 |
| 
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/23/2002 6:56 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hilston: If I understand it correctly, libertarian free will refers to the idea that (a) people are completely free to exercise their will, AND (b) their will is not constrained in any way that has been determined in advance, AND (c) one's decisions (such as the decision to love or obey) cannot be predetermined in any way if decisions are to be regarded as genuine and veritable. (If I have missed something or am in error on this, I welcome clarification from anyone who supports libertarian free will.)
Doc: (a) not "completely free," just not "completely determined." (b) not "constrained in any way, just not "constrained in every way." (c) not "Predetermined in any way," just not "predetermined in every way."
The central issue, as I read this thread, is that those who hold to libertarian free will take passages in which God gives us a choice, encourages us to choose one way and is frustrated or angry when we choose a different way to necessasrily imply that we COULD HAVE chosen to go God's way rather than the wrong way. Hilston rather believes that God can give agents choices, encourage them to chose his way, get frustrated and angry when they choose the wrong way, and yet it be true that the way we chose was predestined by God.
I'm a libertarian because a) I don't see the wisdom in God getting frustrated or angry over what he himself predestines; b) I don't know the meaning of saying an agent is morally responsible for doing what they were predestined to do; c) I don't see the genuineness of Scripture in telling depicting God as giving us choices if we could not choose those choices -- for we were predestined not to.
If these intuitions aren't agreed on, I don't know how to proceed in the discussion. We can only say that each other is wrong.
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
 |
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 3/25/2002 10:16 PM (GMT -6) | | C'mon! Using Deut 29:29 to justify the idea that God has some kind of secret will behind everything that happens!? Get real! Surely you've read E.W. Bullinger's treatment of Deut 29:29 in his book Figures of Speech Used In the Bible. There is no way that verse can be used to support a secret will in God. If you think it can Hilston I would love to see you justify that this verse supports such an idear.
Shaking my head in disbelief,
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 3/26/2002 4:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Doc and Chance,
Thanks for writing. Responses to both below:
Doc writes:quote:
(a) not "completely free [to exercise their free will]" just not "completely determined."
Are they then partially determined to exercise their free will?
Doc writes:quote:
(b) not "constrained in any way, just not "constrained in every way [that has been determined in advance]"
Are they then constrained in some ways that have been determined in advance?
Doc writes:quote:
(c) not "Predetermined in any way," just not "predetermined in every way."
Are those decisions then predetermined in some ways?
Doc writes:quote:
Hilston rather believes that God can give agents choices, encourage them to chose his way, get frustrated and angry when they choose the wrong way, and yet it be true that the way we chose was predestined by God.
Hilston rather believes that the scriptures will not violate logic and that agents are given choices to make in a way that is compatible to God meticulous soveriegnty. My intuition tells me the human-like emotion that God expresses in the text on rare occasion are intended as figurative emphases to reader regarding God's judgment or condemnation of certain actions and rebellions. A study of these rare occasions indicates the kinds of sins God's condemns most severely.
Doc writes:quote:
I don't know the meaning of saying an agent is morally responsible for doing what they were predestined to do;
I'm not sure why you do not see meaning in the concept. Even on a very base, finite, human level, do we not judge the characters in fiction novels as morally responsible even upon second and third readings (i.e. we *know* what is going to happen). The author of the novel "predestined" the treacherous actions of the villain and holds him morally responsible for his treachery. God's predestiny of everything is much more complex, of course, but my point is simply that the coexistence of predestiny and moral culpability is meaningful and intelligible. My intuition tells me that these conditions are not in conflict at all.
Doc writes:quote:
I don't see the genuineness of Scripture in telling depicting God as giving us choices if we could not choose those choices -- for we were predestined not to.
It is genuine because we desired to choose the choices that He predestined to make. It is not illogical. It is not incompatible. My intuition tells me that it must be this way, and that the contrary is impossible.
Doc writes:quote:
If these intuitions aren't agreed on, I don't know how to proceed in the discussion. We can only say that each other is wrong.
Not at all. When debates about worldviews are engaged, the best approach is to critique each other presuppositions. In this case, we've called them intuitions. I claim that my presuppositions comport with reality in logic and human experience and with the normative language of scripture. I further claim that the open view, from what I understand thus far, focuses upon a distorted view of reality and logic and rather and judges the nature of reality according to rare usages of figurative language in the scripture rather than the more common normative language of scripture.
Chance writes: quote:
Surely you've read E.W. Bullinger's treatment of Deut 29:29 in his book Figures of Speech Used In the Bible.
No I haven't. Thanks for pointing that out! I should have to eat my own words for not noting the Massoretic additions to the passage. Thank you for directing my attention to it.
