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

[Dorothy Mae]

Well, the bible does not state how Peter or Christ could walk upon it. I believe one possibility was God changed the property of the water, or of Peter, or of gravity .... and I think you've said God can't change the properties of materials.

How come Jesus did not tell the others that the water was now different, not that He, Jesus, was different and they ought to all "come on out, the water is solid."

Neither of us can offer proof. God is transcendent. He speaks and it is done .. science be damned.

He does not think science is dammed. But I will tell you that my desire since teenage years was to understand God. That was some decades ago now and I do understand God. Science does not get in the way.

You were at the dead sea? Kewl ... water was nasty tasting though. I windsurfed on ocean and hated the salt...stings the eyes .. prefer fresh water.
I think there was a restaurant or hotel at the dead sea that had the best desserts I ever had ... though, maybe I have it confused with another location in Israel.

Sounds exciting. I just went bathing and spread mud on my skin. Really does wonderful things for the skin.

Re: Christians seeking God

This may be a matter of semantics ... we been on enough tangents so I will let is go. I am starting to lose what the exact theme (what we are debating) of the discussion is to be honest.
We need a 'statement to objectify the what we are discussing' ... gone to 'indoctrination' and 'attributes of properties' and a few other tangents to the point I am getting lost ... lol

I hear you but I am afraid I see this site as a chance to talk with believers and when in a conversation, there is no one around to police the topic so I enjoy the natural flow of the talk. I forgot where we were as well, but its been enjoyable.

I am sorry you do not want to pursue seeking God as a topic but maybe it is off topic and we will get the ruler on the head for going there. Seeking God has been the life blood of my life and it has been very rewarding.

Re: Getting booted

Hey, I was threatened and it took me by complete surprise.

That was exactly my experience and response. We are not allowed to discuss it though. Best move on.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows. (irrelevant comment ... just a thought that came to mind... ignore me)

Re: my disclaimer to cover my butt ...

Phew, can't be too safe. You could be an undercover administrator try to entrap me. 2

I laughed out loud. I really did. You put my thoughts into words.

Re: Premise 2: All of Christ's requests to God are granted because He is God (He's basically asking Himself)
Your response:

Ah, but Christ's request had a caveat ... 42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
So, Christ did get what he asked for.

No, this is not how they would have seen it. By this definition, every christian always has every request granted no matter the outcome. I mean, every Christian will espouse that they want God's will done. They never say, "God's will be dxxxed, I want what I want this time." So whatever happens after prayer, they got their prayer positively answered. But this negates the whole of human groaning and travailing in prayer. I mean a person wants their dying son to be healed but they want God's will done so whatever happens their prayer was answered in the affirmative. And in fact, if God's will is always done, as you espouse, why pray at all? What is the use? If God is manipulating all human decisions, why pray?

Aside: Yeah, I thought of that objection when I created the premise .... again, don't want to go on another tangent to discuss this point.... I'm getting lost in the details about the details about ...
Aside: Hey you're pretty smart. I think to be fair I should get some type of handicap ... say, I time in 5 you admit I am correct no matter what? Would be helpful to tell me when the 5th time came up so I could hold my fire and then promote a ZINGER. Please? 2

This is great! You are really one of the best posters I have met here. A briliant man with a sense of humor even at himself. I am deeply impressed. I will do this. Everytime you are right, I will say so in BOLD. I will make a point of finding the times you are right. Will that help. When did you hold your fire? Did I miss that one?
End part 1

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Part 2

I've heard the answer/theory is that Christ did it for our edification.
Example John 11:42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.
... could be it was His human nature I suppose... said nature not be all-knowing

Not everything he did was for us. He had desires and pleasures too. One of my favorite verses is "how long do I have to put up with you?" Shows exasperation, a very human feeling.

Re: Please provide scripture showing God's will is not followed.

I did: They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin. Jeremiah. Did you know that one?

Fredy, you are too good a man to have a theology that you cannot apply to real life. So let me ask you, do you do the will of God 24/7? Does your conscience confirm that you always obey the will of God and follow Jesus' teaching (which is the same thing) all day every day?

I bring this up because in my experience, this is where the reformed believers and I separate. They cannot life the theology they espouse. They get angry when wrong is done to them or those they love (rightly so) but their theology tells them they ought not to be angry as it was always God's will for that wrong to be done. For your theology, there is no punishment that is just by God (even though the Bible is chalk full of examples) because God made all those people do evil. So when I take your theology and apply it to real life, it will fail. Now your response is so much better than all the other Calvinists I have ever met it is astounding to me. You are a better man that your theology and deserve better.

Yeah, when I asked the question I was afraid we might go down this rabbit hole.
This sort of thing portends to cast God as contradicting Himself.
Premise 1: "it never entered my [God's] mind
Premise 2: "God is all-knowing
Conclusion: God contradicts Himself (or He lies)
Proposed solution: Anthropomorphism (not like the bible says it an Anthropomorphism, but the alternative is devastating to Christianity. (Aside: also thought of God's moral will is not followed as He wishes we not sin ... but don't want to go down that tangent) ...

Ah, again, you impress me. You, of course, needn't agree with me but even if you just understand me I will be very pleased. So far no Calvinists have. When one reads this sort of thing in the Bible where God himself says that it never entered his mind, we can reject it. We can sweep it under the rug of our minds. Or we can seek Him to understand how this can be when He is all-knowing. The latter is my preferred course of action and have done so. It is not contradictory.

