The New Christian Thread 4

[confuoco]

I don't think her post was about you. You are certainly capable of handling a discussion with any one of us, as is IAMRED. I think she was just giving her general impressions of the Arminian camp, which I would assume are largely based off of Methodists.

Nah, it's just my euphemism for the free will camp. You're correct about the rest. Waiting for Indiv to realize I didn't delete my post.

[IAMRED]

If you haven't quoted that.. I wouldn't have known she posted. I assume that was to do with me or a tangent that I caused her to think about.

Why delete? Confouco you can say things about me. Its ok. I wouldn't talk to Red if I couldn't handle it. Guy knows his stuff even if he can rub people the wrong way.

I'm naturally sarcastic, Jesus' biting remarks about the scribes of his day well suit my tastes. That said, I never intend to turn someone off to discussion, and if irl my sarcasm does that, I usually try to make nice. But this is the internet, so meh

[IAMRED]

I went to a lecture recently, and the professor discussed William G. Most's theory of predestination/salvation/etc. I found it to be a fascinating advance, and what should have been plain to see, on the age old dilemma of predestination.

Here's a summation of it:



The whole book is online for free here: http://www.catholicculture.org/cultu...214&ChapNum=23

I don't see how this is any different from Arminius. God's still looking down the corridors of time to somehow learn what people will do even though they don't exist, you still have the question of why some resist and others don't if grace is not the distinguishing factor, you still have a God who knows in advance that people will reject Him and creates them anyway, etc.

[Indivdude]

If you've read any of my posts on this subject you would know I make no such claim.

Rather, insofar as man always chooses in accordance with his most strongest desire, and insofar as God determines our desires (directly or indirectly), our will is determined and yet voluntary. It is certainly we who choose, feel, think, and act – and yet it is all in accordance with God’s determinative purpose

You're going to tell me that god makes us desire what we desire, shapes us how he wants us but we freely chose exactly what he wanted since he forced it to be that way?

That rat wanted to go a different way but the hallway was blocked with the only way forward. He freely chose it but had no other option nor any incentive or ability to choose another. Is that really what you want to call freely chosen?

You claimed Calvinism was contradictory. That implies a logic-based objection, not an emotional one. If this was it, I don't see what your point in calling me into this was, as you apparently knew I would point this out from the get-go.

I claimed it was contradictory based on the idea of free will being effectively removed combined with the idea god is good. But it being contradictory is based on emotion because of the goodness factor.

If you're judging God as if your own or secular societies' arbitrary moral perceptions are right in the first place, there is nothing to say except that's dumb.

You missed my point.

The point was that if one cannot avoid something, such as the semi truck driver hitting and killing someone who runs a red light, it is not automatically given the full penalty but is mitigated or even absolved because the semi truck driver has mitigating factors.

But god wants to treat it as everyone is in the wrong even though he is the very one that made it occur the way it did. A bit backwards.

To use the action figure analogy, its like me treating the penquin action figure as bad because I had set things up so the penquin action figure ended up killing someone in gotham city even though it all happened because I set it up to happen.

God never claimed to love everyone without exception. Try actually reading the Bible some time.

Ephesians 5:2 "And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."
Romans 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
2 Peters 3:9 "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

And I didn't say he loved everyone and am not going to try and defend that theological idea. My point is that he does love us and like I said before, there's plenty of proverbs and verses that can be applied for different doctrines. Some of the same verses for multiple doctrines.

Romans 9:11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.”
13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

So Jacob, Esau, Pharaoh, the man who wills and runs, the hypothetical objector, the one vessel of clay for prepared for honorable use and the other for common use, and those whom God called from both the Gentiles as well as Jews... were all nations?

Stick to your strong suits, whatever those are. Exegesis isn't one of them.

It must all be literal or all be figurative eh?

Jacob represents Israel with Esau representing another nation with that being the edomites.

It was a representation of god showing he can give mercy to who he wants rather than showing he picks one over the other for salvation.

As I've said there are different interpretations on this verse as are there many others you might bring up to counter. However yes I'm not the best at dissecting biblical verses. I'll manage.

