

[Vic C.]

If I belived the same way you do RED BEETLE I would just give up. If this is true well....I am in serious trouble.

I'd give up if God could do nothing without me allowing Him to do so. Where's God's freewill in all this discussion?

~JM~

I like to avoid these sort of debates because it seems [to me] that both sides of the argument are so adament concerning their beliefs. I'd also like to see this discussion continue without all the huuffing and puffing that often happens in debates like this.

There is a connection between "free will" the Soveriegnity of God that appears be beyond our comprehension. Those who believe God is responsible for every move, thought, reaction, etc. are playing "Matrix". Those who believe man can alter God's plan to the point where HE has to step in and "correct" it are wrong. Our will is not and can never be over and above HIS.

Mat 10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

There must be a balance between the two that is unapparent to us. This point of Calvinism that is being discussed bas "always" confused me. :-?
_________________________

I do have a question or two... do Calvinists witness and if so, how? Also if so... why? I believe that was the meaning of DISconect2's post. Please, I'm posting sincere and serious questions. I do not wish to enter this debate as I am "outknowledged" by those know know Calvinism inside and out.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Drew]

Those who believe man can alter God's plan to the point where HE has to step in and "correct" it are wrong. Our will is not and can never be over and above HIS.

There is no contradiction between the following two claims:

1. Man can alter God's plan to the point where HE has to step in and "correct" it.

2. The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord

You seem to think that 2 requires that God never has to act to "re-work" a plan that has been "fouled up" by man. What is your reason for saying this? To me, the fact that God may need to react to our action still leaves him as master, since He always "wins" the game. But I think you read too much into Matt 10:24 when you seem to argue that God may not need to react to man's actions. How does a "need to react" make God any less the master, given that He always prevails. I think it actually makes him "more" of a master - it requires more power and sophistication to work out His will in the presence of creatures who can "interfere" with specific plans.

On the other hand, I do see where you are coming from. I just think the weight of the scriptures does suggest that God indeed does have to react to man's actions.

 

[destiny]

I like to avoid these sort of debates because it seems [to me] that both sides of the argument are so adament concerning their beliefs. I'd also like to see this discussion continue without all the huuffing and puffing that often happens in debates like this.

There is a connection between "free will" the Soveriegnity of God that appears be beyond our comprehension. Those who believe God is responsible for every move, thought, reaction, etc. are playing "Matrix". Those who believe man can alter God's plan to the point where HE has to step in and "correct" it are wrong. Our will is not and can never be over and above HIS.

Mat 10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

There must be a balance between the two that is unapparent to us. This point of Calvinism that is being discussed bas "always" confused me. :-?
_________________________

I do have a question or two... do Calvinists witness and if so, how? Also if so... why? I believe that was the meaning of DISconect2's post. Please, I'm posting sincere and serious questions. I do not wish to enter this debate as I am "outknowledged" by those know know Calvinism inside and out.

Thanks in advance.

I agree with you, Vic. I also think 'ism's' in general are usually off balance with the word of God, because they are based on some mans slant on scripture.
One of my elderly lady friends told me... God 'forknew' us because he knew those who would use their free-will to live for Him. He never knew those who would use their free will to choose the world. Simplicity!

PS... Only He knows who will make the right or wrong 'choice'....and we get to be blessed by being a wittness to some of those.

Thats the simple way I see it also.

 

[JM]

The Church has always taken "sides."

Drew, pls stop with your stories, that's all they are. Post your scripture, all of them, that you believe supports what you're trying to get across in your little stories. Most of us on this forum believe in the Bible and look to the Bible as our source of doctrine.

I'll deal with each and every single scripture you post unless they are too similar in kind, or repeat the samething.

I do it even if it takes 3 months.

~JM~

 

[Drew]

Drew, pls stop with your stories, that's all they are.

The stories are valuable mechanisms to explore the coherence of various ideas. You are, of course, under no obligation to respond to them.