Yes and no. Yeah, I know, what kind of answer is that. His moral will I do not follow. His sovereign will I follow perfectly. In other words, I don't follow His standards, but His sovereign will I follow. Psalm 33:15; Psalm 33:10; Proverbs 16:9; like I can list 80 such verses, some more direct to the point I am making than others.
We going on another tangent...

The LORD looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men.
14From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth.
15He fashioneth their hearts alike; he considereth all their works.
We discussion this. Notice he made the hearts of men ALIKE. hummm Also says that he CONSIDERS what we do. Humm. Why would he consider if he makes us do what we do?

We already discussed these different wills of God and we do not agree. Moving on.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/171F8bQlCFHGQL-c8uZraPQ-nOqcyQ7nO/view?usp=share_link
.. so many tangents ...

...well, if we want to talk about all the aspects of prayer and why they are/ aren't answer we can at another time. Trying to get back on topic (though, I am not sure I remember the thesis of this discussion ...lol

YOU ARE RIGHT!

Well, my definition of FREE WILL differs from yours. I choose what I desire most at the time and always. But, this does not answer the question, what/who determined by desires.

When you stand before Him and ask him that question, he will say YOU DO.

Agreed, and God exclusively determines habits that determine character that determine our destiny (example: depravity of man) .... one has to go to scripture to determine who is right.

Everyone engaged in counseling to help people with undesirable habits will tell you that God is not determining habits and they know exactly how habits are formed and how to break them. I mean, they can otherwise hang up their shingle as no man can change habits God did. And yet, many have helped people break habits. Man 1 God 0

Ah, thanks. I trust you too ... and if a 'stabbing' took place in know it was unintended. Excuse me if I accidentally characterize something you said, just set me straight.

Aside: Could you lend me $100? ....j/k
Aside2: I usually proof read... you wore me out ... pls excuse errors

I laughed out loud. No stabbing or even a nick occurred. Please call me on any comments I let out that are unwarranted or personally insulting. Like a number (if not all) clever people, I can rip someone to shreds with my tongue and it all be true. (God worked on that bad quality back in my teens so I mostly have it under control in my thoughts as well as words, but not always.)

I am sorry this was so long but it is so delightful to chat with you, I could not resist.

As for answered prayer, there are reasons and if a man wants his prayers answered, it is best to understand that topic and comply with God's requirements. I have seen prayers answered including praying for a lame woman who got up and walked. (It was not in the first world and no crowd was watching. It was for her, not show. But it was really my partner who had the faith and power for the hour. I was just a woman of paste and flour.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Agreed, Calvinism says what the bible says.
Premise 1: Calvin said God is love
Premise 2: God said He is love
Premise 3: Jethro says Calvin theology is empty theology
Conclusion: Jethro thinks "God is love" is empty theology




*Scratches his head in bewilderment* So, Calvinism and non-Calvinism agree. What's your point?




I think you need to proof read what you wrote. It doesn't seem coherent to me. It would be authoritative if you can give scripture to support Jethro's theology instead of uncorroborated statements like this idea is wrong and this one is right without foundation.

I am here too. You are playing with the big boys now. Premise 3 has nothing to do with the first two premises. Nothing at all. Your logic does not follow. What if Jethro said:
premise 1: non-calvinists say God is love
premise 2: God said He is love
premise 3: Calvinists say that other theology is empty.
Conclusion: Calvinists think God is love is empty theology.

If it is good for the goose... (playing with the big boys now)

The request for scripture on your part is a kind of hiding the obvious problems with your theology. That is, Calvinism relies on texts isolated from context and blacks out the obvious conclusions from the multiple texts. You insist on scripture saying things that do not need to be addressed and since it is not (being obvious) you insist it is not there. Now this is done selectively. No Bible tells a man to drink water. It does not tell a man to eat and sleep. Why not? Because it does not need to do so . No Bible tells a man that he will reap what he sows..oh wait, it does!! You see, it assumes that we, not God, will receive the results of our free choices.

I am beginning to suspect that this insistence on exact wording or you won't believe it is because that is how the theology gets its points. The meaning of the writings is ignored and the exact wording is extracted. Our Bible says God does not even tempt man to sin and yet the Calvinist says God is behind/bringing about/author of/whatever other words suit sin which is in direct opposition.

Now why did no author accuse God of being behind/bringing about/author of/whatever other words suit sin? Because all of the authors knew God personally to varying degrees. No one who knows and loves God would come close to falsely accusing Him of any kind of evil no more than a man or woman would accuse the one they have loved and known closely for decades of evil they know they could not have done. Love does not falsely accuse of evil. I once had a teen telephone prankster call our number and ask why a porn number is so often used from our phone. I literally laughed out loud it was so absurd. I know my husband. It was hilarious. They hung up, of course. Failed!

 

[Dorothy Mae]

My story . I sat through a few church services where I was convicted by the Holy Spirit, it is hard to put into word what it felt like , a deep burning in my body . So is conviction regeneration ? Not without making a commitment , it can't be .
Sure I became born again but not before being convicted by the Holy Spirit numerous times .
This help any Fastfredy0 ?

When you say "conviction" and you thought "it can't be," what was the "it" you thought cannot be? If you don't mind me asking.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Where does scripture say Adam's nature was changed? Did God tell Adam that his nature would be changed or that his nature was changed? Did he tell Cain that his nature was changed because of his father's sin? Where does it say that Adam had a before and after image of himself? Just wondering...

Fred, where does scripture say “Adam’s nature was changed?” The verses you quoted don’t say that. You insist on “man has free will” verbatim so I am asking where “the nature of Adam was changed.”