[Indivdude]

Nah, it's just my euphemism for the free will camp. You're correct about the rest. Waiting for Indiv to realize I didn't delete my post.

Aw snap. I didn't realize. I called you out on deleting it when you didn't even do it.

My bad.

I'm naturally sarcastic, Jesus' biting remarks about the scribes of his day well suit my tastes. That said, I never intend to turn someone off to discussion, and if irl my sarcasm does that, I usually try to make nice. But this is the internet, so meh

Meh indeed m8.

E fighting time.

[ONtop888]

I don't see how this is any different from Arminius. God's still looking down the corridors of time to somehow learn what people will do even though they don't exist, you still have the question of why some resist and others don't if grace is not the distinguishing factor, you still have a God who knows in advance that people will reject Him and creates them anyway, etc.

Firstly, God's eternity is an eternal present, so there is nothing to 'learn.' You know my view on omniscience doe.

To the point, Most's thesis is a slight change in the emphasis, but it makes a reasonably significant difference. God predestines the elect not because of merits but because they did not resist what God was working in them: man here does nothing positive, he simply does not resist. Arminius's view is conditioned upon the positive acceptance of faith, which places the accent on man's initiative.

God's foreknowledge of the damned does not trouble me insofar as it was their own free decision. This theory does not attempt to explain why a particular person might choose to negate the motion of grace being worked in him in first act. We know some of the reasons why people do this in the world (i.e. they take the appearance of a good as the good itself, even if it is in fact evil), but I don't think we can know, ultimately, why person A chooses differently than person B with regard to God's offer. I know the temptation here is to say, because we were 'born (made) that way,' but that opens up a greater problem of God causing sin instead of permitting it through the free actions of the created agent.

[sawoobley]

To the point, Most's thesis is a slight change in the emphasis, but it makes a reasonably significant difference. God predestines the elect not because of merits but because they did not resist what God was working in them: man here does nothing positive, he simply does not resist. Arminius's view is conditioned upon the positive acceptance of faith, which places the accent on man's initiative.

Isn't there a problem here because God creates flawed people who resist Him and then punishes them for resisting Him when he is the one that gave them that disposition? How can we separate free-will from God creating people who He knew would resist Him? Isn't God responsible for their harden hearts which He created by making them a certain way and then predestines them to not be one of the elect?

[IAMRED]

You're going to tell me that god makes us desire what we desire, shapes us how he wants us but we freely chose exactly what he wanted since he forced it to be that way?

Chose, yes. Freely chose, no.

That rat wanted to go a different way but the hallway was blocked with the only way forward. He freely chose it but had no other option nor any incentive or ability to choose another. Is that really what you want to call freely chosen?

Disanalogous. We always choose according to our strongest desires, it's just that these desires are determined. There is no poor rat who wanted oh so badly to go down a different hallway and just wasn't allowed to. Again, the terms in which you're thinking of God's sovereignty are clearly too small. There is nothing that is or happens independently of God, that includes our wants and desires.

I claimed it was contradictory based on the idea of free will being effectively removed combined with the idea god is good. But it being contradictory is based on emotion because of the goodness factor.

Denial of human free will has no relevance to a discussion of God's goodness, you haven't even begun to show this. I have no idea what the contradiction referred to in your second sentence means.

You missed my point.

The point was that if one cannot avoid something, such as the semi truck driver hitting and killing someone who runs a red light, it is not automatically given the full penalty but is mitigated or even absolved because the semi truck driver has mitigating factors.

But god wants to treat it as everyone is in the wrong even though he is the very one that made it occur the way it did. A bit backwards.

To use the action figure analogy, its like me treating the penquin action figure as bad because I had set things up so the penquin action figure ended up killing someone in gotham city even though it all happened because I set it up to happen.

And you missed my point. My point was that your whole scenario presupposes that responsibility is determined by whether or not one has the ability to do otherwise. I already questioned this premise in my initial response; your citing an example which again presupposes the premise only indicates you are operating on a standard of morality that is not biblical. So there is no contradiction, unless you insist on judging Calvinism by your own arbitrary morality.