Chance writes:quote:
There is no way that verse can be used to support a secret will in God.
Actually, it still teaches that there is a distinction between what has not been revealed but will later be revealed. The secret things that will later be revealed are things predestined. Their later revelation comes either by explicit prophetic statements of God, or through the occurrence of the predestined event.
Chance writes:quote:
If you think it can Hilston I would love to see you justify that this verse supports such an idear.
Not only this verse, but myriad others throughout the Word of God:
Ro 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
Ec 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
Da 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?
Ps 77:19 Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known.
Ps 36:6 Thy righteousness is like the great mountains; thy judgments are a great deep: O LORD, thou preservest man and beast.
Col 2:3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Ps 107:39-43 Again, they are minished and brought low through oppression, affliction, and sorrow. He poureth contempt upon princes, and causeth them to wander in the wilderness, where there is no way. Yet setteth he the poor on high from affliction, and maketh him families like a flock. The righteous shall see it, and rejoice: and all iniquity shall stop her mouth. Whoso is wise, and will observe these things, even they shall understand the lovingkindness of the LORD.
Chance writes:quote:
Shaking my head in disbelief.
Oh, please. Don't be so incredulous! Rather, rejoice that you've had an opportunity to impart knowledge of the scriptures to someone who has benefitted from it.
Domo,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 3/29/2002 10:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Greetings! This reply is rather long coming, but I have been busy and it seemed appropriate to allow others respond as well.
WH:quote:
Can you a scripture verse that shows a person's "decisions" are foreordained by God? De 29:29 does not say that.
Hilston:quote:
Our decision to accept Christ as Lord and Savior was predestinated from before the foundation of the world.
Eph 1:5
This does not say that God determines all our decisions as you suggest.
Hilston:quote:
His good pleasure to save us is intertwined with His good pleasure to work in us, in our wills and actions. Php 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
This is a favorite verse of mine, because it reminds me that it is not up to me to achieve perfection in Christ. However, it still does not say God determines all our decisions.
Hilston:quote:
Our decisions to believe in Christ, being a work in itself (Jn 6:29), did not save us.
There was a very interesting discussion on CV recently that suggested that the ones the Father gives the Son are the ones that effectively said, "Yes", to the offer of salvation.
Hilston:quote:
It was by grace through the faith of Christ that saved us. Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
I do not think anyone, OV, Arminian, or Calvinist, denies this. However, it does not prove that God determines all our decisions, and in this case, does not deny our part of saying "yes" or "no" to God's grace.
Hilston:quote:
Our decisions to do good works after regeneration were also foreordained. Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Another favorite verse of mine. However, it does not tell us that God determines our decisions. In fact, it does not say we will obediently walk in these good works. It only says God prepared the works for us.
So far, you have not demonstrated where in the Bible we can get the idea that God determines our decisions.
In Christ,
Winghead
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
alwyn
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 4/8/2002 9:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Hilston,
Just a short one...
How is libertarian freedom 'logically incoherent'? Could you argue this out pls? I'm not sure how it's valid to merely equate with the 'God and the rock' or 'square circle' problem, and leave it at that.
And how can you tell the difference between figurative and non-figurative language? How come 'I repent' belongs in the former category whereas 'I don't repent' doesn't?
(I guess I'm gonna need a tutorial given the 'cement on my face', *smile*)
Rgds,
Al
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/11/2002 8:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Winghead,
Thanks for continuing the discussion. Replies and questions below:
Hilston wrote: Our decision to accept Christ as Lord and Savior was predestinated from before the foundation of the world. Eph 1:5
Winghead writes:quote:
This does not say that God determines all our decisions as you suggest.
Why do you now include the word "ALL"? It suffices to show that God predetermined our decision to accept Christ, which is precisely what this verse logically demonstrates.
Hilston: His good pleasure to save us is intertwined with His good pleasure to work in us, in our wills and actions. Php 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Winghead writes:quote:
This is a favorite verse of mine, because it reminds me that it is not up to me to achieve perfection in Christ.
Who is it up to, then?
Winghead writes:quote:
However, it still does not say God determines all our decisions.
Interesting. You used the word "ALL" again here. Is that your strategy? Ask one question, then impugn the answerer for failing to answer a different question? It suffices to show that God works in our wills, which the Open View protests and dismisses in a priori fashion. The verse further shows that our works are according to His good pleasure, which the verse above similarly describes regarding His predestination of us.
Hilston wrote: Our decisions to believe in Christ, being a work in itself (Jn 6:29), did not save us.
Winghead writes:quote:
There was a very interesting discussion on CV recently that suggested that the ones the Father gives the Son are the ones that effectively said, "Yes", to the offer of salvation.