How come God didn’t tell Cain or even Adam that is nature was changed?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Fastfredy0

My apologies for asking what you already answered more than once. That is, if you do his will. Now you answered that you do his sovereign will but not necessarily his moral will.

When Jesus spoke of doing the Father’s will as in :
“I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.” which will did he mean and secondly, in your “sovereign will” theology, everyone does the Fathers will right? So what does Jesus mean when he speaks of obeying or doing his will and the promises that go along with that?

Again, Can you supply scripture that says we all do his sovereign will?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Ah, not sure what you mean by "he hears the testimony of the Spirit".

The testimony of the Spirit:
1 John 5:6-10

"It is the Spirit that beareth witness" vs.6

So I refer you to Job 14:4; Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, John 3:6, Romans 3:23, Romans 5:12 to support the idea we are born in sin ...
Aside: Why am I not surprised you have not given scripture to substantiate your claims.

Romans 7:9 shows us that the verses you cite do not mean a person is born guilty of sin.

Sin guilt is assigned when a person sins and have an accountable knowledge of right and wrong.

 

[Fastfredy0]

End of part 1

Preamble: Gee, you're going to win the argument by attrition (rubbing away or wearing me down by volume. ) j/k (I think)
Preamble 2: I've about lost the train of thought in our discussion. We need a debate theme statement.

Where is this written in stone? Where do you see that the choices you make all have a cause and do you not then simply have an infinite regression until you land in the absurd or in other words, you lay the blame or "cause" on someone who had nothing to do with the end choice? I do not accept this as applying to self-determining agents.

1. 1. God's word (He decreed all things...Eph. 1:11: Numerous passages assert the decree, the purpose, the determinate counsel (Acts 2:23), the foreknowledge (Romans 11:2; Romans 8:29; 1 Peter 1:2), the foreordination, the election (Romans 8:30, see Elect, chosen, appointed, predestinated), the drawing (John 12:32; John 6:44), the hardening/blinding, the choosing (Ephesians 1:4-5; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 2:9, John 6:70, John 13:18; Acts 1:2; Isaiah 44:1b), and the divine purpose (Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 3:11; Romans 8:28), by which God is said to act,)
2. and the "Law of Causality" (explained that earlier)
3. logic (God attributes logically lead us to this conclusion (like I could give, say 100 example of God's attributes causing us to conclude that He caused us to believe which is contrary to the FREE WILL theory which isn't even scriptural, but a fabrication to support anthropocentric theology like "God loves everyone" and "God must be fair by man's understanding of fairness" or "God can't show partiality through the prism of man's understanding of the term". I said I could do a 100 or so... here's one:

Premise 1: God knows all things
Premise 2: Before creation (technically there was no time before create so "before" may be a misnomer....anyways, before creation knew all things that would occur
Conclusion: As there is nothing nor no one else to determine future events and nothing nor no one else to teach God what the future would be we must conclude God determined it all. Aside: this handles your following statement:

infinite regression until you land in the absurd or in other words

Aside: "infinite regression", haven't heard that term for awhile. "A regress into an infinite sequence of propositions". For man this seems infinite; for God it is not. Even man can figure out the finite sequence starts with God though the progression from God to you or I see infinite to us.


Aside: these back and forth discussion are taking a long time... Luckily, I don't have a life and it is fun. Would be more fun if you just agreed with me. I did give you props on INDOCTRINATION. Darn if last night Sarah Huckabee Sanders(Governor of Arkansas) does say basically, "indoctrination is not teaching". (Hmmmm ... ponders ... you didn't have anything to do with her speech writing, did you?)

God does not take the blame for the choices man makes. He rejects the "First Cause" theory in regards to man's free will choices and His part. This is a clever theory to blame God for sin.

God is King; He reins, He is sovereign. For him to be subject to any law He would have to apply a law to Himself and then break it. Being all-wise this seems unlikely. Thus, God cannot be blamed (accused of wrong doing) for anything. I would say God is the cause for man's choices as proven by the Law of Causality.
We're getting into a vindication of God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil. (theodicies) Our plate seems full ... if you want to go there I could, but in private)
Aside: You're an authority on science and know about the definition of "LAW" in a scientific context. As you know it means that from observation no one has found an exception to a particular LAW; thus this is a strong argument IMO.


_________
Re: “God’s will is, and rightly ought to be, the cause of all things that are. For if it has any cause, something must precede it.” John Calvin
Your response:

Where is this in scriptures? This is a clever way to accuse God of all sin and I will defend his character against such untruths. It does tell me the source of the man's theology though.

Where in scripture ... (aside: always me providing scripture and rarely you .... *giggles* You know, your arguments would be elevated if you they could be backed up by scriptures you find. As our mutual presupposition is "whatever Scripture says vanquishes all other arguments, any scripture you provided woud be great 'ammo' ) ... anyways ...
Re: Where in scripture ... I gave 15ish verses above.

You know, the free will side has theodicy problems too. (a vindication of God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil) (if you want to go there I could, but in private ... the vultures would like to take advantage of perceived vulnerability)

_________________________
Re: I said: Now...if you can give me an example of something that was not caused (excluding God) then you would disprove the Law of Causality; otherwise my question to you still requires an answer:

Give me a choice that you make that has a causes and trace it back to God please. Each step needs to be a logical connection. The end result of "GOd made Adam so he is the cause of me behaving badly yesterday" will not work.