Is this where you've injected personal emotions into the equation? I.e. you don't like Calvinistic moral schema even though it is internally consistent, so Calvinism is contradictory? That can't really be what you meant?

Now, I could further qualify, as I would, that Calvinistic morality discriminates between moral judgment we make as men regarding other men, and moral judgments God makes as God regarding all men. A Creator-creature distinction is obviously relevant to this discussion, because while some men are obligated to or responsible for how they act to other men, the common obligation of and responsibility to God on the part of all men delimits the bounds of legitimate obligations and responsibility in the former sphere. But I don't even have to bring that up until you argue that morality presupposes free will.

Ephesians 5:2 "And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."
Romans 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
2 Peters 3:9 "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

Lol, who do you think "us" refers to in each of these passages? Here's a hint, read the salutations to be found at the beginning of each of these letters. Oh, fine, I'll give away the answer for free: they're addressed to the elect.

These citations are particularly amusing, though. In the case of Ephesians 5 and Romans 5, the fact that God's love is demonstrated by Christ's dying for "us" (believers; the elect) is rather evidence that God does not love those for whom Christ did not die, now isn't it? And in the case of 2 Peter 3:9, let's keep reading:

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

To whom has God made promises in verse 9? With whom is God patient in verse 15? Believers. Is the Lord patient with the reprobate? Obviously not if we can regard God's patience as salvation.

Ironically, the verses you cite indicate the exact opposite of your conclusion.

It must all be literal or all be figurative eh?

Uh, for your argument (that God doesn't love or hate anyone prior to being born or forseen [de]merit) to work? Yes, it must be all figurative.

Jacob represents Israel with Esau representing another nation with that being the edomites.

It was a representation of god showing he can give mercy to who he wants rather than showing he picks one over the other for salvation.

Even if this were true, and it's not - I know you are referencing Malachi, if you're really interested in this subject, read John Piper's exegesis of this chapter for more - the principle can be applied and is in fact applied to salvation by Paul himself later in the chapter (verse 24). And remember, the original setting of the question of election was why the fact Israelites weren't saved didn't imply God's word failed (9:6-8).

As I've said there are different interpretations on this verse as are there many others you might bring up to counter. However yes I'm not the best at dissecting biblical verses. I'll manage.

Well, you'll persist in error. But knowing that doesn't seem to trouble you.

[Indivdude]

Isn't there a problem here because God creates flawed people who resist Him and then punishes them for resisting Him when he is the one that gave them that disposition? How can we separate free-will from God from creating people who He knew would resist Him? Isn't God responsible for their harden hearts which He created and then predestines them to not be one of the elect.

This is my issue with calvinism and to an extent christianity as a whole but calvinism outright says this is how it is as opposed to the rest of christianity which doesn't think so.

[IAMRED]

Firstly, God's eternity is an eternal present, so there is nothing to 'learn.' You know my view on omniscience doe.

I love this type of argument. God's knowledge is made to be contingent on contingent, temporal creatures... but His knowledge is eternal, somehow. Doesn't work, sorry.

To the point, Most's thesis is a slight change in the emphasis, but it makes a reasonably significant difference. God predestines the elect not because of merits but because they did not resist what God was working in them: man here does nothing positive, he simply does not resist. Arminius's view is conditioned upon the positive acceptance of faith, which places the accent on man's initiative.

What does it mean to say they didn't resist? That's just to say the grace produced its desired effect: faith. Okay, so the faith didn't come from man's own initiative and couldn't have occurred had there been no grace. So? Arminius would have agreed. But regardless, the question is still begged as to why some resist and some don't. It has to be something internal to the persons in question. Spiritual sensitivity? Intelligence? Name it, the point is that either God is solely responsible for having given such to some people and not others - in which case people aren't so free after all - or it is the product, at least in part, of man's own efforts - in which case, so long salvation by grace alone.