Then here's the (IL)logic of that view: (1) According to that view, Christ commands all men to repent and believe in Him, but no one knows, including the Father, who will say "yes"; (2) The Bible says the Father has promised to give some to Christ; (3) We know that some say "yes" to this command; (4) The aforementioned view further states that the Father then sees who these are and gives them to Christ; (5) But the Bible states that no one comes to Christ unless he is dragged by the Father (Jn 6:44). These claims cannot all be true.
Hilston wrote: It was by grace through the faith of Christ that saved us. Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Winghead writes:quote:
I do not think anyone, OV, Arminian, or Calvinist, denies this. However, it does not prove that God determines all our decisions, and in this case, does not deny our part of saying "yes" or "no" to God's grace.
There you go with that "all" word again. If belief is a work (Jn 6:29) and if salvation is not by works (which would include belief), then how do we get saved?
Hilston wrote: Our decisions to do good works after regeneration were also foreordained. Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Winghead writes:quote:
Another favorite verse of mine. However, it does not tell us that God determines our decisions. In fact, it does not say we will obediently walk in these good works. It only says God prepared the works for us.
Do you realize how you insult God? We are His workmanship. It means, like an artist who is lauded for his artistry, God is glorified by the good works He has ordained for us to perform. If were to fail to reflect and manifest the expert handiwork of the Creator, then He would not be much of an artisan, would He? The point of the verse is that we WILL obediently walk in those very works that He has prepared in advance. We will do so willingly because He also works in our wills (Php. 2:13).
'Antio,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/11/2002 9:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Alwyn,
Thanks for your questions. Replies inline below:
Alwyn writes:quote:
How is libertarian freedom 'logically incoherent'? Could you argue this out pls? I'm not sure how it's valid to merely equate with the 'God and the rock' or 'square circle' problem, and leave it at that.
When I debate open theists about knowing the future, we might use an analogy such as coin flips, for example, I ask him if God knows the outcome of a coin flip after the coin has left the hand of the coin-flipper. He will say "yes," that is, once it has left the hand of the coin-flipper, and barring any free-will interference by another person -- which I will grant for the sake of the argument.
So how does God know the outcome? Does He know because He has predetermined it? Or does He know because He can extrapolate all the variables instantaneously and say, "That coin will land heads." The Open Theist claims the latter. By this very same argument, the Open View of limited divine foreknowledge is rendered incoherent. We know the Bible predicts a certain outcome for the universe and we are told to be confident that the Lord will indeed bring to pass that which He has promised. The problem for the Open Theist is that such "assurance," as described by the Open Theist in the coin-flip scenario, depends upon a mechanistic extrapolation of all the known variables into the future, *minus* the freewill actions of contingent beings. Logically speaking, given those conditions, it is incoherent to say that anything in the future is assured. It reduces God to a day-trader, buying low (creating a universe of contingent free-will beings) and selling high (cashing in His prophecy when the maximum number of believers have crossed the narrow bridge).
Alwyns writes:quote:
And how can you tell the difference between figurative and non-figurative language? How come 'I repent' belongs in the former category whereas 'I don't repent' doesn't?
They're *both* figurative, Al. God is transcendent in His nature, character and attributes. Whatever we understand and whatever language are used to describe God's actions and emotions must be understood analogically and anthropopatheically. We know the difference between figurative and non-figurative language from the context and the semantic of each passage. Literal interpretations that result in logical incoherence are obviously figurative (e.g. "I am the Door.")
Thanks for the excellent questions.
Ohaiyo,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 4/12/2002 4:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Hilston,
Frequently in your post, you question my use of the word "all"....
Hilston:quote:
Why do you now include the word "ALL"? It suffices to show that God predetermined our decision to accept Christ, which is precisely what this verse logically demonstrates.
In your definition of capablist freewill you say that all of a person's decisions and all the mitagating factors" are foreordained by God. (See second sentence in the quote below.) This is why I am using the word "all". I am asking you to support that claim with scripture. So far, none of the verses you referenced support your definition.
quote:
Compatibilist free will describes the perceived freedom that a person exercises in his daily experience (Php 2:12,13 Eph 2:10 Ro 9:14-16). His decisions and all the mitigating factors that affect his decisions are foreordained by God, in perfect accordance with (a) His secret specific plan for individuals (De 29:29), and (b) His revealed eschatology (Mt 24:6). Man's freedom derives from God's absolute and truly libertarian freedom, Who alone is truly free. We must not confuse God's revealed decree(commands, examples, prophecies) and God's secret decrees, which no one knows in advance but God Himself.
Winghead writes about Phil 2:13:quote:
This is a favorite verse of mine, because it reminds me that it is not up to me to achieve perfection in Christ.
