Christianity and the Meaning of Life

[Guest]

Red Beetle,

see post to JM.

What I said was that arguments have to be worded carefully - or . . . inadvertently - God is made out to be the author of evil.

You said: Of course God loved Adam, he was elected by God.
I said: God created Adam whom He loves.

In an early post to JM I listed another pair of statements:

You said earlier: God created people He did not love.
I said earlier: God created Adam whom He loves.

It is the word created that is important - hence the ensuing discussion about the author of evil.

If God created people that he does not love then I ask:

At which point did God create them?

We know that everything was created in six days and God rested on the seventh day. At this point God saw what He made and pronounced it very good. Insofar as the existing creation is concerned it was finished. You will find that the word create has to be used carefully.

blessings: stranger

I was using the english word as it is used in Isaiah 45:7, "I form the light...and create evil...".
God is the ultimate cause of all things.

The Bible is clear that God loved some individual people in eternity before He created, and that He hated the rest of the individuals. Romans 9:11-16.


R.B.

 

[Drew]

I enumerated a list of verses from the Old and New Testaments which not only develop a proper context, but clearly demonstrate that my interpretation of Ephesians 1:11 is correct. This is why you choose not to mention my proofs for Ephesians 1:11. You see Calvinism uses a principle known as "the analogy of faith". We interpret Scripture with Scripture. This is why I gave the list of verses supporting my take on the verse in Ephesians. I showed that God determines the smallest of actions, the greatest of actions, and all actions in between.

I simply do not agree that you done what you claim to have done. I have read the scriptures you provided and frankly see them as being "open" or somewhat ambiguous in respect to the reading that you give them. One cannot simply list texts, whose meaning is ambiguous (as Eph 1:11 obviously is) and simply declare that the ambiguity has been resolved.

And as far as "interpreting scripture with scripture" is concerned, the intelligent reader will know that a text whose meaning is ambiguous cannot be be resolved in a certain direction by other texts whose meanings are also ambiguous.

You claim to have reproduced your case in this post that I am responding to. We shall see (I will address one of your texts now, but hope to get to all of them).

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.

Here is Proverbs 16:1 rendered in the NASB (which I understand to be a fairly accurate translation):

The plans of the heart belong to man,
But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD

This gives an entirely different message to the translation you provide. Already we have ambiguity. The NASB text is easily seen to be consistent with the idea that the "plans" of the heart are indeed the product of the free acts of a man. The fact that free will is not mentioned in either translation is obviously irrelevant (I will explain why if I have to).

Clearly the text (in either translation) states that the vocal remarks come from God. This is entirely consistent with a view that man "freely" comes to a decision, and that God then takes that decision and determines how it will be expressed.

Until you make a case that the "correct" translation is the one you have cited, it remains unclear as to whether the "plans / preparations" really do come from God. So this item requires more work to be a solid pillar in your argument.
I wish to be clear: regardless of my choice of words in previous posts, I do indeed believe that God does manipulate the human will to a certain extent and under certain circumstances. I am specifically objecting to the position that man's will is totally controlled by God. Perhaps I have misunderstood RB's position (although I highly doubt that this is the case). Please comment as you see fit.

 

[stranger]

My next question would be, was God shocked by the fall, did God know the fall was going to happen? How did God know? [Then I'll get back to how you defined evil.]

~JM~

Hi JM,

God walking in the cool of the evening and calling out to Adam does not suggest to me that He was shocked. The other part of your question is answered in Eph.1:4.

The definition of evil I might add is in relation to God.

But let me ask you a question: Does the following statement summarise or define the 'author of evil' argument adequately - regardless of the position taken on it:

If God created evil then He is the author of evil.


Now back to the original statements:

1. God loved Adam, he was elected by God.
2. God created Adam whom He loves.

and

1. God created people He did not love.
2. God created Adam whom He loves.

This is where I raised the issue in the first place. I am only addressing and opposing the author of evil argument.

blessings: stranger

 

[stranger]

I was using the english word as it is used in Isaiah 45:7, "I form the light...and create evil...".
God is the ultimate cause of all things.

The Bible is clear that God loved some individual people in eternity before He created, and that He hated the rest of the individuals. Romans 9:11-16.


R.B.

Hi red beetle,

The NASB in both Amos 3:6 and Isa45:7 does not use the word create.

In my response to JM I set out the author of evil arguement, regardless of position as:

If God created evil then He is the author of evil.

