 |
 | 
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 8/29/2003 1:32 PM (GMT -6) |   | Dr. Boyd, I appreciate with the highest amount of gratitude that you responded to my question. Thank you for taking time out of your busy day to answer my question. Regarding many of the verses you gave me, I was wondering, if you have time, if you could tell me what you think of some ways in which I interpret these Scriptures.
Duet 30:12-19- My first point on this, though it may be rather weak is that this is Moses who is laying it before the people of Israel. Now I understand that it's still the inspired word of God and that Moses simply acted as the vessel to which God spoke to them through, however, it was indeed interesting to me when I noticed that this was Moses speaking.
Furthermore on that, I do find it interesting that Moses tells them to CHOOSE life so that they may live. Cross referencing the verses led me to look at Deut 4:15-31 which in my mind was a clear explanation that though Moses told them to choose life, they wouldn't. Following that Deut 31:16ff again point out that these people seemed destined to fall away from God, seeming how God told Moses that once he died, the people were going to play the "harlot" with false gods and pagan people. To me, this is very evident that God was going to bring to ruin the people of Israel, that they would indeed "choose" death, and it almost seems as though they had no other choice, considering God cannot lie. Hopefully not jumping aroudn too much, I've been led to believe that the only way one can ever "choose" God, is if God first reveals Himself to them. I'll probably come back to this later. But in Jer 24:7 we see that the only way Israel is going to turn back to God is because God WILL give them a heart and they WILL turn back to Him with all their heart, soul, and mind. So in no way, do I see these verses as saying yeah turn back to Me now, because I've already given you the heart. In the Gospel of John we are led to believe that all that the Father draws WILL come to Him, John 6:37.
Ezek 18:5, 9, 20, 23, 31-32- I would again go back to the main idea of Total Depravity. God is assuring the people that if they are seeking Him with all their hearts, than they will have life. But where in the Bible does it ever say that God has promised to draw everyone to Him or to reveal Himself to everyone in a saving way? It doesn't that I'm aware of, lest everyone should be saved- universalism. Going on from that, I believe as you probably assume that we are all fallen in complete corruption from God. At the fall of man, our very wills as well as everything else became corrupt. with verses like Rom 8:6, 3:10,11,23, Jer 17:9, Gen 6:5, and the like; I see that we are sinfallen from birth. If that is true, than as Rom 8:6 says, "we cannot please God" and following that, "we cannot even submit to His law" which is "Love the Lord your God..." unless we are saved by God first, Rom 2:8,9, Jer 24:7. From what I get, God is more defending His character in front of Israel. Before this, the people were wondering why they had to die for their father's sins, and God is saying, I'm punishing you for your own sins. Looking at verse 23 and fitting it in with the rest of the Bible, I think Lam 3:33, as you posted later, can help determine what God means. "For He does not afflict willingly, Nor grieve the children of men." RC Sproul comments on this verse in this way. "Since God is compassionate, the present expierence of His wrath must be short-lived (Ps. 30:5; Is 54:7; Hos. 6:1). Again, compassionis joined to God's unfailing love (Hebrew hesed, 3:22). God does not afflict men "willingly," that is, "cheerfully," or "from His heart" even in judgment." Ezekiel even points to the fact that it's through God alone, nothing that we do, that we recieve the "new heart" to choose life or death in Ez 36:26ff. He implies that it's not off of our own merit, but off of repentance vs. 32, and repentance comes when we are renewed. In the logical thought process of this, one cannot please God if still in the sinful nature, Rom 8:6, so we need to have God's intervening work done before this happens.
Luke 6:45- I would tend to agree with you. Original sin puts us in a spot that evil proceeds from our hearts from birth, (Ps. 53?). I wouldn't go along with the idea, if this is what you are implying, that in any way does God force us to sin. He didn't force the Nazi soldiers to tear out Zosia's eyes, they just had no other choice but to do evil. As a famous early 20th Century Theologian said, "God does not steer an unwilling horse in an unwilling direction" (Pink, The Sovereignty of God). But to say that forces us to sin, would in my mind be blasphemy. We as humans sin because we like it, because Adam and Eve, the first beings who had the power to do good and evil, chose evil, and from that, we inherited sin into our own lives from the minute we are born.