God's foreknowledge of the damned does not trouble me insofar as it was their own free decision. This theory does not attempt to explain why a particular person might choose to negate the motion of grace being worked in him in first act. We know some of the reasons why people do this in the world (i.e. they take the appearance of a good as the good itself, even if it is in fact evil), but I don't think we can know, ultimately, why person A chooses differently than person B with regard to God's offer. I know the temptation here is to say, because we were 'born (made) that way,' but that opens up a greater problem of God causing sin instead of permitting it through the free actions of the created agent.

Okay. So long as you don't maintain the creation of reprobates to be a problem for Calvinists, that's fine.

[CalmWind]

I love this type of argument. God's knowledge is made to be contingent on contingent, temporal creatures... but His knowledge is eternal, somehow. Doesn't work, sorry.

I believe that it does work. His foreknowledge does not depend on us.

I believe God created our Universe with the full intention of creating Mankind in his Image, with the creative power and free thought/will that he has. At the very point he gave Adam life, he created a being that could choose for itself. However, God already knew what would happen. He also knew what IAMRED and CalmWind were going to do on April 12, 2015. The fact that God knows this, does not affect our free will. He is omnipotent - he is able to create a world with free will, and also know what the creatures will do with their free will.



So, to repeat,- He gives us the ability to choose, but he already knows what we will choose. Just because God knows what we will do, does not mean we do not have free will. It is simply God being omniscient, an attribute of his.

[IAMRED]

I believe that it does work. His foreknowledge does not depend on us.

God knows what will happen, but allows us the free will to choose. He already knows. But at the same time, he affords us free will to choose. Just because God knows what we will do, does not mean we do not have free will.

How does He know what we will choose if we haven't yet chosen and are allegedly free to do otherwise than what we will allegedly choose?

[CalmWind]

How does He know what we will choose if we haven't yet chosen and are allegedly free to do otherwise than what we will allegedly choose?

Because he is Omniscient.

The "future" didn't happen for -you-, because you are living in a simulated existence held together by God. You experience the illusion of the "passing of time". Each moment is a separate place in time, to us humans.

But God is outside of this. The universe we live in, is a created construct. It's an illusion. It can be erased as fast as it was created, and all of it's concepts of Time, Physical Laws, will all go away. Things like Time were invented by God in the first place, so how can you assume that God is subject to these things? For all we know, God has a "Fast forward" button, and can view the entirety of human history like we watch a DVD movie.

The "future" didn't happen yet, but it already did for God. He knows what you will do. But that doesn't affect the fact that he gave you the ability to make the choice. This is why God specifically said he made us in His Image, and why Adam was told not to eat of the tree. God wanted us to have this attribute.

[ONtop888]

Isn't there a problem here because God creates flawed people who resist Him and then punishes them for resisting Him when he is the one that gave them that disposition?

The objection to that would be that God did not give them the disposition to resist them. Rather, God allowed for a created order that is pervaded by sin and some persons, for whatever reasons, will be inclined more to the false good than the Good itself, they choose that. To follow this further is to ask why person A chose what he did, but person B chose differently when they were both being offered sufficient grace not to resist. I am not sure that there is an answer to that question can be attained from our finite perspective.

I have honestly not made up my mind on the issue of free will/predestination. It is the one issue that while I find interesting, I try not to invest too much time in because I think that the problem is irreducible.

[CalmWind]

The objection to that would be that God did not give them the disposition to resist them. Rather, God allowed for a created order that is pervaded by sin and some persons, for whatever reasons, will be inclined more to the false good than the Good itself, they choose that.

All you did was push the goal posts.

Now the question becomes, "Why did God create a human that would be more inclined to the sin in the world that he created?"

I think sawoobley's objection still stands.

[sawoobley]

I believe that it does work. His foreknowledge does not depend on us.

I believe God created our Universe with the full intention of creating Mankind in his Image, with the creative power and free thought/will that he has. At the very point he gave Adam life, he created a being that could choose for itself. However, God already knew what would happen. He also knew what IAMRED and CalmWind were going to do on April 12, 2015. The fact that God knows this, does not affect our free will. He is omnipotent - he is able to create a world with free will, and also know what the creatures will do with their free will.