It is against this proposition that I argue. All my posts on this tread have to do with this..


blessings: stranger

 

[Drew]

"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.

I see absolutely no reason to assume that this text requires a "God always turns the heart of the King" reading. How do you justify such a reading if that is your position? Considered as a statement, this verse is consistent with an interpretation that, under certain circumstances and for certain specific reasons, God turns the heart of the King.

"Whithersoever He will" sounds pretty "open" to me - suggestive even that, in the event that God wants to, He will turn the heart of the king.

I hope that you can directly address this objection. I would advise against using the argument that if the writer intended to communicate such conditions, he would have explicitly spelled them out. I do not think that will work - besides such a strategy can be used against the proponent of the Calvinist view (in respect to other verses).

 

[Drew]

"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.

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"?

There is little doubt in my mind that the Scriptures do support some determining action by God on the wills of men. I have yet to see any justification for this being the case in all circumstances for all people at all times.

 

[Drew]

You have continually begged the question when it comes to demonstrating "free" will. But I'm sure you will be giving us a plethora of indicative verses which teach the "free" will of man apart from Almighty God.

This is a clearly not a correct representation of the situation. The facts are these:

1. You presented a very specific argument based on Eph 1:11.
2. I argued that the premise of the argument was sufficiently ambiguous to undermine the argument.

You have, in my view, not provided a substantive response to my counterargument.

While I do believe that man has some free will, I am simply not required to defend the free will position in order to point out a weakness in your argument.

As I have pointed out before, is someone obliged to prove "Not X" in order to expose a problem in argument for "X"? Of course not.

 

[Oscar3]

hello all
what is a hyper calvinist and what is a 5 point calvinist?

 

[stranger]

hello all
what is a hyper calvinist and what is a 5 point calvinist?

try the tread on Calvinism

blessings: stranger

 

[JM]

hello all
what is a hyper calvinist and what is a 5 point calvinist?

"A hyper Calvinist is anyone more Calvinist then me!"

It's a joke.

I'll pm you.

~JM~

 

[christian_soldier]

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.

 

[JM]

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?

 

[Guest]

Here is Proverbs 16:1 rendered in the NASB (which I understand to be a fairly accurate translation):

The plans of the heart belong to man,
But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD

This gives an entirely different message to the translation you provide. Already we have ambiguity. The NASB text is easily seen to be consistent with the idea that the "plans" of the heart are indeed the product of the free acts of a man. The fact that free will is not mentioned in either translation is obviously irrelevant (I will explain why if I have to).

Clearly the text (in either translation) states that the vocal remarks come from God. This is entirely consistent with a view that man "freely" comes to a decision, and that God then takes that decision and determines how it will be expressed.

Until you make a case that the "correct" translation is the one you have cited, it remains unclear as to whether the "plans / preparations" really do come from God. So this item requires more work to be a solid pillar in your argument.
I wish to be clear: regardless of my choice of words in previous posts, I do indeed believe that God does manipulate the human will to a certain extent and under certain circumstances. I am specifically objecting to the position that man's will is totally controlled by God. Perhaps I have misunderstood RB's position (although I highly doubt that this is the case). Please comment as you see fit.

It seems now that you wish to dispute the integrity of the textus receptus. Changing the subject does not help you, and here is why.
The verse you site from the NASB does not teach or imply "free" will, as you have to admit by stating that "free" will is not mentioned. It is not even implied. You simply choose to read your view into it. Any Calvinist can say that the plans of the heart belong to man, for the man is responsible for those plans. But where did the initiation to form these plans come from? And, what motivated man to form the plans he did, rather than the plans he did not? The strongest motive, as Calvinism has always taught (see Jonathon Edwards classic "The Freedom of the Will"), always determines the will. It is God that has determined what we will respond to in terms of motivation, and it is God who is in control of the motives that we are exposed to. So, even with the watered down NASB, my syllogism is firm and supported.

Oh, we still are waiting for that declarative verse that teaches "free" will and thus gives your argumentation credibility.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Hi red beetle,

The NASB in both Amos 3:6 and Isa45:7 does not use the word create.

In my response to JM I set out the author of evil arguement, regardless of position as:

If God created evil then He is the author of evil.

It is against this proposition that I argue. All my posts on this tread have to do with this..


blessings: 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

 

[Guest]

I see absolutely no reason to assume that this text requires a "God always turns the heart of the King" reading. How do you justify such a reading if that is your position? Considered as a statement, this verse is consistent with an interpretation that, under certain circumstances and for certain specific reasons, God turns the heart of the King.