For your verses of the Kings of Israel and them turning away; I think it goes hand in hand with what happened to Pharoah. God in Exodus 4 I believe, while talking to Moses said that Pharoah's heart was going to be hardened and he wouldn't listen to Moses. In Romans 9 we see that God said He hardened Pharoah's heart, and yet while reading throughout the story of the plagues, we are led to believe that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. I think this shows the fact that mankind is not held blameless when it comes to this, but we are still held to account. Why? Well the fact that Paul doesn't seem to touch it, deduces that perhaps this is "too wonderful" for us to know. But he simply says, "Does the clay have the right to say to the potter, this is unfair? No." I would also go on to say that perhaps God was revealing to them the corruptedness of their own hearts. God was saying what they had done, how far they had turned, so as to make them; as best they could understand it; held accountalbe for their sins and for their lives. Salvation is from the Lord Jonah 2:9, Ehp 2:8,9. Going on with that, John 6 and 10 make it clear that the people whom the Father wanted to save, were going to be saved. John 10:15, 26-29, tends to make it clear that Christ died for "the sheep". That people didn't believe because they were not part of Christ's sheep. That Christ gives them eternal life, not something they earned in the slightest bit. And He says that His sheep know His voice, and in preceeding verses that His sheep will follow Him because they know His voice, and they won't follow a stranger (heirling). And it sounds as though, none will be lost. Now tie that in with all of chapter 6. 6:37- "All that the Father gives Me WILL (not mayber, or has the chance, but WILL) come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out." 39- "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day." Jumping to verse 44, "no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;" well aren't we shown back in verse 37 that all that the Father draws to Christ WILL come to Him. So if the whole world was being drawn to Christ, we have the promise of God Himself, and He cannot lie, that they WOULD come to Him. These verses don't depict a God who fails in His means of salvation.
My big question to is, does God truly care about a choice that we make? If we do have freewill to accept Him, does He really care about a moment in time when we feel an emotional/spiritual high and feel inclined to at that moment turn our lives over to God? I would say He is more concered with what follows. The choice doesn't mean anything if it's not backed by a life that proves our Salvation, as James clearly teaches us.
With the verses regarding Jeremiah 18, I found it interesting that you threw in the words "hopes that the nation will repent of their wicked ways so He might..." Reading through the chapter, I didn't necesarily get the idea that God was hoping for that. I saw it more as God laying it down how it is.
2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning His promises as some count slackness, but is longsuffering towards us, willing that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Well first, who is the book of 2 Peter written to? Believers, Chapter 1. Second, what is the promise that is being talked about here? The promise of God sending His Son back to earth, preceeding verses. Why would people count it slackness, yet it's not? Because a 1000 years is like one day and one day like a 1000 years to God. Who is He longsuffering towards? The "usward" of verse 9. I don't know Greek but I have read that the "us" and "all" tie together, in that the interpretation of this verse should more so say, "The Lord is not delaying the coming of His Son, no matter what people say. But God is longsuffering towards us Christians, willing that none of us Christians should perish, but that we should all come to a saving knowledge of Him." Basically, if the world were to be destroyed right now, the future elect would never have a chance to come to Christ. As Acts 4 tells us, Christ is the only way, and if these future elect don't have the chance to hear the gospel and be saved, their place for eternity is in hell. But God is longsuffering with this world, in that He alows it to go on, so that the full measure of His sheep from the other pasture John 10 have the chance to come into the sheepfold. Once this happens, than God will send His Son back to earth. That's the way I've been led to see these verses in light of the rest of Scripture with the help of Arthur W. Pink.
My biggest thing is that John 6:37 clearly alludes, that if the Father wanted to save the entire world, He would have.
I know this is long, I apologize. Included in the end are some verses I found that reveal in ways that God doesn't fail at His purposes with humankind or with salvation. Acts 13:48, John 6:37, 6:44, 6:38, Rom 9:18,19, Matt 7:17, 1 Sam 15:29, Isa 41:9,10, Prov 20:22, Deut 31:29, Isa 44:28, Phil 2:13, Heb 13:21, Eph 1:11, Heb 6:17, Job 42:2, Matt 22:14, John 10:3,4. Take those for what they're worth. Some may be a bit innaccurate, but in one way or another I sensed that they were verses that depicted God as ever winning, ever successful, as ever carrying out His perfect plan. Any more insight or critiscim would be read with eagerness. Thanks.
Grace and Peace,
Borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 8/29/2003 3:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast: Isn’t the greatest commandment that we love God? Isn’t this His will?
Tim: Simply genius  . . . No, really! And the second like unto the first . . .
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 8/30/2003 7:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Ross thank you for the response. I too am very well pleased with the direction that this convo is going. It pleases me to see such intellegent people as yourselves willing to help me a "newbie" to the theological world.
Regarding your questions, I would be more than pleased to answer them, I just hope that they are coherent and make sense. Than I would like to toss the questions back to yourself.
1) Did Adam and Eve have the choice to eat of the fruit? I would like to say, that though I know little about this theological term, I would say that the doctrine of Supralapsarianism makes the most sense to me. Let me explain.
