 |
| 
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 5/22/2004 4:28 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Bobbie: nice to hear from you. Hope all is well. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/22/2004 5:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Gerry,
quote:
So you say that it is a contradiction to human reason? Why are you not content simply to acknowledge, with the authors who make the statement, that it is simply beyond human reason?
If you mean that there are truths that can not be DERIVED from reason alone, well, most humans agree with that. But the verse DOES seem to suggest that the believer has a causative role in the working out of his sanctification. So why try to get around it by imposing a "mystery" on what is perfectly intelligible in the verse?
quote:
Since neither you nor anyone else on this discussion board nor any theologian in any theology book ever published nor the Bible itself has yet explained the mystery to me, I prefer, with the authors of The Race Set Before Us, to be cautious lest I misstate the mystery that I willingly acknowledge is beyond my reasoning powers to grasp. Of course, I am willing to repent of this cautious posture, if you can explain the mystery to me so that I can grasp it with you.
There either ARE final causes or NOT. If there are, then the fact that we cannot analyze them is irrelevant. Otherwise, our inability to explicate fully how final causes "work" would prove that they don't exist even in God. Do you deny that God has the capacity to be a final cause? Is he a deterministic person?
Virtually all people talk as if they believe they are capable of making genuine volitional choices. Our legal system recognizes the same thing. If our fundamental intuition about our capacity to be a final cause is an illusion, as Lee has argued, then where do we draw the line. Maybe the intuitive apprehension of the invisible attributes of God, discussed in Romans 1, is an illusion too. It seems to me that if we approach epistemology that way, we commit intellectual suicide from the outset. But that's just me.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/22/2004 6:54 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Gerry,
quote:
So you say that it is a contradiction to human reason? Why are you not content simply to acknowledge, with the authors who make the statement, that it is simply beyond human reason?
If you mean that there are truths that can not be DERIVED from reason alone, well, most humans agree with that. But the verse DOES seem to suggest that the believer has a causative role in the working out of his sanctification. So why try to get around it by imposing a "mystery" on what is perfectly intelligible in the verse?
quote:
Since neither you nor anyone else on this discussion board nor any theologian in any theology book ever published nor the Bible itself has yet explained the mystery to me, I prefer, with the authors of The Race Set Before Us, to be cautious lest I misstate the mystery that I willingly acknowledge is beyond my reasoning powers to grasp. Of course, I am willing to repent of this cautious posture, if you can explain the mystery to me so that I can grasp it with you.
There either ARE final causes or NOT. If there are, then the fact that we cannot analyze them is irrelevant. Otherwise, our inability to explicate fully how final causes "work" would prove that they don't exist even in God. Do you deny that God has the capacity to be a final cause? Is he a deterministic person?
Virtually all people talk as if they believe they are capable of making genuine volitional choices. Our legal system recognizes the same thing. If our fundamental intuition about our capacity to be a final cause is an illusion, as Lee has argued, then where do we draw the line. Maybe the intuitive apprehension of the invisible attributes of God, discussed in Romans 1, is an illusion too. It seems to me that if we approach epistemology that way, we commit intellectual suicide from the outset. But that's just me.
WJS,
Perhaps you should go back and read again what Schreiner and Caneday actually say. They affirm emphatically that we Christians must act obediently to God by bringing to completion our own salvation, and do it with fear and trembling." Of course we make volitional choices. That is precisely one of the things they so emphatically affirm, and the reason our volitional choices have significance, soteriologically speaking, is that God is the one who brings about both our willing and our doing.
What are you arguing against, anyway? Go read their book for yourself, and be amazed at how little you actually understand what Calvinists believe.
Later.
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
ataraxia
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 67
| Posted 5/22/2004 8:30 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Bobbie: nice to hear from you. Hope all is well.
Sorry feelingahole, but I've removed Red's post. She's been asked to not return yet continues to disregard my wishes, something she commits to do when she signs on as a member. I appreciate your kindness to her and wish her the best myself.
ataraxia | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/22/2004 10:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Gerry: I simply introduced the book because it represents the best of Calvinism which is so completely different from the constant caricaturizing that takes place in these discussions.
Tom: I don’t believe any one here wants to misrepresent or caricature another person’s beliefs, so I’d appreciate your pointing out to me what you believe to be the most serious caricatures of theological determinists attributed to them by Arminians and open theist. I’d be personally grateful for help in avoiding these.