So, to repeat,- He gives us the ability to choose, but he already knows what we will choose. Just because God knows what we will do, does not mean we do not have free will. It is simply God being omniscient, an attribute of his.

God could have created any world he wanted too yet he chose to create one with mankind in his image who would fall away and where the great majority would be sent to hell as a result.

The objection to that would be that God did not give them the disposition to resist them. Rather, God allowed for a created order that is pervaded by sin and some persons, for whatever reasons, will be inclined more to the false good than the Good itself, they choose that. To follow this further is to ask why person A chose what he did, but person B chose differently when they were both being offered sufficient grace not to resist. I am not sure that there is an answer to that question can be attained from our finite perspective.

I have honestly not made up my mind on the issue of free will/predestination. It is the one issue that while I find interesting, I try not to invest too much time in because I think that the problem is irreducible.

If I build a house with superior materials it will be a good house. If I build a house with substandard materials it will be a weak house. Likewise, the weakness in man came from God. Man would not be susceptible to sin had God not made him that way. If God gives you every attribute to your very being and knows the end result then He is somewhat responsible for it when He could have made us better than that. So, how could a good God punish his children for flaws that originated from Him when He created them?

Well, if there is no free will then God would be wrong to punish us forever for resisting Him IMO. After all, we had no choice.

Just messing with your head here giving you something to think about. I'm not sure there are clear answers to all of these questions.

[CalmWind]

God could have created any world he wanted too yet he chose to create one with mankind in his image who would fall away and where the great majority would be sent to hell as a result.

Yes, God knew people would have to be punished. It is a necessary result of a situation where you create sentient beings. A sad situation, since God tells us that he wishes for ALL of us to be saved.... but those who will be punished have nobody to blame but themselves.

On the other hand, some of his children would know better, and will mature under his guidance and graduate from the earthly crib.

God thought this situation was worth it. You can't blame him. He provides all a chance for salvation. Plus, he's God. He owns it all. Acknowledge the King and trust that his wisdom is above yours.

[Indivdude]

Chose, yes. Freely chose, no.

Ok. So you admit they chose it but not freely? And you want me to think there was any real voluntary act here? Please.

Disanalogous. We always choose according to our strongest desires, it's just that these desires are determined. There is no poor rat who wanted oh so badly to go down a different hallway and just wasn't. Again, the terms in which you're thinking of God's sovereignty are clearly too small. There is nothing that is or happens independently of God, that includes our wants and desires.

Its not disanalogous at all.

I'm not thinking of god's sovereignty as too small but as absolute and its implications for his goodness in this scenario.

Denial of human free will has no relevance to a discussion of God's goodness, you haven't even begun to show this. I have no idea what the contradiction referred to in your second sentence means.

The point is that denial of human free will and putting someone down a hallway with only one option to go then punishing them for going exactly how you wanted them to is not good. To say so is delusional. One can say all they want about romans 9 "what is the clay able to say to the potter" but you're only using it as a reference to god's power and not his goodness. Which does nothing besides says god's a tyrant. Sure fine. He can be one but you remove his good nature from this if you use it that way. If all you can muster is that god's bigger than me and who am I to try and say he's wrong.. then you got nothing but power. A big brute.

And if all you got to come back at me is the "well you dont have the regenerated nature so you can't know good the way god does" then good luck with that. There are plenty of christians that disagree with you and I'm sure at least some of them would fit your idea of regenerated nature. Unless you got the wrong one when they were passing them out..

And you missed my point. My point was that your whole scenario presupposes that responsibility is determined by whether or not one has the ability to do otherwise. I already questioned this premise in my initial response; your citing an example which again presupposes the premise only indicates you are operating on a standard of morality that is not biblical. So there is no contradiction, unless you insist on judging Calvinism by your own arbitrary morality.

Is this where you've injected personal emotions into the equation? I.e. you don't like Calvinistic moral schema even though it is internally consistent, so Calvinism is contradictory? That can't really be what you meant?

So god punishing someone for something god set up and designed from the get go is consistent? I guess if that's your idea of being consistent.. then yeah I don't like it. How is that even logically coherent?

This is why you dislike the rat analogy and tried to brush it off as disanalogous.