Adam and Eve before the fall had the ability to choose right or wrong. They could follow God because before the fall, I would say that verses like Jer. 17:9 didn't apply to Adam and Eve before the fall. I would say they had the ability to choose good or bad, BUT when the fall happened, EVERYTHING in creation became corrupt. Now I'm led to believe that not only to the physical things of this world become corrupt, but so did the very wills of Adam and Eve. Instead of haaving the ability to choose good or bad, they could now only choose to do evil, Gen. 6:5, Rom 3:10,11, Jer 17:9. Logically and more importantly, I have been led to see that the Total Depravity of man and that we have lost the ability to choose to do good. Now how the doctrine of Supralapsarianism, is that I believe the world fell so that Christ could fullfill His position as mediator and savior. So do I believe Adam and Eve had a choice? Yes. Do I believe that the Fall was ordained? Yes.
Now to add onto this. When we are in our fallen state, we only have the ability to choose bad. You could say that our "freewill" or free agency is limited to the choice of Sin A or Sin B. The quickest verse I can think to back this is the one in Joshua 24, I think verse 15, when Joshua says, "Choose this day whom you will serve..." Now when we have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, we now have the same ability that Adam and Eve had, the ability to choose good or bad. Now I would still say, as Paul tends to say in Romans 7 that our hearts tend more often than not to choose the "things that [we] hate to do." But we still have that ability Adam and Eve did before the fall.
2) Great question. Haven't really thought about it. But going off of what I believe, did Lucifer have the ability to choose good and bad? I would say yes, based on the fact that he had been in heaven for sometime, as far as we know, before he fell. Does he now have the ability to choose good. NO! But at the same time, God in light of His glory, gave this choice to Lucifer knowing full well and even bringing it about, that the fall from grace would happen, that His glory might abound all the more. Do we have the choice, or the 2/3 of angels left in heaven to choose evil once we get there? I would say "no." Because I would say that now the "good work" that God began in us IS finished. The sanctification process will be complete and we will be in God's complete grace. Sorry this answer is not very fulfilling or complete, I haven't thought about it that much.
Hope this helps.
grace and peace,
borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 8/31/2003 3:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg,
I really appreciate your response, thanks for taking the time. I hope that we can continue to understand each other's position more clearly.
So lets see if we can continue forward in our discussion. Regarding the Adam and Eve being free to accept or reject God's will, you said quote:
They could follow God because before the fall, I would say that verses like Jer. 17:9 didn't apply to Adam and Eve before the fall. I would say they had the ability to choose good or bad, BUT when the fall happened, EVERYTHING in creation became corrupt.
Ok, so from this quote you appear to not have a theoretical problem with the idea of human free will. By saying that Adam and Eve could follow God before the fall, you are implying that the did have free will in the libertarian sense, correct? This is an important point, because some Calvinist do not believe that the idea of libertarian free will is coherent philosophically. (Of course, if they have a problem with the idea of free will, then their problems with the concept in human free will would apply to God as well, making his actions necessitated - not a very orthodox position) Actually, the position that you describe is not supralapsarianism (if I am understanding you correctly) Here's a basic definition of supralapsarianism -- quote:
n.) One of that class of Calvinists who believed that God's decree of election determined that man should fall, in order that the opportunity might be furnished of securing the redemption of a part of the race, the decree of salvation being conceived of as formed before or beyond, and not after or following, the lapse, or fall.
If God DETERMINED that the fall should take place then he could not have given Adam and Eve free will. Your position seems more infralapsarian to me.
From what you wrote, would this be a good summary of your position? "God created the world and foreknew that Adam and Eve would fall. The fall caused total corruption, and God chose to elect some of fallen man to redemption and chose to leave the rest in their fallen state and let them go to damnation."
Now one thing that you said confused me. You said quote:
So do I believe Adam and Eve had a choice? Yes. Do I believe that the Fall was ordained? Yes.
I hate to sound rude, but which one was it? If you mean by "ordained" that God knew that Adam and Eve would sin, then classical Arminianist would have no problem with this. In fact, Mephi and Modes have both defended the position that although the future was open when God created, he knew that sin would be inevitable (if I understand their position correctly). However, if you believe that God "ordained" Adam and Eve's fall then how is God not responsible for sin?
OK, so there is my main question to you. But I know that you have said that you prefer to look at biblical arguments as opposed to philosophical arguments. But I think what Dr. Boyd said in his post should be repeated. quote:
I like Bible verses more than philosophy too. Its just that, experience has taught me that simply quoting verses doesn’t do much, for we all interpret the Bible from a framework.
It seems like you are straining at all the Biblical passages that we have presented showing that many things happen that are against God's will because they do not fit into the framework of your understanding of God's sovereignity. Now, you could say that I am doing the same thing when I interpret the verses that you have mentioned.