Smiles ... You answer a question with a question ... hardly seems fair, especially in light of your infinite regression of causes that lead up to God statement that would seemingly make the task infinitely difficult ... but OK, I will take up the challenge and use the authority of the Bible to back me up:
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: [note verse 12 show John is referring to faith that is the instrumental cause of salvation and verse 13 is going to tell us both what the cause is and what the cause is not] 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
So, we have salvation of any individual and the cause is not the WILL OF MAN, nor the WILL OF THE FLESH, but GOD.
So, we have the ultimate cause (First Cause) as God and the effect is the salvation of any person.

Re:

Each step needs to be a logical connection.

Who am I, God? (rhetorical question) I freely admit I can't fill in all the trillions of secondary causes (seemingly infinite regression to the mind of man) that leads to say your salvation.
To demonstrate the humanly impossible task you assigned me consider the following Hypothetical ...
Adam and Eve have Seth, Seth mets so and so on a date but does care for her. Seth, stubs his toe and needs medical attention. Sally, is a nurse and treats Seth. The two talk and for a couple thousand reasons decide to get married. They have sex, and of the 10 million sperm a particular one is chosen to (you might say chosen by the properties of the best swimmer and I would say God.. humorous aside) impregnate Sally's egg which happens to be the 25th egg she has produced and traveled down her Fallopian tube. This forms your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandma who meets ... yadha, yahda to time 1284 to the 100th power and voila, we have Dorothy Mae .... conclusion: you asked for the impossible

 

[Fastfredy0]

Romans 9:18-23 (I think)

This is an incorrect assumption of the text. That is not what the Jewish author was thinking. God does not make serial killers and rapists and one cannot use this verse to accuse Him of such. Or is that your position. God makes all the evil people in human history to be evil?

Always going to the reason for evil in the world. YOU TELL ME WHY GOD WANTS SIN. Can He not control it? Does He want it? Do something have control of God? Has God shunned you sovereignity to his creation? ... Anyways,
Premise 1: God can clean up the mess on aisle 7 ... He can end sin. We know this because when we are glorified we will no longer sin
Premise 2: sin continues to exist
Conclusion: God wants sin to continue in the world.

Aside: Hope you are taking all this an interesting and playful exchange of ideas. In general, people prefer and enjoy other people who agree with them. (Two cannot walk together unless they are agreed)

Part 2 of ? .. lol .. I need to get a life
Gee, went over limit on length

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I know you believe in inclusivism (correct me if I am wrong...), so I guess the(n) your definition of " the testimony of the Spirit" points to God's revealing Himself through nature as taught in Romans 1?

Almost.
It's Romans 2.
Romans 2:13-16

And, yes, God testifies to His righteousness and his justice through nature:

6And the heavens proclaim His righteousness, for God Himself is Judge. Psalm 50:6

6The heavens proclaim His righteousness; all the peoples see His glory. Psalm 97:6

1The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
2Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.
3Without speech or language, without a sound to be heard,
4their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. Psalm 19:1-4


And Paul says that it is on the basis of that testimony, and the testimony of God through conscience that a person without knowledge of the gospel revealed in the law will be acquitted or condemned on the Day of Christ:

14Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them 16on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Christ Jesus,b as proclaimed by my gospel. Romans 2:14-16

 

[Fastfredy0]

Re; Who determines your will?

You do. You got one at birth and you determine your own will, strong or weak, good or bad.

You pop out of mommy's tummy and somehow self determine your will. Like, if that be true, why did you (and 100% of all babies since Adam) choose to have an depraved nature.
Determinism causes something to occur outside of one’s control. Self-determinism, as proposed by freewill, means one makes choices independent of God and any other influence. But this is logically impossible; it is a circular answer. If there is not a determining cause for the thought process, making a choice would be impossible. To be self-determined, one must be eternal and therefore uncaused. The determinative cause cannot be self-determined, without influence of past experience, state of mind or knowledge. Freewill contradicts this; it says you can reach up into the eternal realm and grab self-determination (uninfluenced); but this is not possible.

When one who supports the idea of Freewill or self-determinism is asked “why you did something he has no answer”. He will resort to a non-answer like “because I wanted to”. When asked why he wanted to he responses “because I choice to want to”; when asked why he choice to want to, he responses “because I wanted to choice to want to” … and on and on the circular reason goes. Author unknown


Fastfredy0 said: Where did your will come from?

At birth.

How do you know that? What power turn on self-determination at birth?

You gave a few in Romans and that it is. When Paul wrote about his own struggling with not doing what he wished he would do, how come he did not blame God as the potter who made him such? Do you know what He said? When Paul chastised the Corinthians, how come he did not conclude that God make them that way and so what can they do against the potter?

Paul answered this question. Romans 9:20 who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
I can't improve on God's answer to your question.

Only foolish modern Christians and now some atheists, insist there is no such thing as free will.

Ouch ... guess I am a fool if your premise is correct. (smile)
Well, that's a conclusion without foundation. It assumes one can do something without a cause which is Libertarian free will.

It is so obvious that when Adam sinned and God blamed him for this, Adam had free will or the blame was unjust. Do I need to give you all the scriptures that lay blame for sin on the sinner? What about judgement and hell?