Now, I could further qualify, as I would, that Calvinistic morality discriminates between moral judgment we make as men regarding other men, and moral judgments God makes as God regarding all men. A Creator-creature distinction is obviously relevant to this discussion, because while some men are obligated to or responsible for how they act to other men, the common obligation of and responsibility to God on the part of all men delimits the bounds of legitimate obligations and responsibility in the former sphere. But I don't even have to bring that up until you argue that morality presupposes free will.

Well I haven't seen how a meaningful morality can be found outside of free will. One at best could say one committed an act that is deemed immoral but you couldn't say the person themselves are. You wouldn't say a baby that learned how to walk and picked up a knife and stabbed a pet an immoral person. The baby has no idea nor can it. At best you can say the baby did something immoral but couldn't say the baby is immoral simply because of that.

So you have a system in which people are blameless since they only have one option to go but they do moral and immoral actions along the way. The system is judging robots for following programming in which they did moral or immoral things but are not moral or immoral themselves. So you have blameless people in heaven and blameless people in hell. Completely interchangeable.

Lol, who do you think "us" refers to in each of these passages? Here's a hint, read the salutations to be found at the beginning of each of these letters. Oh, fine, I'll give away the answer for free: they're addressed to the elect.

These citations are particularly amusing, though. In the case of Ephesians 5 and Romans 5, the fact that God's love is demonstrated by Christ's dying for "us" (believers; the elect) is rather evidence that God does not love those for whom Christ did not die, now isn't it? And in the case of 2 Peter 3:9, let's keep reading:

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

To whom has God made promises in verse 9? With whom is God patient in verse 15? Believers. Is the Lord patient with the reprobate? Obviously not if we can regard God's patience as salvation.

Ironically, the verses you cite indicate the exact opposite of your conclusion.

Well for Ephesians and Romans it is commonly interpreted as universal rather than simply believers. Same with John 3:16-17. I have seen a lot of efights over the meaning of those verses in other forums as to universal or elect only. So I am aware different people interpret it differently.

Uh, for your argument (that God doesn't love or hate anyone prior to being born or forseen [de]merit) to work? Yes, it must be all figurative.

The pharaoh needs to be figurative even though that's literal? No. Only part of it needs to be figurative to work and you need it all to be literal for it to work for you.

Even if this were true, and it's not - I know you are referencing Malachi, if you're really interested in this subject, read John Piper's exegesis of this chapter for more - the principle can be applied and is in fact applied to salvation by Paul himself later in the chapter (verse 24). And remember, the original setting of the question of election was why the fact Israelites weren't saved didn't imply God's word failed (9:6-8).

Yes this is him stating that mercy is given and taken away rather than salvation and election.

Well, you'll persist in error. But knowing that doesn't seem to trouble you.

Its all pointless but its fun so far. Might as well be entertained.

[sawoobley]

Yes, God knew people would have to be punished. It is a necessary result of a situation where you create sentient beings. A sad situation, since God tells us that he wishes for ALL of us to be saved.... but those who will be punished have nobody to blame but themselves.

On the other hand, some of his children would know better, and will mature under his guidance and graduate from the earthly crib.

God thought this situation was worth it. You can't blame him. He provides all a chance for salvation.

So what you are saying is there is a limit to God's power because He cannot create obedient sentient beings. Let's face it, most of us can see that the world is full of terribly flawed people. Was this the best could come up with, lol?

As I suggested above God is responsible if He can create anything He wants too and ends up creating things so a third of the hosts of heaven rebel against him and then most people on earth go to hell (or whatever).

I agree this situation was worth it which leads me to question whether there is something about God and creation we are missing since the logic does not follow. Perhaps it's a waste of time to ponder things that are out of our reach but it makes me admit there are things I don't know and have to take on faith. Perhaps the next life will yield more answers.

[ONtop888]

What does it mean to say they didn't resist? That's just to say the grace produced its desired effect: faith. Okay, so the faith didn't come from man's own initiative and couldn't have occurred had there been no grace. So? Arminius would have agreed.