Gerry: Have you read the authors' discussion of Acts 27? Their discussion of God's promise of salvation through shipwreck and Paul's warning against abandonment of the ship perfectly illustrates their thesis concerning the interplay between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. God's promise of final salvation comes to realization only through obedience to God's ways.
Tom: I for one have never thought Calvinism denied that God realizes our salvation through our obedience. It’s the claim that our obedience is unconditionally determined by God that is problematic.
You insist I don’t understand Calvinism and that I misrepresented it. Fair enough. There’s a lot in the system to represent and I didn’t say that much, so what I did say about it must have been wrong. Since my fundamental beef with theological determinism which was behind my questions to you is the claim that God’s decree is exhaustive AND unconditional. I’m perfectly willing to be corrected on this by you or any other Calvinist. So please clarify it for us:
1) Do not theological determinists believe that God decrees all things without exception?
2) Do not theological determinists believe God’s decree is unconditional?
Now, I’m pretty sure the answer to both these questions is “yes.” But you claim I fundamentally misunderstand or misrepresent Calvinism, and since the unconditionality and exhaustive nature of God’s decrees are the only specifically Calvinist issue I brought up in questioning your views and the views of Schreiner and Caneday, you must feel I’ve misunderstood Calvinists on this point.
So for the record, Gerry, do theological determinists or do they not affirm that God unconditionally predetermines all things?
This is really the only issue I’ve hammered on in discussing theological determinism around here. If this much is true, then my questions regarding freedom, moral responsibility, the rationale behind warnings, etc., all return, and they’re still unanswered.
So, I’m not at all denying that Calvinists believe our salvation is brought to realization through our obedience. You keep repeating this as if we thought Calvinists don’t believe in obedience or something. Yes, Calvinists believe that realized salvation is only found on the other side of obedience and perseverance. The problem arises in the additional claim on the part of Calvinists that God unconditionally determines our obedience (because he unconditionally determines all things). The authors recognize the difficulty this presents, and so when it comes down to actually explaining the intersection of divine and human action within the belief that the divine side is unconditionally determining everything that happens on the human side, they appeal to “mystery.” If Calvinists in fact deny that the divine unconditionally determines everything on the human side of the equation, then again, set us straight. For the record: Do theological determinists or do they not affirm that God unconditionally predetermines all things?
My experience has been that determinists don’t cut non-determinists the same deal. We don’t get to take refuge in mystery this way. On the contrary, we are asked to provide coherent and logical explanations of our claims. And should we attempt to play the mystery card we are told this is just another proof that our views don’t work.
You pointed out that I was unfair to assume that the authors provided no argumentation for why “ho energon” must mean “the causer/determiner,” that is, for why it must exclude the possibility that God may “work” toward a specific end and that end fail to obtain. Fair enough. I’ll be interested to know what specific reasons they have for insisting “ho energon” always means this. My hunch is they don’t make their case, but I’ll try to be open minded as you encourage.
Gerry: The authors address Tom's disputed point on pages 182-183 at the close of their discussion of 1 Cor 9:23-27. Here is what they say: "Does the apostle Paul fear that it is possible that God will reject him as a reprobate on the day of judgment? If we answer yes, we must be prepared to demonstrate that Paul also doubts God's faithfulness to his promise to preserve his people to the end…”
Tom: I feel misrepresent now!  Who are those the authors talk about who believed Paul “fears that is it possible…”? I for one don’t “fear” that it is possible God will reject me on that day. I believe I am capable of apostatizing, yes, as I believe Paul believed the same about himself. But this constitutes no worrisome fear or anxiety. It doesn’t at all follow that if I am capable of apostatizing that God must be believed to be unfaithful to his promises. This entirely begs the question: What has God promises? Has God declared to have unconditionally decreed all things? Has God promised that true believers will never apostatize, or that they are incapable of apostatizing? In what you post of the authors () they nowhere argue the case for believing that “God has promised true believers will inevitably persevere.”
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/23/2004 3:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
It is beyond me to respond further to you. This is not because I'm incapable of presenting a coherent, reasonable, and biblical argument to you. It is rather that to do so would be to spend my time poorly. Time is one capital that this old geezer cherishes too much to spend frivolously.