Understandable objection based on false premise of the definition of RESPONSIBILITY. By definition, "responsibility" refers to accountability. For one to be morally responsible means that he is morally accountable to some person or standard. Whether this person is free is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is whether the one who has authority over this person has decided to hold him accountable. Since God rules over all of humanity, and he has decided to judge every man, this means that every person is morally responsible, regardless of whether he is free. Human freedom has no logical place to enter the discussion.
Aside: Seems you theology on Free Will hinges of responsibly misapplied. This is understandable given a man-centered world view. Again, you keep going to man's difficulties with theodicies and assuming your solution and resulting corollaries are true. It's a complex issue Christianity has struggle with. Roman 9:20 is God's non-answer in my opinion.

Aside: Do you have easy questions like, "what's of supper"? *smiles*
Aside2: Assuming I am close to correct, I know this is a hill too steep to climb.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Agree, God supernaturally convicts (regeneration) causes one to believe.
Complete agreement with your statement.

No, I did not say or suggest that the conviction of the Spirit regenerates them and causes them to believe.

The conviction of the Spirit is the basis upon which a person can make an informed and free choice to receive and retain the testimony of the gospel given by the Spirit and be saved. Most will choose not to and will reject the word of faith and will remain in their unregenerate state. A few will choose to receive and retain it and will be regenerated and saved.

 

[Fastfredy0]

why is it strange that God lets his creatures love if they choose to do so or not if they choose to do so? Why is that strange?

Nothing strange. God gives man the ability to love to some extent. We are agreed.

Do you think that man can thwart the few plans God has set?

No. I contend that the theory of Free Will in man, if one assumes there is such a thing, thwarts God's freedom and contradicts scripture.
Job 23:13 But He is unchangeable, and who can turn Him? And what He wants to do, that He does. Now your concept of Free Will (again, this is my opinion of your concept ... I don't want the ToS police on my tail for whatever) contradicts this verse. Free Will contends that man can turn (control) God. I.E. I choose of my Free Will to believe salvificly and God has obligated himself to respond to my self-determined choice appropriately.

Psalm 115:3 “Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases” [as guided by man's free will ...my editorial edition].
Ephesians 1:5 He predestined and lovingly planned for us to be adopted to Himself as [His own] children through Jesus Christ, in accordance with the kind intention and good pleasure of His will— [and as guided by man's free will ...my editorial edition].

Aside of the freedom of God ... God ought to be allowed the free disposal of his own goodness. Is not God the Lord of his own gifts; and will you not allow him the privilege of having some more peculiar objects of his love and pleasure, which you allow without blame to man, and use yourself without any sense of a crime? Is a prince esteemed good, though he be not equally bountiful to all his servants, nor equally gracious in pardoning all his rebels; and shall the goodness of the great Sovereign of the world be impeached, notwithstanding those mighty distributions of it, because he will act according to his own wisdom and pleasure, and not according to men’s fancies and humors? Though God cannot but love his own image where he finds it, yet when this image is lost, and the devil’s image voluntary received, he may choose whether he will manifest his goodness to such a one or no. Charnock, Stephen. The Existence and Attributes of God . Kindle Edition.


_____________________
Re: Fastfredy0 said:
Premise 1: Before the foundation of the world only God existed
Premise 2: From nothing, nothing comes (even God does not know what nothing will do, for then it would be something
Conclusion: It is NOT possible for God to declare the "end from the beginning" because his knowledge would be dependent upon the FREE WILL of men who do not as yet (in eternity past) exist. This also makes prophecy impossible. Response:

Ah, you deeply underestimate the intellectual ability of God. Deeply. He is a lot smarter than you think He is.

Well, your statement is true though evasive. To understand God one must be God; this irrelevancy I grant.
But the syllogism I presented is something that an ordinary man can understand as 1 + 1 = 2 is comprehensible by man. You have not found fault with it's logic. It is a proof that Free Will is a falsehood. Even God cannot know what "nothing" will do. It's not a deeply intellectual concept. Thus, if God knows the future He must have determined it for at one time He was the only thing that existed and thus the only source of knowledge was himself. For God to know himself is to know all things. To not know all things contradicts omniscience, it makes God dependent on an outside source for knowledge... it proposes the all-knowing must learn which contradicts his immutability.

 

[JLB]

Self-determinism, as proposed by freewill, means one makes choices independent of God and any other influence.

Please post the scripture where this is taught.

As I understand, self determinism is just another man made phrase in a long line of made made words and phrases that comes from a man made theology that is derived apart from the doctrine of Christ.

However, if I misspoke and there is a teaching in the scriptures using the phrase "self determinism" then please forgive me and post it for us to examine.


JLB

 

[Fastfredy0]

I said: Romans 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

What? How does our free will answer God's questions? I see no connection there.

Premise1: Romans 11:34 rhetorical question implying no one counsels God. God does not learn (which would contradict His immutability.
Premise 2: Free Will implies God learns from our FREE (not determined by God) will choices.
Conclusion: We tell God things He didn't know.
Aside: Free Wills usual response IMO ...well, that's a mystery (in other words, they can't explain it

Premise: God told man to seek Him
Premise: God knows man very well and does not demand what man cannot do
Conclusion: Man must have the ability to seek God

Premise [2} is wrong. God tells us to do things we cannot do. Do you have a verse for substantiate the claim? I am almost position your claim is this based on an assumption? Verses proving premise 2 is false.