Let me state my point of agreement with you. Without God, man is totally depraved, his heart is at emnity with God. But I do not see anywhere in the Bible that God leaves any man in the state of depravity. Check out what Paul says in Romans 5:18-19 quote:
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Sounds like God's previent grace is available to all...
Looking forward to continuing the discussion,
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 9/1/2003 6:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Ross, I'm most delighted in the fact that you re-stated what you believed me to be saying, as I've realized that I didn't explain myself in a tangible way. I do not believe that Adam and Eve had libetarian freewill before the fall. The only "freewill" that they had was the same "freewill" that we as Christians have. We no longer are slaves to sins, born to sin, and "Prone to wander", but our wills now have the potential to choose good or evil. This is what Adam and Eve had in the beginning of time. Not a libeterian freewill. I would still hold to the fact that God decreed the fall, because through the fall His glory was best seen. Since God desires to be glorified to the highest degree, the fall needed to happen, and Christ needed to come and to fulfill the office of savior and mediator. But again, I would fall back on the idea that despite the sovereignty of God human responsibility still falls on us, not God. Now here is something, I pray I can quote Piper accuratly in what he said in his sermon today. He said that in no way are we to assume that the sovereignty of God over rules the responsibilty of man unless you believe that self-determination is the only way that one can be held responsible, and this is nowhere taught in the Bible. Food for thought. I know that philosophy is important when dealing with religion. I'm not against it, I'm actually a Bible and Philosophy major. My main concern is that sometimes I believe that people go from philosophy to God, when i think the order it should take is God to philosophy. make sense?
About the verse in Romans 5. If God didn't leave us totaly deprived of any good, if, by what you're saying, God did give us some amount of good, than what do you do with many verses. For example, "A bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and a good tree cannot bear bad fruit." Are we all good trees than? Romans 8:6ff, if God gave us some amount of "goodness" than our minds are not completly given over to the flesh and therefore in some way couldn't we please God with the good that He gave us? Well than that nixes these verses and there was really no point for Paul to say it. Along with such verses as Gen 6:5 where it says "continually". To me, if God were to put some amount of good into all of us, A) than in some way we can please God in our "sinful" state. B) Perhaps no one is completly given over to sin, though the Bible does speak of being slaves to sin. C) That we aren't at enmity against God. It just doesn't sound coherent to me. If you could explain in a little more detail, I would greatly appreciate it.
that's it for now.
grace and peace,
borg
p.s. what do you believe is required for a saving faith in God?
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 9/2/2003 9:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Borg,
This may be a little choppy, and for that I'm already apologizing. I'm at work right now and I'm going to try to write in between customers (I am an insurance agent). Out of curiosity, where are you going to school? You said in your post that you are a Bible and Philosophy major so I was just wondering. I was a history major in college, and graduated from Union University (a southern Baptist University) in 2002. Also, do you go to church at Dr Piper's church? Although I am not in agreement with much of his theology, his book desiring God was used by God as a great catalyst for helping me see that the Christian life is one of ultimate joy! I ask all of this to maybe find out a littl more about you and let you know a little more aout me. It always helps me to realize that I am not debating against merely an abstract position, but a fellow believer who is struggling through this life just like I am. 
Allright, to your post... Kind of confused by what you said here. quote:
I do not believe that Adam and Eve had libetarian freewill before the fall. The only "freewill" that they had was the same "freewill" that we as Christians have. We no longer are slaves to sins, born to sin, and "Prone to wander", but our wills now have the potential to choose good or evil. This is what Adam and Eve had in the beginning of time. Not a libeterian freewill.
Here is what I'm wondering.... In describing the will of Christians as well as Adam and Eve before the fall, you said that "our wills have the potential to choose good or evil." How is this not libertarian free will? The definition of libertarian free will is the power of contrary choice, which is what you said that Christians have.
BUT, if you hold to a compatibilistic understanding of the human will, then a person does NOT have the choice between two options. Compatibalist hold that choice consists in an agent being able to do whatever is his strongest desire. Desire dictates choice, necessitating which option will be chosen. And desires ultiamtely come from God, who causes all things. This is Jonathan Edwards understanding of "free will" and it is held to by his disciple John Piper.
So when you said quote:
But again, I would fall back on the idea that despite the sovereignty of God human responsibility still falls on us, not God. Now here is something, I pray I can quote Piper accuratly in what he said in his sermon today. He said that in no way are we to assume that the sovereignty of God over rules the responsibilty of man unless you believe that self-determination is the only way that one can be held responsible, and this is nowhere taught in the Bible.