I just heard of this theory not too long ago so I am not going to defend it to the teeth (I haven't even read Most's whole book) as though it is my own position. It is not correct on your part to say that Most's position, which I will post below, is the equivalent of what Arminius held.

3) Predestination of all others, in whom God does not foresee grave and persistent resistance. [The absence of resistance of which we speak is not a positive decision or act of the will made under the form of explicitly making a decision to abstain from sin. Rather, it is the mere absence of an evil decision, without any act of the will in the first part of the process in which grace begins to move a man. This will be explained more fully below in §§82 and 344-350. ]

This decree of predestination is a continuation and positive carrying out of the initial universal salvific will. The cause of this decree is not human merits-up to this stage, God has not looked at human merits, for, in the logical series at which God looks, merits are neither a cause nor a condition-the sole cause of this decree of predestination is the goodness and generosity of the Father who from the beginning wanted to save all and, at this point, actually decrees the salvation of all who do not resist gravely and persistently. No positive condition needs to be placed by man in order that God may predestine, because the strong universal salvific will continues in its course by its own force. A grave condition would have to be placed by man to interrupt the course of this will, but, precisely because this will continues in its course by its own force, nothing is required from man that it may continue, and at the proper point, decree predestination. For without predestination, that salvation which God willed from the beginning and still wills to confer could not be had: Predestination before consideration of merits

In any case, the real problem that I am starting to see in Most's position, the more I think about it throughout the course of our discussion, is that even though he resolves Arminius's issue of foreknowledge of meritorious acceptance of the offer by going back to pre-deliberation, he introduces a new problem by holding that Group A does not resist (prior to the second act of the will) but Group B seems to resist prior to the second act of the will, which would be a deficit in their nature not a free choice, if I am following Most correctly (which I may not be because I have only read two pages of his book).

[IAMRED]

Because he is Omniscient.

Omniscient = all-knowing. When I ask, "How does He know..." you can't just reply with "He knows everything."

The "future" didn't happen for -you-, because you are living in a simulated existence held together by God. You experience the illusion of the "passing of time". Each moment is a separate place in time, to us humans.

But God is outside of this. The universe we live in, is a created construct. It's an illusion. It can be erased as fast as it was created, and all of it's concepts of Time, Physical Laws, will all go away. Things like Time were invented by God in the first place, so how can you assume that God is subject to these things? For all we know, God has a "Fast forward" button, and can view the entirety of human history like we watch a DVD movie.

The "future" didn't happen yet, but it already did for God. He knows what you will do. But that doesn't affect the fact that he gave you the ability to make the choice. This is why God specifically said he made us in His Image, and why Adam was told not to eat of the tree. God wanted us to have this attribute.

That's the point, you're still making God's knowing dependent on temporal creatures (watching on fast forward) and thus, in effect, subjecting Him to time, whether or not you admit it. You can say God is omniscient and say He is outside time, but it is one thing to say this and another to show them to be compatible with a theory of human freedom.

I also highly doubt you've read anything on the philosophy of time, given this post. Can you define time?

[CalmWind]

So what you are saying is there is a limit to God's power because He cannot create obedient sentient beings.

Of course he can. But that's not what God wanted. What you suggest is that God should have created robotic drones that have no true free will. Because if God created "obedient sentient beings" than God rigged the game and the humans don't have free will, since God pre-programmed a tendency to always be obedient. Of course God has the power to do that, if he wished. But that would be an assumption on your part, to assume that God wanted a world where his children could never possibly disobey.

But that's not what God wanted. God wanted sentient beings who have complete free will, which means disobedience is a possible consequence.

I know you are trying to create paradoxes, but they don't work. God's creation was perfect for his purposes. Sentient beings made in his image.

[ONtop888]

All you did was push the goal posts.

Now the question becomes, "Why did God create a human that would be more inclined to the sin in the world that he created?"

I think sawoobley's objection still stands.

What if He did not create humans differently but they developed differences through unique circumstances and their responses to them?

I am not saying that sawoobs's point doesn't still stand. I honestly do not have the answer to the free will/predestination debacle.