Hilstonquote:
Who is it up to, then?
The obvious answer to both of us is, "God". Our perfection in Christ is a work of God. The fact that you ask me this question suggests that you do not expect an Arminian or Open Theist to say this. If this is the case, you have not understood the Arminian or OV position.
In Christ,
Christopher
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/12/2002 5:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Christopher,
Thank you for your post. Replies/questions below:
Winghead writes:quote:
Frequently in your post, you question my use of the word "all"....
No, I questioned why you changed the wording of your question by introducing the word "all."
Hilston wrote: Why do you now include the word "ALL"? It suffices to show that God predetermined our decision to accept Christ, which is precisely what this verse logically demonstrates.
Winghead writes:quote:
In your definition of capablist freewill you say that all of a person's decisions and all the mitagating factors" are foreordained by God. (See second sentence in the quote below.) This is why I am using the word "all". I am asking you to support that claim with scripture. So far, none of the verses you referenced support your definition.
Your presuppositions appear to be clouding your thinking. If God ordains any single decision, that certainly supports my definition. While it may not explicitly indicate all, it suffices to show that some decisions are foreordained by God.
Question: Do you believe that any decisions are predetermined?
If not, then my point stands. I only need to show one foreordained/predetermined decision to refute your view. As to the exhaustive predestination of all things without exception, it is demonstrated in particular cases, from which we inductively confirm and recognize the general and exhaustive principle.
Winghead wrote regarding Phil 2:13:quote:
This is a favorite verse of mine, because it reminds me that it is not up to me to achieve perfection in Christ.
Hilston asked:Who is it up to, then?
Winghead writes:quote:
The obvious answer to both of us is, "God". Our perfection in Christ is a work of God. The fact that you ask me this question suggests that you do not expect an Arminian or Open Theist to say this. If this is the case, you have not understood the Arminian or OV position.
I don't claim to fully understand the Open View. That's why I'm here. However, I do understand the Arminian view, and I expect that answer from the Arminian, but not from the Open Theist. If you believe God does NOT foreordain and predetermine all your decisions, then you are NOT a work of God. If you can thwart God's work, then you are NOT a work of God. You are a work of yourself, using God as a willing tool. You get all the glory, because you, of your own free will, chose to cooperate with God. Sure, God gets some glory for His efforts to make you a better person, but ultimately, you are the one who gets the glory for being smart enough to yield to God. Is there error in my logic here? Can you explain what the Open View really is? How is it that you can be the workmanship of God if He has somehow chosen not to override your freewill, and not to know your decisions and actions in advance?
Thanks for indulging my questions. Efcharisto polu',
Edited by - hilston on 04/12/2002 10:59:12 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 4/14/2002 6:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Hilson, Your last post had some opportunities for us to make some progress. But first, let me try to clarify one issue.
Hilston:
quote:
Your presuppositions appear to be clouding your thinking. If God ordains any single decision, that certainly supports my definition. While it may not explicitly indicate all, it suffices to show that some decisions are foreordained by God.
You seem to be missing my point. You defined capabilist freewill as involving God determining all our decissions. Do you really mean "all" decissions? I only asked you support your claim that the Bible teaches that God foreordains all of our decissions. You said he does, show me where the Bible teaches this. As they say, "Where is it written?"
Hilston:quote:
As to the exhaustive predestination of all things without exception, it is demonstrated in particular cases, from which we inductively confirm and recognize the general and exhaustive principle.
Again, what particular cases?
Winghead wrote regarding Phil 2:13:quote:
This is a favorite verse of mine, because it reminds me that it is not up to me to achieve perfection in Christ.
Hilston asked:Who is it up to, then?
Winghead writes:quote:
The obvious answer to both of us is, "God". Our perfection in Christ is a work of God. The fact that you ask me this question suggests that you do not expect an Arminian or Open Theist to say this. If this is the case, you have not understood the Arminian or OV position.
Hilson:quote:
I don't claim to fully understand the Open View. That's why I'm here. However, I do understand the Arminian view, and I expect that answer from the Arminian, but not from the Open Theist. If you believe God does NOT foreordain and predetermine all your decisions, then you are NOT a work of God. If you can thwart God's work, then you are NOT a work of God.
The OV and Arminian view are not different in this area. In both cases, we say "yes" or "no" to God's offer of salvation. In both cases, God's offer of salvation is God's, based on God's work on the cross, and when God's Spirit indwells us, and when he starts his work in us to which Phil 2:13 is referring.
Hilston:quote:
You are a work of yourself, using God as a willing tool. You get all the glory, because you, of your own free will, chose to cooperate with God.