• Genesis 4:7 If you do well [believing Me and doing what is acceptable and pleasing to Me], will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well [but ignore My instruction], sin crouches at your door; its desire is for you [to overpower you], but you must master it.” No one masters sin. It is an impossible request.
• Ezekiel 37:4 “Prophecy to these (dead) bones, and say to them, ‘O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord!'” (Notice, those dead bones had no ability to hear the word of the Lord. God had to give those skeletons life first, before they had the ability to hear the word of the Lord.)
• Mark 12:30 “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” Yeah, like who do you know that has obey this command completely
• Luke 7:14 “a dead man was being carried out…Then He came and touched the open coffin…and He said, ‘Young man, I say to you, arise.'” The dead man couldn’t hear, until Christ first gave His miraculous power to him.
• Luke 8:49-55 “Your daughter is dead…He…took her by the hand and called saying, ‘Little girl, arise.’ Then her spirit returned, and she arose immediately.” The dead girl had no power to arise until Christ gave it to her.
• John 11:43 “Lazarus, come forth!” Lazarus was dead! He had no ability to come forth. First, God had to make him alive before He had the ability to come forth.

• John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Like, who loves others as Christ does
• John 15:12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you
• 1 Corinthians 15:34 “Awake to righteousness and sin not”.
• 2 Corinthians 10:5 and take every thought captive to obey Christ ... who has done this
• Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God ... who has done this
• Ephesians 5:20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, ... who has done this
• 1 Thessalonians 5:16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. [Tom Constable defines without ceasing as frequently] ... who has done this
• Ephesians 4:1b urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. ... who has done this
• 1 John 2:1 “My little children, these things I write unto you, that ye sin not”. ...hasn't been done this side of glorification

Aside: I like when you use premises. Easier to comment on proposed logical thinking
_______
Re: Fastfredy0 said:
Psalm 33:10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nought; He makes the thoughts and plans of the peoples of no effect. [puppets … our thoughts and plans are of NO EFFECT]

God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. The proud are the ones whom he brings plans to no effect at times. But is it your position that no plans of people are ever effective or that God is behind all the plans to do great evil to people? Are you accusing God of making the evil people do evil to others? Sounds like it.

Agreed, God opposes the proud though I don't see the relevance. I think you are implying the verses only applies to the "proud". Again, no scripture.
Premise 1: Christ is not counted among the proud
Premise 2: Christ asked that this cup (his crucifixion)
Conclusion: Verse does not apply to the 'proud' only

Are you accusing God of making the evil people do evil to others?

Always going to the reason for sin in the world to draw your doctrine. Consider:

• Acts 2:23 this Man, when handed over [to the Roman authorities] according to the predetermined decision and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross and put to death by the hands of lawless and godless men.
• Acts 4:27-28 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

Ben Shapiro - What you want to believe you tend to believe and you tend to look for excuses to believe it.
I'll leave it at that.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Fastfredy0 said:
Psalm 33:15 He Who fashions the hearts of them all, Who considers all their doings.

Your response:

No writer of the Bible blames God for the evil man does. There is one in the Bible who is called the Accuser of the righteous. Notice, by the way, that God is ONLY CONSIDERING the doing of man. IT does not say He is controlling them.

Agreed no writer (God authored the Bible) ... God did not blame (blame: to consider responsible for a misdeed, failure, or undesirable outcome) for the evil man does. It is a Christian presupposition that God is never to blame for anything)
Consider is anthropomorphic and not as you propose.
Premise 1: God knows all things
Premise 2: Consider defined: To think carefully about (something), especially before making a decision
Conclusion: God does not ponder things He knew about eons before it happened (it's even deeper than that, but I don't want to go there ... a day is as 1,000 years and 1000 years is as a day, eternality, yahda, yadha.


Re:
Fastfredy0 said: Psalm 105:25 He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants.

Why? Do you know why?

The why isn't the point... Aside: I beside God wanted to punish Israel so He turned the hearts of another nation so as to carry out His desires. I am too lazy to verify that.
Aside: that's the human understanding of why God did something. In point of fact, there is not WHY for God doing anything. Let me explain as that sounds crazy. On second thought I will cut & paste ...
For God's will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever he wills, by the very fact that he wills it, must be considered righteous. When, therefore, one asks why God has so done, we must reply: because he has willed it. But if you proceed further to ask why he so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher than God's will, which cannot be found. Let men's rashness, then, restrain itself, and not seek what does not exist, lest perhaps it fail to find what does exist. John Calvin

When you proceed further to ask why he so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher than God's will, which cannot be found. Vincent Cheung – Ultimate Questions God is the ‘first cause’; He is not an effect so there is no WHY.

Nothing out of God can be the cause of any effect; for then there would be a cause prior to him, the Cause of himself, and that would be God, and not he. John Gill - Body to Doctrinal Divinity

God is the first cause and therefore there is no WHY when referring to God as there is nothing to affect Him. - Me


_____________________
Fastfredy0 said:
Proverbs 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps. If the Lord directs the steps of a man, is it not proof that he is being controlled or governed by God and therefore he is dependent on God for all things including FAITH?

Response:

No, because this does not apply to evil men for obvious reasons. This is what you want it to say so that you can blame God for the evil man does. I would to want to be in the shoes of them that accused God of evil in their lifetime.

I think we covered this. Give me a scripture saying "this does not apply to evil men".
Premise 1: For all have sinned and come short to the glory of God
Premise 2: You say this verse does not apply to evil men
Conclusion: This verse does not apply to anybody. It serves no purpose. The object in the verse of God's will is imaginary.

Your paragraph is actually self refuting. We both agree we can choose but you say we have no free will and that means by definition we cannot choose. This is contradictory. Either we can freely choose or we cannot and God is the Master chess player and our choosing is a delusion. Which is it?