As I said earlier, your representation of Calvinism is altogether too mechanistic. You insist upon calling Calvinists determinists, and you define the concept mechanistically. Indeed, Calvinists naively believe the Bible when it declares that God foreordained all things (Ephesians 1:11). Yes, Calvinists foolishly acknowledge that God chose whom he would redeem in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:4). Assuredly, Calvinists stupidly embrace the belief that God predetermined whom he would deliver from his own wrath on the Day of Judgment (Ephesians 1:5). Calvinists are fools this way; they foolishly believe God's Scriptures for what they say. However, they do not believe that God's foreordination of all things is mechanistic. They do believe that God's purposing of all things is not contingent upon the plans, purposes, or intentions of his creatures. They do believe, yet, that everything God has purposed will come to pass contingently upon the plans, purposes, and intentions of his creatures. How does God accomplish his foreordained end in and among his creatures? Mysteriously, God accomplishes his purposed end and goal through the desires, purposes, intentions, objectives, plans, and decisions of his creatures whom he holds accountable for their choices and actions. Thus, he will justly reward his creatures in the end with life or death: eternal life to those who have done good and eternal death to those who have done evil (John 5:28-29). Those who do good and receive eternal life will acknowledge that the ultimate reason for their destiny of life and blessedness lies in God's good purposes for them and in his loving foreordination that they should be to the praise of his glorious grace. Amen!
Herein is the mystery. Believe it, or reject it. But please, don't mischaracterize this belief as mechanistic. There is nothing mechanistic about it. God's relationship with his creatures is relational--person to person--not mechanistic with people caught in the cogs of a machine-god whose purposes render human willing and doing meaningless and insignificant. On the contrary, marvelously and mysteriously it is the opposite. God's purposing all things established the significance and meaningfulness of human willing and doing.
Cheerios!  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/23/2004 4:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Gerry: It is beyond me to respond further to you. This is not because I'm incapable of presenting a coherent, reasonable, and biblical argument to you. It is rather that to do so would be to spend my time poorly. Time is one capital that this old geezer cherishes too much to spend frivolously.
Tom: I really appreciate your time Gerry. I hurt for time too, so I appreciate your concern. But in the end I didn’t want an “argument” for or against anything. All I wanted was a “yes” or a “no” to one question. Surely you can spare enough time and understand Calvinism well enough to answer it. Here it is: Do theological determinists or do they not believe that God unconditionally determines all things?
I haven’t wanted to argue about whether or not God brings it about that we do what he determines we do “mechanistically” or not, though the "how" question is a perfectly justified one given the nature of the claim. I haven’t used the word "mechanistic", though you keep attributing it to me. My problem with an unconditional and exhaustive decree doesn't begin and end with whether or not God brings about what is decreed “mechanistically," but whether or not we are able to make sense of moral responsibility and love if WE do not determine ourselves in these respects, and Calvinists (last I checked) deny libertarian, or self-determining, free will.
Gerry: As I said earlier, your representation of Calvinism is altogether too mechanistic. You insist upon calling Calvinists determinists, and you define the concept mechanistically.
Tom: Calvinists call themselves determinists, except perhaps for a minority I haven’t met yet. But I’ll call Calvinists whatever they want to be called, though I’ve spoken with many and have never heard them insist they DON’T believe God unconditionally determines all things. Neither have I defined “determining.” The word comes from John Calvin, not me. If it’s a bad word to describe God’s decree, then correct me (as time permits you). If you’re hurting for time, don’t worry about arguing for or against whether or not God determines all things unconditionally. Just set me straight on whether or Calvinists believe God unconditionally decides (if you don’t like Calvin’s word: “determines”) what happens and what doesn’t happen in the world.
Gerry: Indeed, Calvinists naively believe the Bible when it declares that God foreordained all things (Ephesians 1:11). Yes, Calvinists foolishly acknowledge that God chose whom he would redeem in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:4). Assuredly, Calvinists stupidly embrace the belief that God predetermined whom he would deliver from his own wrath on the Day of Judgment (Ephesians 1:5). Calvinists are fools this way; they foolishly believe God's Scriptures for what they say.
Tom: But what the Scriptures say is the question of debate. So this just beggs the question. These passages make sense to many others where election is corporate and in Christ, and so they're also foolish enough to believe God's Scriptures for what they say.
Gerry: However, they do not believe that God's foreordination of all things is mechanistic.