I believe that this statement is false and furthermore attacks the very character of God. The Bible says that God is righteous, and Abraham even disputes with God this way saying "Far be it from you to do such a thing-to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Now the simple question in my mind is still how can God hold someone responsible for an action, if the action is necessitated by the desires that he or she has, the desires that ultimately come from God? This is still the question that the compatibalist has to answer.
Hope to respond more as time allows...
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 9/3/2003 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | To start here is a little bit about me. I am a sophomore at Bethel College in St. Paul, my majors have already been listed, with a minor in Greek and another minor in Biblical languages. I have been studying theology "hard core" for a little over a year. I come from a diverse family of theological standpoints, I am the only Calvinist. The majority of my family rests in Open Theism, and I have been dealing with God's divine foreknowledge issue for awhile now. Just a bit of perhpas useless information. I have always had problems with saying that all men have the ability to choose thier destinies. I remember thinking about this when I was younger and if Ciaphas and Pntious Pilate and everyone else who played a crucial role in the crucifixtion of Christ had the freewill not to put Him up on the tree, than Christ could have failed, He couldn't have succeeded. Well this problem presented itself quite well to me and low and behold, I find that the Calvinist standpoint was the most adequate for numerous amounts of reasons for more than just Christ failing.
Now to cover your other question. I must thank you ever so mightly. First my impression of libeterian freewill differed from yours in that I always took it to mean a freewill that God knows nothing about. Not a freewill in the Arminian sense, I guess I was wrong. I also must thank you, for when I was trying to describe the standpoint that Edwards and Piper backed, though I wa having major brain malafunctions, so I apologize.
Regarding your Abraham verses, I'm failing how that teaches self-determination needs to preceed responsibility. As it's said, "God's ways are far beyond us and our understanding." In defense, you may find it weak, whatever God chooses to do is just. Therefore if it cannot be backed up that self-determination preceeds responsibilty in the Bible, than God could hold us responsible in such a way, and it would be just. And please bear with me in all grace that regarding human will, I'm still researching and still studying. It is the one thing that I fail at understanding the most. I have recently bought "Bondage of the Will" and look forward to reading it. I have trouble putting in words and in a tangible way, how one can "choose" and yet have it determined. That is why I find Edwards' and Pipers opinion on the matter to be the best description of how that comes to be. But in truth, doesn't everything flow from God? I still don't fully understand how the act of allowing freewill still doesn't make God seem unjust in our eyes in topics concerning damnation, evil, and the like.
God declares in Romans 9, and I do believe that if this is taken as corrporate or individual election, that God has mercy on whom He has mercy and hardens on whom He wants to harden. Paul says, therefore is God unjust? By all means NO! God has mercy on whom He will, and hardens whom He will. If this is done by man's freewill, than why in the world is it included? Why doesn't it say clearly and specifically that God allows people to harden their own hearts? Regarding Jeremiah 18, it seems to me that God has the right, within His own plans to ruin a nation or raise it up. In no way does this reflect to me that man can thwart God's will, that man can make choices that effect God and cause Him to change His will.
What makes most sense to me, is that there is a God out there, who has loved us so much, that He has revealed Himself to us in such a way that we have no other choice, hypethetically, but to worship Him and serve Him. In this way, God is not forcing us to love Him, He isn't forcing us to follow Him. I think to say that man's will can stand in opposition to His, to say that God is at our mercy for completing His desired will, is a blunt attack on the sovereignty and glory of God. If I'm going to serve a God, as the God I see in the Bible, I don't want His plans, wills, and decrees to be changed and thwarted by a mere God. This seems to limit God's power.
Correct me if I am wrong, but would the typical Open Theist hold to the idea that God can and does at several instances in time take away man's freewill in order to accomplish His plans. Or maybe in a more broad way, manipulates people in such a way and pulls strings in such a way, that man accomplishes His will? Perhaps this is just a view held by liberal Open Theists.
I hope this cleared things up. Sorry, I am hoping that I'm not getting in over my head. But I appreciate this convo.
Thanks,
G N P
borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
frog
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 10
| Posted 9/4/2003 2:13 AM (GMT -6) | | I just want to thankyou for this thread. Very interesting and illuminating, (you can rarely find a true calvinist here in Sweden). Thankyou Borg for your persistence.
Interesting also that John Pipers books blesses people whatever their persuasion, The Pleasures of God is one of my favourites, except one chapter, guess which one
Now I need to print this out to go through it again...
In Him,
roger
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 9/4/2003 6:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Roger thanks for your support man. I just hope by the grace of God I'm doing a somewhat worthy job. feel free to drop in some of your thoughts. we would appreciate it.