Not at all. God is not a "tool". The changes in our lives, the fruit of the spirit, it is all God at work. Either God is at work, or he is not. Scripture tells us that God will complete the work in us that he has started.
Anyone trusting in their "work" -- their religious activity, their efforts to walk in righteousness, etc. -- has not truly given themselves over to God. If that continues, I would question if they even had said "yes" to God's offer. Such self effort was the work of the Pharisees, which Jesus rejected.
Hilson:quote:
Sure, God gets some glory for His efforts to make you a better person, but ultimately, you are the one who gets the glory for being smart enough to yield to God. Is there error in my logic here?
Yes, I think there is an error in your logic. You say, "you are the one who gets the glory for being smart enough to yield to God". This would imply that it is a bad thing to yield to God. There is no place in scripture that suggests this. Instead, God repeatedly tells us to repent -- turn back to him. To trust him. To honor him. To come to him on his terms. Again, this is not something we acheive on our own. An example of what I am talking about is the person who said, "I believe, help my unbelief." However, you get closer to what might be the core issue...
Hilston:quote:
Can you explain what the Open View really is? How is it that you can be the workmanship of God if He has somehow chosen not to override your freewill, and not to know your decisions and actions in advance?
This is a very good question. I hope some others try to answer it, too. I will post my attempt at answering it, soon.
In Christ,
Winghead
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 4/15/2002 5:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Hilston,
I was thinking about something you said, and wanted to respond to it future.
Hilston wrote:[quote]If you can thwart God's work, then you are NOT a work of God. You are a work of yourself, using God as a willing tool. You get all the glory, because you, of your own free will, chose to cooperate with God. Sure, God gets some glory for His efforts to make you a better person, but ultimately, you are the one who gets the glory for being smart enough to yield to God. Is there error in my logic here?
The first sentence here is correct. However, the follow-up comments are problemmatic. This is because most people do not think like this. The Holy Spirit does not let them, if they have received Christ. Remember all Christians have the Holy Spirit indwelling in them -- even if they are Open Theists or Arminians  .
I was reading today, an I came across this sentence:
"When we surrender ourselves to God, the way opens for us to recognize and become all God intends."
This reminds me of a part of one of my favorite quotes:
"Reading Scared Scripture confers on us two gifts: it makes the soul's understanding keener, and after snatching us from the world's vanities, it leads us to the love of God"
"Snatching us from the world's vanities" is what God is all about.
We have grand philosophical or theological arguments in discussions like this, but they miss the reality of the day by day Christian experience.
IMHO, the Christian life is not something we do as much as something God does to us.
Yours in Christ,
Christopher
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/15/2002 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Hilston, I appologize that this does not fit with the converstions on this thread. But it does follow the title literally: Hilston- request for clarification
In the school of being prepared to make an explaination for your faith-life. . .Would you care to reflect on the particular N/S Dakota monument on your website that causes me such concern?
I would prefer to see it removed from the world-wide-web. And linking it to a Bible Conference site seems.....
Part of the failing of the Augustinian tradition is that its take on predestination excludes. (Freud was a decendent of Augustine, and believed himself to be holy enough to determine who was worthy of healing.) your display struck me as racist. My family is excluded.
How convenient to find a God who loves only you. (?)
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/15/2002 11:42:53 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/15/2002 7:36 PM (GMT -6) | | | Hilston, I will look forward to removing that last post of mine. But I would like a response. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/15/2002 8:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Christopher,
Thank you for your reply. My remarks/questions are in-line below:
Hilston had written: Your presuppositions appear to be clouding your thinking. If God ordains any single decision, that certainly supports my definition. While it may not explicitly indicate all, it suffices to show that some decisions are foreordained by God.
Christopher writes:quote:
You seem to be missing my point. You defined capabilist freewill as involving God determining all our decissions. Do you really mean "all" decissions? I only asked you support your claim that the Bible teaches that God foreordains all of our decissions. You said he does, show me where the Bible teaches this. As they say, "Where is it written?"
It is demonstrated from scripture in particular cases, from which we inductively confirm and recognize the general and exhaustive principle. For example, He foreordains that we will decide to do good works. He prepares those works in advance and causes us, through the desires within us that He has decreed, to do those very works. We cannot NOT do them, because the logical result would then be a denigration of God's nature, character and attributes, not to mention the fact that such an event would make the verse itself inane and false.
Christopher writes:quote:
... we say "yes" or "no" to God's offer of salvation. In both cases, God's offer of salvation is God's, based on God's work on the cross, ...
There is an error here. God does not *offer* salvation on the basis of God's work on the cross. He commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel on the basis of God's standard of righteousness. God's work on the cross applies only to the elect and it truly pays the price for His elect. Everyone He died for has the price paid in their behalf. Judas did not have the price paid for him. None of the blood shed by Jesus was for Judas.