Tom: I haven’t claimed they do.
Gerry: They do believe that God's purposing of all things is not contingent upon the plans, purposes, or intentions of his creatures. They do believe, yet, that everything God has purposed will come to pass contingently upon the plans, purposes, and intentions of his creatures. How does God accomplish his foreordained end in and among his creatures? Mysteriously, God accomplishes his purposed end and goal through the desires, purposes, intentions, objectives, plans, and decisions of his creatures whom he holds accountable for their choices and actions.
Tom: This is exactly how I understand and characterize Calvinism. I don’t object to the view because I assume a particular view on how God brings things about (though I believe it a legitimate question). I object to it because the very claim that we are responsible for what God unconditionally decides we do is a claim I am unable to find any meaning in. I don’t know what the words placed in THIS particular relationship with respect to one another, mean. This has every appearance of being a self-contradictory claim. That you and other Calvinists appeal to “mystery” to avoid having to explain the contradictory nature of the claim doesn't make it any less contradictory.
Gerry: Herein is the mystery. Believe it, or reject it. But please, don't mischaracterize this belief as mechanistic.
Tom: I haven’t characterized it as “mechanistic.” Never used the word. The only misrepresentation going on now is your misrepresentation of my understanding of Calvinism. I perfectly understand your portrayal of it. It’s precisely what I understand the view to be and how I would characterize your beliefs. I don’t use “coerce” and “force” and "mechanistic" to describe how I think YOU believe God relates to us.
Looks to me like the only people who by definition DON’T misrepresent Calvinism are those who adhere to it, as if to disagree with Calvinism is to misunderstand it. You seem to think that if anybody REALLY understood it and articulated it accurately, they’d have to believe it.
Gerry: There is nothing mechanistic about it. God's relationship with his creatures is relational--person to person--not mechanistic with people caught in the cogs of a machine-god whose purposes render human willing and doing meaningless and insignificant. On the contrary, marvelously and mysteriously it is the opposite. God's purposing all things established the significance and meaningfulness of human willing and doing.
Tom: If I were to explain Calvinism as Calvinists articulate their view, I would choose precisely the words you have to describe it. I’m perfectly aware that this is what YOU believe about God’s unconditional decrees and our personal freedom. But you’ll have to permit me the freedom to express how “I” view your claims with respect to myself and my understanding of Scripture. When I say God’s unconditional and exhaustive decrees leave us less than fully relational persons, I’m representing where your views leave ME, not what I think Calvinists positively affirm for themselves. You confuse peoples’ reasons for disagreeing with Calvinism with their perception of what Calvinists themselves affirm about their beliefs.
Hey, I think this adds up to YOUR having misrepresented other peoples’ views.
If someone asked me what YOU as a Calvinist believed in this respect, I’d expresses it just as you have yourself, hopefully to your satisfaction. But if someone asked me what MY conclusions were about Calvinism, why I didn’t believe it, I’d say it fails to articulate a view of freedom, moral responsibility, and the mutually personal God-human relationship that is biblically, philosophically, and existentially convincing. But this is not to misrepresent YOUR perception of how God relates to the world, it's only to represent where your claims led ME. Point is, you’d be misrepresenting ME if you thought I was attributing to YOU the denial of freedom, moral responsibility, and a fully personal relationship with God. I don’t deny that YOU believe it’s possible to believe in these things AND ALSO to believe that God unconditionally decides (determines is Calvin’s word) everything about the human side of this relationship. What I'm denying is that such an unconditional divine decree is able to make any sense whatsoever to ME of freedom, moral responsibility, and relating mutually and lovingly to God. I'm happy you find meaning in the belief that God unconditionally decides all of our choices and that we're are morally responsible for those choices. I am only able to view this as self-contradictory.
I’m gonna assume that as a Calvinist you agree with Calvin that God’s decree is both exhaustive (it excludes not the tiniest detail of what transpires in our universe) and unconditional (it is not conditioned on anything outside himself). I haven’t suggested anything whatsoever with respect to how Calvinists believe God actually brings about what he decrees. I was just wanting you to affirm or deny for me whether or not the decree is exhaustive and unconditional. It sounds to me like you’ve said, “Yes, it is.” Of course I realize that you ALSO argue God brings about what he’s unconditionally decreed in a wonderfully personal and non-mechanistic way and that how this is all simultaneously true remains a mystery to us.