[CalmWind]

Omniscient = all-knowing. When I ask, "How does He know..." you can't just reply with "He knows everything."

Of course I can. When I say, "He knows everything", you can't just reply "How".

He's God.

That's the point, you're still making God's knowing dependent on temporal creatures (watching on fast forward) and thus, in effect, subjecting Him to time, whether or not you admit it. You can say God is omniscient and say He is outside time, but it is one thing to say this and another to show them to be compatible with a theory of human freedom.

No.

God is not subject to anything, unless he himself wishes to be subject to something. God's choice to give humans some control on the affairs of this Earth was his decision. This does not mean he is "limited" in power.


And way to be condescending. I only laugh at it, because of the attitude behind it. "I read the opinion of X person and so im more educated on this topics!!1"

EDIT - I'm being convicted in my heart to rebuke myself and show more love. Love is patient, love is kind, etc.

[IAMRED]

I just heard of this theory not too long ago so I am not going to defend it to the teeth (I haven't even read Most's whole book) as though it is my own position. It is not correct on your part to say that Most's position, which I will post below, is the equivalent of what Arminius held.

In any case, the real problem that I am starting to see in Most's position, the more I think about it throughout the course of our discussion, is that even though he resolves Arminius's issue of foreknowledge of meritorious acceptance of the offer by going back to pre-deliberation, he introduces a new problem by holding that Group A does not resist (prior to the second act of the will) but Group B seems to resist prior to the second act of the will, which would be a deficit in their nature not a free choice, if I am following Most correctly (which I may not be because I have only read two pages of his book).

I just don't see a significance in the differences between his position and Arminius' in terms of the questions that can be asked of it.

[sawoobley]

Of course he can. But that's not what God wanted. What you suggest is that God should have created robotic drones that have no true free will. Because if God created "obedient sentient beings" than God rigged the game and the humans don't have free will, since God pre-programmed a tendency to always be obedient. Of course God has the power to do that, if he wished. But that would be an assumption on your part, to assume that God wanted a world where his children could never possibly disobey.

But that's not what God wanted. God wanted sentient beings who have complete free will, which means disobedience is a possible consequence.

I know you are trying to create paradoxes, but they don't work. God's creation was perfect for his purposes. Sentient beings made in his image.

I'm not trying to create paradoxes. I am suggesting there are paradoxes. My arguments are based on the assumption that God is Good and he wants the best for his children. If that is the case then why not create stronger souls with complete free will yet who are more capable to make moral judgments? By definition the game is rigged somewhat because everything we are and hope to be is tied up in how God created us with the foreknowledge of what we would be. I'm not suggesting that God create children who could not disobey only one where they would not because of their wisdom, intelligence, virtue, etc. The fact that God made us so flawed when he didn't have too is not a credit to Him when the end result is hell for a great many of them.

[IAMRED]

Of course I can. When I say, "He knows everything", you can't just reply "How".

He's God.

Even for God, His true beliefs must be somehow justified (= knowledge). You're not explaining how God can't be justified in believing I will choose x. Is it because He observes the choice or not?

No. You again fail to understand the concept, which is why you are a Calvinist in the first place.

God is not subject to anything, unless he himself wishes to be subject to something. God's choice to give humans some control was his decision. This does not mean he is "limited" in power.

You can say God limits Himself, you just have to accept the implication - God is not eternally omniscient - which I reject.

[CalmWind]

What if He did not create humans differently but they developed differences through unique circumstances and their responses to them?

I am not saying that sawoobs's point doesn't still stand. I honestly do not have the answer to the free will/predestination debacle.

I understand. I've already stated my beliefs on it, so I can say no more. In the end, none of this matters Our God given objectives and spiritual battles are still at hand, and the answer to this question won't really make a difference, IMO.

[Indivdude]

I knew not what I unleashed this day.



Even though I should have expected it with IAMRED's different perspective on christianity vs others on this board.

[IAMRED]

I knew not what I unleashed this day.



Even though I should have expected it with IAMRED's different perspective on christianity vs others on this board.

Heh. Christian brah just redded me and called me a douchebag.