Christopher writes:quote:
... and when God's Spirit indwells us, and when he starts his work in us to which Phil 2:13 is referring.
Is it God's work that made you say "yes," or did you do this on your own, without His influence?
Hilston wrote: You are a work of yourself, using God as a willing tool. You get all the glory, because you, of your own free will, chose to cooperate with God.
Christopher writes:quote:
Not at all. God is not a "tool". The changes in our lives, the fruit of the spirit, it is all God at work.
Could you stop Him from doing that work if you wanted to? If so, does that mean His work in you requires that you *allow* Him to do it? And if so, isn't it to *your* credit, not to God's, that you *allowed* Him to do His work in you?
Christopher writes:quote:
Either God is at work, or he is not. Scripture tells us that God will complete the work in us that he has started.
But what if you freely decide that you don't want Him to complete the work?
Christopher writes: quote:
Anyone trusting in their "work" -- their religious activity, their efforts to walk in righteousness, etc. -- has not truly given themselves over to God.
But isn't that what you're doing by making your salvation contingent upon your own freewill decision? Aren't you trusting in your own faith and efforts to give yourself over?
Christopher writes:quote:
If that continues, I would question if they even had said "yes" to God's offer.
This seems to be a contradiction to me. First you say that they should not trust in their own efforts, yet it is with great effort that a person surrenders and finally yields to God.
Hilston had written: Sure, God gets some glory for His efforts to make you a better person, but ultimately, you are the one who gets the glory for being smart enough to yield to God. Is there error in my logic here?
Christopher writes:quote:
Yes, I think there is an error in your logic. You say, "you are the one who gets the glory for being smart enough to yield to God". This would imply that it is a bad thing to yield to God.
No. It implies that it is a GOOD thing to yield to God, and that you get glory for having chosen the good thing.
Christopher writes:quote:
Instead, God repeatedly tells us to repent -- turn back to him. To trust him. To honor him. To come to him on his terms. Again, this is not something we acheive on our own.
Is the DECISION to repent, turn back, to trust, to honor and to come on his terms achieved on your own?
Hilston had written: If you can thwart God's work, then you are NOT a work of God. You are a work of yourself, using God as a willing tool. You get all the glory, because you, of your own free will, chose to cooperate with God. Sure, God gets some glory for His efforts to make you a better person, but ultimately, you are the one who gets the glory for being smart enough to yield to God. Is there error in my logic here?
Christopher writes:quote:
The first sentence here is correct. However, the follow-up comments are problemmatic. This is because most people do not think like this. The Holy Spirit does not let them, if they have received Christ.
Are you saying that once someone has received Christ, they lose their freedom to think a certain way because the Holy Spirit takes that freedom away?
Christopher quote:quote:
"When we surrender ourselves to God, the way opens for us to recognize and become all God intends."
But YOU still have to surrender as a contingency. It is still, by your view, up to YOU. As Greg Boyd says, YOU have the "say-so."
Christopher quotes:quote:
"Reading Scared Scripture confers on us two gifts: it makes the soul's understanding keener, and after snatching us from the world's vanities, it leads us to the love of God" "Snatching us from the world's vanities" is what God is all about.
But wasn't it YOU who decided to read the sacred scripture? So doesn't it still come back to YOUR glory according to your thesis? And YOU basically *allowed* God to snatch you, right?
Christopher writes:quote:
We have grand philosophical or theological arguments in discussions like this, but they miss the reality of the day by day Christian experience.
The fact that you have this perception of such discussions tells me a lot. You see, on my view, this topic is perfectly consonant with day to day Christian experience. It affects what I am, how I perceive myself, how I live, what I do, what I think, how I make decisions, how I experience reality and how I function and exist in it. I think the fact that you see an incongruity should tell you something about your worldview.
Efcharisto polu',
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/15/2002 9:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi PotOnWheel,
Thanks for your inquiry. You write:quote:
Hilston, I appologize that this does not fit with the converstions on this thread. But it does follow the title literally: Hilston- request for clarification.
I am honored that my name is even included as a discussion thread. So feel free to ask whatever you like that might help you to understand my doctrine.
PoW writes:quote:
In the school of being prepared to make an explaination for your faith-life. . .Would you care to reflect on the particular N/S Dakota monument on your website that causes me such concern?
Mount Interracialmore is a socio-political critique of modern "political correctness." It is offered in accordance with Prov. 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Why does "Mt. Interracialmore" cause you concern?
PoW writes:quote:
I would prefer to see it removed from the world-wide-web. And linking it to a Bible Conference site seems.....