Gerry: Herein is the mystery. Believe it, or reject it.
Tom: I’ll reject it for now if that’s OK. But I have your permission to use the same argumentation for the open view. When those who claim the open view ought to be rejected because it makes no sense TO THEM, I plan on saying: Therein is the mystery. Believe it, or reject it. But please don’t misrepresent it by calling the God of open theism a “hang-wringing God” who “has no idea” what the next moment holds.
Thanks for giving of your time, and blessings,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/23/2004 5:01 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Gerry: It is beyond me to respond further to you. This is not because I'm incapable of presenting a coherent, reasonable, and biblical argument to you. It is rather that to do so would be to spend my time poorly. Time is one capital that this old geezer cherishes too much to spend frivolously.
Tom: I really appreciate your time Gerry. I hurt for time too, so I appreciate your concern. But in the end I didn’t want an “argument” for or against anything. All I wanted was a “yes” or a “no” to one question. Surely you can spare enough time and understand Calvinism well enough to answer it. Here it is: Do theological determinists or do they not believe that God unconditionally determines all things?
Thanks for giving of your time, and blessings,
Tom
Tom,
You asked a question. So, I answered your question. Your question, of course, could hardly be answered with yes or no. To have answered with a simple yes or no I would have fallen directly into your trap, for you framed the question given your terms and expressions, all laden with your assumptions. My response got us nowhere. Most Calvinists I know, with few exceptions, refuse to call themselves determinists. Why? Precisely because of a host of connotations the expression bears, the very things it bears in your usage of the term. It is a philosophical term that oozes mechanism as any useful dictionary of the English language indicates.
Indeed. If anyone were truly to understand that God foreordains all things and holds us, his creatures accountable for our choices and actions, then that person would believe, for understanding comes by believing.
Cheerios! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/23/2004 5:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Gerry: Your question, of course, could hardly be answered with yes or no. To have answered with a simple yes or no I would have fallen directly into your trap, for you framed the question given your terms and expressions, all laden with your assumptions.
Tom: I framed my question given Calvin's terms and expressions and the terms and expressions I have heard other Calvinists use to describe themselves. True, Calvinists don't describe themselves as "determinists" (that's an unfortunate shorthand for "theological determinists" which is not the same thing as scientific determinism) but they do USE the word (as did Calvin).
The question is pretty simple and shouldn't cause any problems. If there's a trap, it's in the DNA of your claim and isn't something I'm plotting. If you believe God unconditionally decreed/decided all that should come to pass, you have to deal with the baggage the claim carries with it. I'm aware it's not the only thing Calvinists believe, but since you accused me of "misrepresentation," and since the unconditional and exhaustive nature of God's decree is what I was talking about, I'd like to know in what sense my saying Calvinists believe that "God unconditionally decrees/decides/determines all things" misrepresents either Calvin himself of Calvinists. I don't think it does, so I'm wondering how I misrepresented Calvinists.
Gerry: My response got us nowhere.
Tom: On the contrary. It's helped me.
Gerry: Most Calvinists I know, with few exceptions, refuse to call themselves determinists. Why? Precisely because of a host of connotations the expression bears, the very things it bears in your usage of the term.
Tom: So give us another word to use to describe God's unconditional and exhausitve decree of all things. If it doesn't amount to God's 'determining' all things, how would YOU describe it. God "decides" all things? God "decrees" all things? Doesn't matter to me.
Gerry: If anyone were truly to understand that God foreordains all things and holds us, his creatures accountable for our choices and actions, then that person would believe, for understanding comes by believing.
Tom: I could do this. Let's see: If anyone truly understands that God foreordains some things and not others, that the future is partly settled and partly open, that love requies libertarian freedom and freedom implies risk, and that God created such a world for the glory of love, that person would believe, for understanding comes by believing. It works for me too!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/23/2004 7:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
quote:
Jeff: If there is no LFW, then WE do not CHOOSE to sin, GOD MAKES US SIN by fiat or secondary, deterministic causes. There are only final and secondary causes. Neither philosophy nor theology has ever claimed any other as far as I am aware. If they have, enlighten me.