You are forcing your definition of FREE WILL upon me and then say I contradict myself because of your definition. Your definition IMO is that if God does not let me make a decision in which He has no influence it is not a choice. Don't saddle me with your definition.

Definition from dictionary of choice: The act of selection.
Everyone by definition has a choice to believe salvicly or not (ignore those who haven't heard the gospel of age of accountability for another day)

I get to say how I define FREE WILL. I agree with Augustine - one always chooses that which he desires most at the time. So whether I am given of choice of tuna or ham sandwich ... or believing salvificly or not ... I am free to chose either and I will always chose what I desire most.

Again, many decisions, like believing in God is a choice. Everyone is forced to make this choice but being forced to make a choice doesn't nullify the fact it is a choice. Because God forces us to make a choice does not mean you do not make a choice. The question at hand is not whether or not you choose A or B as you have to do that in regards to salvation as we all are forced to do that by definition. The question is "what caused you to make the choice you made.

Now, if you want to change things and redefine choice other than found in the dictionary, we will have to start over.
Aside: This all assumes I have not misunderstood you as this seem a step backward to where the debate lacks definition IMO.

Every verses that says that we will suffer for the sin we do assume we have free will to do so and will stand before our Makes and give an account of those choices. Why do you need it spelled out?

That is your assumption. You have no scripture show FREE WILL exists. Your assumption fits your narrative without direct biblical proof IMO. Please, please, please show me a verse the says anyone made any decision and that decision was not caused by God. Just one verse. I did X and God had nothing to do with it verse. Not I did X and I assume God had nothing to do with it. What you are proposing is another power in the universe, not created by God that let's you do things independent of God IMO. What is the power? Prove it.

Now I will say that I have encountered this blindness in reformed thinkers before.

"Blindness" is self serving term that assumes your are right and I am wrong.
My counter would be "Now I will say that I have encountered this blindness in non-reformed thinkers before."
Anyways, minor point.

They feely make choices each day.

Agreed, though free what what is not specified.

I have never yet heard a reformed thinking demonstrate that they actually live their theology and say God is being all the wrong they do and others do and there is no reason to get angry because all that all do is God being the Potter.

Didn't quite follow that, sorry.

They actually get angry and here at non-calvinists and never say that God made those who do not agree with them like that and they peacefully accept it. You cannot live the theology you espouse, my friend.

I don't get angry at non-calvinists. I am not angry with you. I respect the way you conducted yourself in this discussion.
Didn't quite understand the rest of the statement, sorry.

Interesting discussion. I would, in summary, point out that you very rarely listed scripture to substantiate you claims or ... well, leave it at that. This doesn't mean your wrong ... but ... anyways ...

Hey, it's been interesting and enjoyable considering we don't agree. You definitely are an intelligent source of ideas. Thx

 

[Fastfredy0]

I haven't found it but that does not mean it is not there somewhere.

I didn't give an answer initially. I missed the question. After he asked, I supplied an answer.

 

[Fastfredy0]

How come Jesus did not tell the others that the water was now different, not that He, Jesus, was different and they ought to all "come on out, the water is solid."

I don't know. Why did the bible not tell us the color of Christ's eyes? I don't know that either.
Why did Jesus not tell the other that the properties of water were the same? Why is the sky blue, Jesus doesn't say?
A biblical occurrence with a without a scientific, peered reviewed paper doesn't support or deny possibilities.

He does not think science is dammed. But I will tell you that my desire since teenage years was to understand God. That was some decades ago now and I do understand God.

God is knowable and incomprehensible. It is not possible to understand the infinite with a finite mind.
Premise 1: "My thoughts are not your thoughts, my ways are not your ways"
Conclusion: One cannot understand God
Now, you knowledge of God is definitely superior to most and God gave you an excellent mind relative to most and the Spirit has given superior understanding to most ... but no one understands God.
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of man except his own spirit within him? So too, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

Sounds exciting. I just went bathing and spread mud on my skin. Really does wonderful things for the skin.

I don't recall the mud. I do recall the chunks of salt on the shore. Place almost seemed extra-terrestrial.

its been enjoyable.

Agreed

I am sorry you do not want to pursue seeking God as a topic but maybe it is off topic and we will get the ruler on the head for going there. Seeking God has been the life blood of my life and it has been very rewarding.

I think "seeking God" needed definition and we may have been approaching the subject differently. I agree, seeking (learning about) God is rewarding. About 10 years ago, I said ...hmm, what should I read next (I liked fantasies like The Hobbit). I thought, what would be most beneficial. Well, the Bible is truth, can't beat that.

That was exactly my experience and response. We are not allowed to discuss it [Tos] though. Best move on.

Shhhh!!! I'll send you an updated code book.

I laughed out loud. I really did. You put my thoughts into words.

Good, we've been too serious for too long.

This is great! You are really one of the best posters I have met here. A briliant man with a sense of humor even at himself. I am deeply impressed.

Gee, I fooled you.

Everytime you are right, I will say so in BOLD. I will make a point of finding the times you are right.

Hmmm, maybe if I compliment you I will see something in BOLD TYPE.

End part 1

Lord, there's more? UNCLE! WHITE FLAG! Full unconditional surrender. Reparations. Gee, I've been on here nearly all day. Don't type so fast. I going to go where my mind excels ... analyzing "reality TV". Have a good one.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Calvinism says what the bible says.