Why would you like it to be removed? How is it unseemly to link it to a Bible-related website?
PoW writes:quote:
Part of the failing of the Augustinian tradition is that its take on predestination excludes. (Freud was a decendent of Augustine, and believed himself to be holy enough to determine who was worthy of healing.) your display struck me as racist. My family is excluded.
How is it racist? I include 4 different races. If there were more heads, I would have included more races. Is there one you would like me to add? Which one should I replace? My mother was Okinawan, so I'm partial to the Asian. I could get rid of the white guy (Washington), if you prefer.
PoW writes:quote:
How convenient to find a God who loves only you. (?)
Um --- is there relevance to that remark? Or was it meant for another thread?
What do you mean by, "My family is excluded"? Excluded from what?
For those who are interested, here is the link to the (now defunct) website where my editorial can be seen (it's somewhat large and requires a flash plug-in, so please be patient and make sure you have the plug-in installed):
http://www.icubed.com/~hilston/TGF/humor/rush_flash.htm
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/16/2002 1:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hilston: My mother was Okinawan, so I'm partial to the Asian. I could get rid of the white guy (Washington), if you prefer.
So, nice humor on the Founding Father.
Well, bro., if you really did put your mom in a satire, then who am I to comment. I didn't realize you had done that. OK.
Let me make a last comment though. Reflect, now and then, on what fodder satire can have on those who favor "Jim Crow" (separate but 'equal'). I have a friend who is half Japanese and half German (His mom married a U.S. service man, who's family was in a 'detention' center in Idaho. That German woman makes the best Sushi I've tasted.) But representation, and being invisible, and being marginalized in the political and public awareness process is NOT a laughing matter for huge numbers of our fallow citizens.
But its your mom. You can make art about your mom. Really.
But, again, realize that some would even go so far as to say that it was against God's will for you to be born--because your parents mixed races. (Interracial thread. Its got your LINK too.)
In a day when such sadness is around us (Meph reminds us that that is always.), we have to think twice.
(Nice visual effects, proportioning, and angle of perspective.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 4/16/2002 6:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi PotOnWheel,
I'm still trying to understand what it is you're taking issue with. I've re-posted my questions from above. I think your answering them would help me to grasp what your concerns are.
PoW had written: I would prefer to see it removed from the world-wide-web. And linking it to a Bible Conference site seems.....
This is a request I am taking seriously. So I again ask, why would you like it to be removed? How is it unseemly to link it to a Bible-related website?
PoW had written: ... your display struck me as racist.
How is it racist?
PoW had written: How convenient to find a God who loves only you. (?)
Is there relevance to that remark? Or was it meant for another thread?
PoW had written: My family is excluded.
Excluded from what?
You write:quote:
Well, bro., if you really did put your mom in a satire, then who am I to comment. I didn't realize you had done that. OK.
Well, I didn't put my mom in it, per se, but rather Asians in general. Just as I did with the African-American and the Hispanic-American. But even if my mother weren't Asian, would that matter either way? If I were not an Asian-American would it be somehow different? I mean, are you getting the point as it pertains to current events? Are you familiar with the controversy over the "interracial" WTC Memorial that has been proposed?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/printjg20020118.shtml
PoW writes:quote:
Let me make a last comment though. Reflect, now and then, on what fodder satire can have on those who favor "Jim Crow" (separate but 'equal').
Please explain.
PoW writes:quote:
But representation, and being invisible, and being marginalized in the political and public awareness process is NOT a laughing matter for huge numbers of our fallow citizens.
That is exactly my point. The absurdity of "political correctness" is precisely what I am attacking.
PoW writes: quote:
But its your mom. You can make art about your mom. Really.
Again, why does that matter?
PoW writes:quote:
But, again, realize that some would even go so far as to say that it was against God's will for you to be born--because your parents mixed races.
Sure. Those people are irrational fools (Prov 1:7).
PoW writes:quote:
(Interracial thread. Its got your LINK too.)
I went looking for it. I notice it was *you* who put it there with the following remark:quote:
Here's something racist: www.icubed.com/~hilston/TGF/humor/rush_flash.htm
I'm wondering if you're planning to retract the allegation.
PoW writes:quote:
In a day when such sadness is around us (Meph reminds us that that is always.), we have to think twice.
A lot of sadness is self-imposed, self-centered, and dishonors God. We live in a beautiful world, full of marvelous diversity (which racists deny when they say we should all be "color-blind") and myriad variety, rich with mind-blowing experiences -- if only we would make the effort to appreciate the mundane for the sheer wonder of it all. Some people would rather focus on their suffering and parading their victim status. It seems to me that those who protest most loudly about the need to be "color blind" are the ones who are most likely to bring up racial differences. How can they ever hope to live in a color blind society as long as they're running amuck pointing out racial differences with every breath they take?