Ross, I just thought of another question for you. What do you believe is the process for how we make desicions? Do we determine 100% what we do, or are the vast majority of our choices due to chemical reactions and the like, that have been borne in us; and we make innate or perhaps instinctaul choices? I will get back with more after you hopefully respond about where I'm going with this.
grace and peace,
borg
acts 17:25
p.s. doesn't everyone have to deny the fact that we don't have "total freewill" in any regards. If we did have freewill, wouldn't it have to very limited?
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 9/6/2003 1:33 PM (GMT -6) | | After much thought and consideration this issue, I believe that I've come to rest in perhaps not the spot I would like to be, but the one I feel at this time is the only spot I can take. I believe some fore-runners in this who have also come to this same resolution would include a great number of heros of the faith including, Luther, Pink, and if Piper be included among them.
They're responses have tended to be the same, and so I shall likewise for the time being, surrendor myself to such a view. Though my inquiring mind longs for something more.
What are we to make of the verses where God poors out His love for the sinners. When He longs to gather Jerusalem onto Him like a hen gathering her chicks? When God procliams that He doesn't "delight" in the destruction of the wicked? When it seems to be clearly pointed out that Christ longs to save the whole human race? When we see that God grieves over the lost and desires that Christ be preached to ALL nations EVERYWHERE!
What are we to make of a God who hardens whom He will and shows bountiful mercy upon those He so desires. On a God who draws only a few to the Son? Of Jesus who came to lay His life down for the sheep and for the church? Of a God whose wrath and anger is poured out on the sinners? Of a God who is said to have hated Esau or Edom, whichever view you take. Of a God who is declared about in Psalms that He hates workers of iniquity and His heart abhors the bloodthirsty and the wicked.
What are we to make of a God who seems to be at ends with both these seemingly different characteristics? We are to embrace them both! We are to say, "Yes God, You do long for the sinners, You do mourn for the wicked, You do desire all to be saved! What a blessed view of God." While at the same time saying, "God You are righteous, sovereign in all, for you do give man breath and everything He needs. You draw those that You want to save onto Yourself, and they WILL come to You. That Your objects of mercy are Your treasure, that You do, by Your soveriegn will decree some to go to hell. Oh how I can see the riches of Your glory and grace."
We are to embrace them both. The Bible teaches both, God exhibits both, and we are in no place to be saying to God, "What are you doing?" It is not our place to figure out the very nature of God. He's revealed Himself in His word in this way, for a reason, and who knows, perhaps for now it is "too great and wonderful" for us to know. Perhaps we, as Job, are "darkening counsel with words without knowledge." But as Luther says, "Let God be God! and man be man!" To this point I must lay aside my inquiring mind, for God's ways are unsearchable and beyond understanding. This is what I've been realizing latley.
Grace and Peace to all who read this,
Borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 9/8/2003 12:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Icon, good to hear from you. As far as the quote thingy goes, I guess I would throw that back to you. Would a true OV person say that this person, so solidified into his characte truly had the choice to choose his attitude? Did Pharaoh truly have the power to choose to let the people go before God had finished the plagues, or did he not have the power to choose his attitude, because his character was so soldified and God was manipulating him off of that.
Do we have the power to choose our attitude? I would probably say "no". Is this because of my theological views?- Not really. I would even question whether people have absolute power to choose their attitudes outside of a determined point. I won't get into it right now, and I must say I am ignorant of the facts when it leads to this, but it would be worth my time searching.
I like how you dropped in the "choose to love or not to love". Of course you have probably assumed my answer, "no" we dont' have the power to choose love, in and of ourselves. To say that we do, would seem to deny much of what I believe in. "This is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us..." We don't know anything about love aside from Christ. Being in the total state of depravity, i would say that we cannot love, unless the Holy Spirit so allows us to. So the unregenerate people don't have the power to choose to love, they know NOTHING about love. Now once we've been regenerated, I would say the Holy Spirit allows us to love. But what's interesting about this verse, something to ponder over, "In this is love, NOT that we loved God, BUT THAT HE LOVED US and sent His son to be the propitiation for our sins." Does our "love" for God or others even amount really to anything? I also don't see, taught in the greatest evangelistic book Acts where Paul or Peter EVER comissioned people to believe of their free-will, and I know that in at least the first 15 chapters, love isn't even mentioned, and this is all in the greatest sermons ever to convert people. Just something to think about.