I agree! Only final and secondary causes. Men are involved in their sin, therefore they are accountable, Pharaoh hardened his heart. But God is in control, even of sinful actions, God hardened Pharaoh's heart, and raised him up, to show his glory.
quote:
Gerry, quoting C&S: Precisely because the apostle believes in God's power to secure his own, Paul also believes that it is necessary to warn both himself and us that God requires us not only to leave the starting blocks but also to run faithfully to the end.
This quote illustrates my dillema with their view. I read their answer, and cannot understand it well. They have not, that I can tell, said yes or no to the question they have raised!
quote:
Jeff: If our fundamental intuition about our capacity to be a final cause is an illusion, as Lee has argued, then where do we draw the line.
No, I have argued that unbelievers thinking they have free will is an illusion. I believe that if Jesus sets us free, then we can really choose. But I would add that we must give up our human will for God's will, and that there is still room to choose within God's will. Still working through this, I may have some adjustments to make! But that's what I think right now...
quote:
Tom: 1) Do not theological determinists believe that God decrees all things without exception?
2) Do not theological determinists believe God’s decree is unconditional?
As far as 1. goes, no, God doesn't decree his own decree, for instance! All is under God's control, I would say, making everything decreed is a bit problematic.
As far as 2. goes, again, no, for I believe that God freely chooses. If I understand your question here.
And you skipped my question about Pharaoh! How is Pharaoh accountable, according to the Open View?
Blessings,
Lee
P.S. We are now way way way off topic. Maybe it's time to start another thread (or two (or three))?
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 5/23/2004 8:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey C.Vers,
This is a great discussion! 
Lee Asserts,
quote:
Tom: 1) Do not theological determinists believe that God decrees all things without exception?
2) Do not theological determinists believe God’s decree is unconditional?
As far as 1. goes, no, God doesn't decree his own decree, for instance! All is under God's control, I would say, making everything decreed is a bit problematic.
Tiggers’ Reply,
Hey Lee, what’s the difference between God’s controlling everything, but not decreeing everything? Was there a time that God was not in control?
Lee Asserts,
As far as 2. goes, again, no, for I believe that God freely chooses.
Tiggers’ Reply,
I don’t get it, i.e., once God freely chooses doesn’t that make the decree unconditional by default, or for a theological determinists could they say God changed her/his mind?
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers 
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/23/2004 8:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee: As far as 1. goes, no, God doesn't decree his own decree, for instance! All is under God's control, I would say, making everything decreed is a bit problematic.
Tom: The “all things” embraces all events of our world. I don’t think Calvinists (who believe all things are decreed by God) include in that God decreeing his existence for example. Calvin believed all events, the flow of history (our choices, good and evil, everything that happens in the world) happens because God decreed that it happen and precisely as God decreed it to happen. I’m not making this stuff up! I’ve packed the office for furlough in a few weeks, but I’ll try to get to Calvin’s Institutes if I can.
I’m interested Lee, in knowing what difference you see between God’s “controlling” the events of our world and God’s “decreeing” the events of our world. Just interested.
Lee: As far as 2. goes, again, no, for I believe that God freely chooses. If I understand your question here.
Tom: Naw, that’s not what “unconditional” refers to here. God’s decrees are “unconditional” in the sense that God never decrees something ‘in response to’ or ‘conditioned upon’ anything outside himself. God doesn’t, for example, foresee that Fred will do X and so therefore decree that Fred then does P. To do so would introduce contingency into God. Nor does God “get” his knowledge of the future “from” the future (by virtue of timelessly ‘seeing’ it), but rather knows what is to come because he knows himSELF, that is, he knows what HE’S decreed to happen. Since God decrees the primary and secondary causes, nothing decreed can fail to happen and nothing NOT decreed can possibly happen. A decree is unconditional if God makes it without reference to anything or anybody outside himself. He is it’s only condition.
Lee: And you skipped my question about Pharaoh! How is Pharaoh accountable, according to the Open View?
Tom: I’ll give you what I think asap. It’s just late right now!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/23/2004 11:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tiggers,
quote:
Hey Lee, what’s the difference between God’s controlling everything, but not decreeing everything? Was there a time that God was not in control?
Because decree is generally viewed as an act, but control is not, and if I say God decrees everything, then he must decree his decree, I think, which is odd, at the very least. I do believe that God has always been in control:
ISA 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.
quote:
... once God freely chooses doesn’t that make the decree unconditional by default, or for a theological determinists could they say God changed her/his mind?