So, to do my part in keeping racism alive, I've decided to start a grassroots movement to protest the egregious lack of representation of Asians in the movie industry. I'm hoping that someday a shapely Asian-American with super-model features rises to fame by exposing her breasts in a feature film, and then finally shatters the glass ceiling by winning an Oscar for it, thereby bringing hope to other aspiring shapely Asian-Americans with super-model features who are willing to expose themselves for money. Despite our high SAT scores, we Asians need role models, too.
'Antio,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/16/2002 11:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear James, I completely follow your satire in the last paragraph. Anyone who would write that way ought to be trusted for his sense of judgement in the video. Bravo! Well done.
quote:
"So, to do my part in keeping racism alive, I've decided to start a grassroots movement to protest the egregious lack of representation of Asians in the movie industry. I'm hoping that someday a shapely Asian-American with super-model features rises to fame by exposing her breasts in a feature film, and then finally shatters the glass ceiling by winning an Oscar for it, thereby bringing hope to other aspiring shapely Asian-Americans with super-model features who are willing to expose themselves for money. Despite our high SAT scores, we Asians need role models, too."
IN MOSTLY REVERSE ORDER:
1) I notice it was *you* who put it there. . .I'm wondering if you're planning to retract the allegation.
DONE. WITH POSITIVE REVIEW, AND RECOMENDATION TO COME HERE AND READ WHAT YOU SAID.
2) pOw: But, again, realize that some would even go so far as to say that it was against God's will for you to be born--because your parents mixed races.
------------------------------------------------------------
Hilston: Sure. Those people are irrational fools (Prov 1:7).
DITTO.
3) pOw: But representation, and being invisible, and being marginalized in the political and public awareness process is NOT a laughing matter for huge numbers of our fallow citizens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hilston: That is exactly my point. The absurdity of "political correctness" is precisely what I am attacking.
I see what you were doing NOW. It seemed "Amos and Andy" (old TV show with characatured persons--AfroAmerican--in anticeptic world) to me. (t was the George character who knew Archie Bunker that did it to me.)
4) pOw: Let me make a last comment though. Reflect, now and then, on what fodder satire can have on those who favor "Jim Crow" (separate but 'equal').
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hilston: Please explain.
Again, it was the "George" from "Mov'n on up to the East side" that did it to me. He is not real. And I reacted because the personage was not really a real person. THAT kind of representation -- the Georges -- do not really bring the diverse groups together...they further separate them, by domesticating what should be recognized.... (or something to that effect).
5) PoW had written: How convenient to find a God who loves only you. (?)
Is there relevance to that remark? Or was it meant for another thread?
..............AND................
PoW had written: My family is excluded.
Excluded from what?
THESE ARE NO LONGER RELEVANT. BUT I WILL EXPLAIN. THE "EXCLUDED" PART IS RELEVANT ONLY IF YOUR SATIRE WAS A REENFORCEMENT OF "AMOS AND ANDY." THE "GOD LOVES" WOULD ONLY BE RELEVANT IF YOU WERE SOMEONE WHO FELT THAT NO GROUP BUT YOU MATTERED, AND THAT EVERYONE MUST BE MEASURED BY AND MEASURE UP TO YOU.
PLEASE EXCUSE ME! (MY MISTAKE.) THANKS.
6) PoW had written: ... your display struck me as racist.
Hilston: How is it racist?
Explained above. Again, I WITHDRAW that response. I "get" you now. And I have enjoyed the responses you gave. (Please accept my appology for the discomfort this might have brought you.)
7) PoW had written: I would prefer to see it removed from the world-wide-web. And linking it to a Bible Conference site seems.....
Hilston: This is a request I am taking seriously. So I again ask, why would you like it to be removed? How is it unseemly to link it to a Bible-related website?
IF YOU WERE DOING THE THINGS I HAD THOUGHT, AND THEREFORE MARGINALIZING WHAT IS PRECIOUS AS BIBLICAL-DIVERSITY AND PRECIOUS IN GOD'S SIGHT, AND THE SUBJECT OF OUR CALL TO TILL AND TEND THE EARTH, BUT INSTEAD A STRAIGHT-JACKETING TO ONE VIEW (WHICH YOU POINT OUT "P.C. IS!!!!) -- THEN IT WOULD NOT BELONG ON YOUR SITE.
MY SUGGESTION OF CAUTION IS WITHDRAWN IN DEFERENCE TO YOUR OWN CONTINUED JUDGEMENTS.
- PoW
| | Back to Top | | |
| 43 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:24 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|