Grace and Peace,
Borg
1 Peter 3:8,9
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 9/8/2003 7:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Icon, I wish I believed the answer was so easy. In my own personal expierence? Well I would ask when? For example say I am going to a boring class, sure I suppose one could say I chose to either have A) a terrible attitude towards the study, prof, the homework, etc. or B) That I chose despite this, that I would have a good time regardless and try and learn something. In this view perhaps. Now in another view, my dad just died by being hit by a drunk driver and he was mangled to death wrapped around a tree, (forgive my grotesque word usage, but i think it helps to make my point). Do I have the power to have a good attitude about it? You could say "yes" but I would want to make sure that you aren't fooling yourself. Are you going to walk into the face of that drunk driver and say, "Hey man, I'm trying to have a good attitude about this?" Probably not. You're going to let your emotions and the pull of the negative will have such a tug at you, that you can't control your attitude.
Does this make sense? or am i just rambling on.
g n p
borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 9/9/2003 11:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Borg, good to still see you here. I have enjoyed this conversation thoroughly.
allright,you asked in an earlier post...quote:
doesn't everyone have to deny the fact that we don't have "total freewill" in any regards. If we did have freewill, wouldn't it have to very limited?
I would be in agreement with this. Our free will is limited, in the sense that choice is not random. God has given us perameters in which to make choices, such as the fact that I cannot will that I hate myself. But the facts of created human nature do not exhausitively settle the decisions that I make.
I believe that Icon is making an VERY important point. Lets look at your example... quote:
Now in another view, my dad just died by being hit by a drunk driver and he was mangled to death wrapped around a tree, (forgive my grotesque word usage, but i think it helps to make my point). Do I have the power to have a good attitude about it? You could say "yes" but I would want to make sure that you aren't fooling yourself. Are you going to walk into the face of that drunk driver and say, "Hey man, I'm trying to have a good attitude about this?" Probably not. You're going to let your emotions and the pull of the negative will have such a tug at you, that you can't control your attitude.
You just described in this situation what COULD happen. A person COULD hold a grudge toward this person for drinking and driving and causing this horrific tragedy. However, Jesus taught us to love our enemies -- to do good to this who hurt you.
SIDENOTE* Now without God's aid, I could not forgive this man. But this is not really the point, because God DOES convict us through his Word and conscience (Romans 2)
So we are faced with the choice- to choose love, forgiveness and life, or to choose bitterness, hatred, and death. I experience this everyday. My sinful nature pulls me to hold the biterness, but God calls me to a life of love and forgiveness. And in my experience sometimes unfortunately I choose bitterness, but sometimes I through God's grace I choose love.
Icon's question still has to be faced... If you think that you can only choose what your desires and passions dictate (which your theology would seem to indicate) then what do you do with the experiential knowledge that you have of really having choice? Additionally, why would God give you the desire to hold on to the bitterness and at the same time command you to love your enemy?
There are some other points from an earlier post that I would like to respond to more when I get the chance.
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 9/10/2003 5:29 PM (GMT -6) | | borg
Now in another view, my dad just died by being hit by a drunk driver and he was mangled to death wrapped around a tree, (forgive my grotesque word usage, but i think it helps to make my point). Do I have the power to have a good attitude about it? You could say "yes" but I would want to make sure that you aren't fooling yourself. Are you going to walk into the face of that drunk driver and say, "Hey man, I'm trying to have a good attitude about this?" Probably not. You're going to let your emotions and the pull of the negative will have such a tug at you, that you can't control your attitude.
Iconoclast
I certainly agree that we cannot always control our emotions. We often give people the power to make us angry and this is not always a bad thing.
However, it seems to me that we are able to choose our attitude even though we often don't choose wisely. Our attitude is not the same as our emotions. Our attitude is where we have the ability to choose how we want to relate to our emotions. Whether we will allow our emotions to determine our disposition towards something or not.
What I struggle with in the Calvinist view is whether a person is really responsible for their attitude.
If a person is not able to control their attitude are they responsible for it?
I would have to say no to this because my understanding of the word reponsible is that it means that we are RESPONSE-ABLE. That is we are ABLE to choose our RESPONSE. Our responses are not determined or controlled by the situation or our emotional reaction to it.
But to say that we are not response-able is to say that we are not responsible.
borg, do you experience yourself holding yourself responsible for your attitude?
If so, then are you really acting on the belief that you are not response-able? If you are not really acting on the belief that you are not response-able then do you really deep-down hold that belief? We all have our "espoused" beliefs and our "true" beliefs. Our true beliefs are the ones that we actually behave out of. You can always tell what someone's true beliefs are by watching how they behave. This is why we tend to trust someone's body language more than their words.
If you do not experience yourself as being responsible for your attitude, then is your argument that the bible does not call us to take personal responsibility?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
frog
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 10
| Posted 9/11/2003 6:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Borg and you others!
Just read that you found yourself resting in some kind of calvinism. I know quite a lot of people that have done the same journey as you're doing right know, with this issues I mean (including myself). Some kind of awakening re the question, a strong pull towards calvinism for various reasons including biblical ones. But then many of us have felt an unsatisfaction with this thinking, either biblically or as friend put it "in his heart". I suppose he meant that it was really liveable even if it looked good. Myself departed from it after I studied more biblical theology, primarily the Kingdom of God.