It's not that simple.
As I'm showing you, Calvinism does not take the whole counsel of the Bible into consideration, particularly when interpreting Romans 9:22-23. And all of the scriptures that, supposedly, assert that a baby is born imputed with the guilt of sin as if they themselves had already committed a sin.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Fastfredy0 said:
Psalm 33:15 He Who fashions the hearts of them all, Who considers all their doings.
Consider is anthropomorphic and not as you propose.
Premise 1: God knows all things
Premise 2: Consider defined: To think carefully about (something), especially before making a decision
Conclusion: God does not ponder things He knew about eons before it happened (it's even deeper than that, but I don't want to go there ... a day is as 1,000 years and 1000 years is as a day, eternality,

When the Bible says God "considers" is means God careful things about things before making a decision or action. I am going to quote from memory scripture for you "the eyes of the Lord go to and fro thoughout the world that they might find the one whose heart is completely his." What does this tell us? God seeks particular men ("to worship Him in spirit and in truth".) God ponders

Re:
Fastfredy0 said: Psalm 105:25 He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants.

For God's will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever he wills, by the very fact that he wills it, must be considered righteous. When, therefore, one asks why God has so done, we must reply: because he has willed it. But if you proceed further to ask why he so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher than God's will, which cannot be found. Let men's rashness, then, restrain itself, and not seek what does not exist, lest perhaps it fail to find what does exist. John Calvin

John Calvin did not know or understand the ways of God and so turns of the mind and simply says "it is so, accept it." But he (and you) use the Bible like a lawyer finding the clause that seems up support the already chosen course of action. (Calvin was a lawyer by trade and not a theologian.) In Psalm 105 He says "
Seek the LORD and his strength;
seek his presence continually!" which makes no sense is God is turning hearts. Why give man the command to seek him (and that is a very common theme) if God is manipulating hearts anyway.

When you proceed further to ask why he so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher than God's will, which cannot be found. Vincent Cheung – Ultimate Questions God is the ‘first cause’; He is not an effect so there is no WHY.

There is a why and Cheung does not know or understand God. I asked why and received answers. But as one poster said, this ought to kept to myself.

Nothing out of God can be the cause of any effect; for then there would be a cause prior to him, the Cause of himself, and that would be God, and not he. John Gill - Body to Doctrinal Divinity

God is the first cause and therefore there is no WHY when referring to God as there is nothing to affect Him. - Me

As long as you think of God in these terms, you will never come to understand Him. "This is eternal life, that they know you, the One True God" tells us Jesus puts a high value on understanding God. What Gil does not understand is that God considered the choices of men and that is the cause of his responses. "what a man sows so shall he reap.

_____________________
Fastfredy0 said:
Proverbs 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps. If the Lord directs the steps of a man, is it not proof that he is being controlled or governed by God and therefore he is dependent on God for all things including FAITH?

Isaiah 66:4 NIV I also will choose harsh treatment for them and will bring on them what they dread. For when I called, no one answered, when I spoke, no one listened. They did evil in my sight and chose what displeases me.”
So no, not all men's steps are directed by the Lord. Do you need more verses or does that suffice?

You are forcing your definition of FREE WILL upon me and then say I contradict myself because of your definition. Your definition IMO is that if God does not let me make a decision in which He has no influence it is not a choice. Don't saddle me with your definition.

That is the definition. It is not mine, it was the whole of the English speaking world knows. "Choose this day whom you will serve" means YOU (not me) CHOOSE (among options.) The fact that God punishes some choices tells us that he is not having influence over choices he later punishes men for doing. Do you need scripture that shows you that God punishes sin or do you believe this already?

I get to say how I define FREE WILL. I agree with Augustine - one always chooses that which he desires most at the time. So whether I am given of choice of tuna or ham sandwich ... or believing salvificly or not ... I am free to chose either and I will always chose what I desire most.

If you want to communicate with others, you must accept what the English speaking world uses as the definition. Since you use the personal as an argument, I will say that I do not always choose what I desire most. Sometimes I choose what He desires most at that point in time. (Sometimes I choose what my husband desires most at that point in time.)

That is your assumption. You have no scripture show FREE WILL exists. Your assumption fits your narrative without direct biblical proof IMO. Please, please, please show me a verse the says anyone made any decision and that decision was not caused by God. Just one verse. I did X and God had nothing to do with it verse. Not I did X and I assume God had nothing to do with it. What you are proposing is another power in the universe, not created by God that let's you do things independent of God IMO. What is the power? Prove it.

This is a fallacy argument. You want a written form of saying that which is obvious or you reject it. This is in the vein of Calvin who argued as a lawyer with a not written explicitly then it is rejected although the theology is chalk full of assuming that which is not written.

"Blindness" is self serving term that assumes your are right and I am wrong.
My counter would be "Now I will say that I have encountered this blindness in non-reformed thinkers before."
Anyways, minor point.

YOU ARE RIGHT!

Didn't quite follow that, sorry.

If you ever get angry with anyone for a choice they made and you are not angry at God who "directed those steps" you are showing you do not really believe your theology of God and not the perpetrator directing the steps.

Interesting discussion. I would, in summary, point out that you very rarely listed scripture to substantiate you claims or ... well, leave it at that. This doesn't mean your wrong ... but ... anyways ...

I put them in the text but this time I used "" But reformed theology defenders use scripture like a lawyer, like Calvin, to pin on God, the accused, wrong doing. Those verses you site in isolation from text do not say what is claimed they do. He does not direct the steps of everyone evidenced by his command everywhere for men to Seek him. If he were directing all our steps, there would be no such command. But when scripture uses words that indicate your position is false, you site authors who say those words don't mean what they say. That is denying the description of God's ways He gives us.