"Whithersoever He will" sounds pretty "open" to me - suggestive even that, in the event that God wants to, He will turn the heart of the king.

I hope that you can directly address this objection. I would advise against using the argument that if the writer intended to communicate such conditions, he would have explicitly spelled them out. I do not think that will work - besides such a strategy can be used against the proponent of the Calvinist view (in respect to other verses).

I love how you try to answer for everyone after you give your Arminian position. The verse does not say that God turns the heart of the King "if he wants to", but it says that He turns the heart of the king.

Were still waiting for that verse which teaches "free" will.

Sola Fide.
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

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"?

There is little doubt in my mind that the Scriptures do support some determining action by God on the wills of men. I have yet to see any justification for this being the case in all circumstances for all people at all times.

Are you saying that this verse teaches that God determined the minds of the Egyptians to hate the Jews?
I'm stunned.
Would you like to explain to the rest of the "free" will advocates here what right God had to remove the Egyptians "free" will, and then determine them to do something evil?
Hey, maybe you could explain to Stranger how this doesn't make God evil. He might accuse you of making God the "author of evil", even though he never defined that term.

And, if God determined the minds of a nation to do His sovereign bidding, and you have not given any verse which teaches "free" will, then what makes you think that God relinquishes His determination over the minds of His rational creatures at any time?

You seem to be quite confused. Did the NASB not say it differently?

Sola Fide
Red Beetle :-D

 

[Guest]

This is a clearly not a correct representation of the situation. The facts are these:

1. You presented a very specific argument based on Eph 1:11.
2. I argued that the premise of the argument was sufficiently ambiguous to undermine the argument.

You have, in my view, not provided a substantive response to my counterargument.

While I do believe that man has some free will, I am simply not required to defend the free will position in order to point out a weakness in your argument.

As I have pointed out before, is someone obliged to prove "Not X" in order to expose a problem in argument for "X"? Of course not.

Denying an argument, then saying that there might be a different argument is not a counter argument. A counter argument is where you give a syllogism, which in this case teaches "free" will, and demonstrates your position. To deny absolute determination is to logically assert "free" will, but you have given no evidence from Scripture for your view. You have no counter argument. You have only denied. You have not shown a contrary from Scripture. 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.

We are still waiting for that verse which teaches "free" will.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Drew]

It seems now that you wish to dispute the integrity of the textus receptus. Changing the subject does not help you, and here is why.
The verse you site from the NASB does not teach or imply "free" will, as you have to admit by stating that "free" will is not mentioned.

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

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life

If I were to adopt your argument, I could say that since this text does not mention an "elect", any claim that this text is open to a Calvinist reading is without merit. The important point is that the absence of a statement about an elect in John 3;16 no more rules out a Calvinist reading of this verse than does the absence of a statement of the existence of free will rule out an "Arminian" reading of Proverbs 16:1.

It is not even implied. You simply choose to read your view into it.

The reader who reads my words carefully will know that I have never stated that this verse is anything but ambiguous in respect to the issue of free will. I am merely expressing that a free will reading is consistent with the NASB rendering. Why not show that my plausibility argument is flawed?

Any Calvinist can say that the plans of the heart belong to man, for the man is responsible for those plans. But where did the initiation to form these plans come from? And, what motivated man to form the plans he did, rather than the plans he did not? The strongest motive, as Calvinism has always taught (see Jonathon Edwards classic "The Freedom of the Will"), always determines the will. It is God that has determined what we will respond to in terms of motivation, and it is God who is in control of the motives that we are exposed to. So, even with the watered down NASB, my syllogism is firm and supported.

You are surely not expecting us to merely accept your words (I have bolded the relevant ones) on your say-so are you"?

Oh, we still are waiting for that declarative verse that teaches "free" will and thus gives your argumentation credibility.

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".

 

[Drew]

verse does not say that God turns the heart of the King "if he wants to", but it says that He turns the heart of the king.

John 3:16:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life

This verse does not say that God gave is son for an elect, it say He gave His Son for whoever believes in Him.

 

[Drew]

Are you saying that this verse teaches that God determined the minds of the Egyptians to hate the Jews?
I'm stunned.
Would you like to explain to the rest of the "free" will advocates here what right God had to remove the Egyptians "free" will, and then determine them to do something evil?
Hey, maybe you could explain to Stranger how this doesn't make God evil. He might accuse you of making God the "author of evil", even though he never defined that term.

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?