A crunch question I think to ponder if you want to continue with Piper and co is if you can get it together in your head that we are responsible for things that God ordains. I forgot the philosophical word for it. This is in my experience a mootquestion. I can't.
This is not meant to be condescending (ie when you grow up you will leave this kind of thing). Just really a reflection of the process that raises these questions.
In Him,
roger
PS. If you have the time, pray for my nation since we just lost our foreign minister in an assasination. DS | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 9/12/2003 7:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Ross, here we go. Let me see if I can by some way clear up some of the confusion that seems to be surronding this thought of can "I control my attitude?"
Ross: So we are faced with the choice- to choose love, forgiveness and life, or to choose bitterness, hatred, and death. I experience this everyday. My sinful nature pulls me to hold the biterness, but God calls me to a life of love and forgiveness. And in my experience sometimes unfortunately I choose bitterness, but sometimes I through God's grace I choose love.
Borg: Well this brings up an interesting suggestion. Are we truly faced with the choice to "choose love, forgiveness, and life, or to choose bitterness, hatred, and death?" As you can probably tell, I would say that an unregenerate heart cannot do such a thing. Going along the ideas of Total Depravity, Gen 6:5, Rom 3:10,11,23, Rom 8:6ff, Isa 53:6, and the like, we cannot of ourselves choose love, etc. All we can "choose" are the evil affections, doings, etc. Not until God gives us a new heart, will we be able to have our souls revived, new life, and have the ability to once again choose good and evil. Before this the only thing we can do is choose evil. Now you must understand that I use the word "choose" very loosley, in that you could say we can choose, but is God still sovereign in our choices? Yes.
Now this idea of God giving me the desire to hold onto the bitterness and at the same time say, "Love your enemies," has been a topic that I've been engaged in at another forum. The best answer that I have heard to this is that God has one single will. He doesn't have conflicting wills, lest we should think that God Himself is at war within Himself, absurd to think. However, the abilitiy for fallible men to see His will, is still largley obstructed, because God has not revealed His total will to mankind, probably for our own good. So while God is not allowing me to let go of these desires, it's not as though He is contradicting His revealed will. Please give me some follow up questions on this.
Icon, thanks for responding, I apologize I haven't been here for awhile and didn't see your post the last time I was here. Good questions Icon, great one to think about it. And I have, and here's what I have to say.
Do I feel I am responsible for my attitude, simply put, Yes. I have the grace of God and the Holy Spirit within me, to now have the ability to choose good. As a non-Christian would I be responsible for my attitude? Yes, I firmly believe this is taught in Scripture. What did Christ say while He was on the cross? "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." What did Stephen, I believe, say when he was being stoned in Acts 7? "Father don't hold charge to them." Now the case of Christ is a bit easier to grasp. If we truly believe that the cross of Christ and the death of Christ was predetermined, than does that hold the people who crucified Him accountable for their actions? Yes, Christ said, "They know not what they do." Also with Judas betraying Him, if you believe, as I do, that Judas was predetermined to betray Christ, are we to think he was held accountable? Yes, for Christ says something to the extent that "It was bound to happen, but WOE to the person from whom it came." (I apologize for no specific references here. I'm in a dark room and one of my roomies is sleeping and I can't read my Bible.) Are we, even though it's been determined, held accountable for our actions? Yes. The reprobate have no power to come unto God of themselves, are they going to be held responsible? Yes. In John 6:44 Jesus says that "no one can come to me, unless the Father so draws Him." Where in Scripture does it ever promise that God is going to draw ALL men, ALL nations unto Him? You may say, well it does here and here. Than is 6:37 a lie? For Jesus declares that ALL that the Father gives to Him, WILL come to Him. Well the objection might be thrown up, or one might respond, "well perhaps God draws all people to Jesus, but doesn't give all to Jesus unless they are willing, and when they are willing, than they WILL come to Him." Doesn't this raise several objections? Following these verses Jesus says that He will raise them up on the last day, and by no means will He cast them out. Well if we have the freedom to come to Christ, than we must have the freedom to reject Christ once saved, therefore would this be a lie? A second objection that I see with this thought, is that it still depicts God at the mercy of man's will, and still represents a God who fails. I believe this is unbiblical. And thirdly, I don't see it anywhere in 6 that it says "men have the ability to come to me and freely choose me." But does God still hold the unregenerate accountable? YES!
Feedback is much appreciated.
Grace and Peace,
borg
2 tim 2:11-13
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
| 54 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:10 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 |
|
|