I wasn't sure what Tom meant, but yes, I believe that God's decrees are eternal, and no, I don't believe God can make a decree, and then change it.
PS 119:89 Your word, O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.
But I'm not sure I understood your question, either! I'm not sure what unconditional decree means to you here...
And hi Tom,
quote:
I’m interested Lee, in knowing what difference you see between God’s “controlling” the events of our world and God’s “decreeing” the events of our world.
If you define decree as referencing only earthly events, then that removes the difficulty! Though I did hear one person say that God's decretive will is a synonym for "everything that happens", and not just on earth.
But in any case, I don't think that God the Father makes every decision, he has delegated real authority to Jesus, and Jesus has even delegated real authority to his followers, some now, and more in the future:
REV 3:21 To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.
So God's decree allows some decisions to be made within his will, I would say, thus I would say that God the Father, and even God considered as a Trinity, does not decree absolutely everything, even on earth. But God does control everything!
PR 16:4 The Lord works out everything for his own ends...
quote:
God’s decrees are “unconditional” in the sense that God never decrees something ‘in response to’ or ‘conditioned upon’ anything outside himself.
That's what I thought you were getting at, actually. So that's why I said God freely chooses, his decisions are not determined for him by the circumstances. That's what I believe.
JOB 41:11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/24/2004 1:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
I contend that the relation of means/ends is a fundamental human category, without which even science would be impossible. Science believes a priori that the human mind is adapted to know reality. So by my view, we HAVE to bring that relation with us TO the text - just as we HAVE to bring our a priori intuitions of space, time, being, efficient cause, etc. Thus, we cannot knaively say "let's just stick with scripture." All language, including scripture, is understood in the light of a fundamental, a priori metaphysics. Don't your agree?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/24/2004 3:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
quote:
Thus, we cannot knaively say "let's just stick with scripture." All language, including scripture, is understood in the light of a fundamental, a priori metaphysics. Don't you agree?
I think Scripture must be said to have more authority than our intuition, though.
ISA 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the Lord. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
1CO 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness".
God is always logical! But I think sometimes he makes statements in four dimensions, which we don't understand because we live in three dimensions.
For example, a three dimensional puzzle cannot be solved in two dimensions, there are impossibilities in two dimensions, that become possibilities when you get to three dimensions...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/24/2004 4:10 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
ISA 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the Lord. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
The above verses, when kept in proper context, are definitely not a prophetic statement about the transcendence of God. Instead, they are a stern rebuke and call to repentance--BECAUSE Israel's ways were not like God's ways (but they should have been). The passage says, "Let the wicked forsake his WAY, and the unrighteous man his THOUGHTS."
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/24/2004 6:17 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Lee,
quote:
God is always logical! But I think sometimes he makes statements in four dimensions, which we don't understand because we live in three dimensions.
Maybe I'm insane, but it just seems like if we can't understand something, we can't believe it either. Belief requires comprehension. So if you want to argue about things that even you don't understand, frustration is inevitable - which is what BADGERVOL was talking about.
If you're not going to use the rules of logic and comprehendable definitions of words, why argue it all? BTW, the rules of logic are INTUITIONAL. So how do you know THEY are not illusions. The method of starting without intuitions is impossible.
WJS,
Do you believe that God, the Word, became incarnate? Do you understand this? If so, please explain this so that I can comprehend it so that I can also believe it, since you claim that "if we can't understand something, we can't believe it either."
Do you suppose that you overstated yourself?
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/25/2004 2:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Gerry: WJS, Do you believe that God, the Word, became incarnate? Do you understand this?
Tom: Yes, I do understand this claim.
Gerry: If so, please explain this so that I can comprehend it so that I can also believe it…
Tom: You already comprehend “the claim” that God became human. The mistake you’re making is confusing the inability to explain everything about the incarnation, the inability to plummet and map out all its truths, with claiming that the incarnation is therefore a contraDICTION. You’re assuming “beyond comprehension” means “self-contradictory.” But these aren’t by definition the same.
It’s self evident that we are by design able to only believe claims we find meaningful and that we are only able to attribute meaning to what we understand. We cannot attribute meaning to what is self-contradictory. So yes, to believe in the incarnation we must understand the “claim” that ‘God became human’. What’s not required is that we know everything there is to know about how God became human. What’s required, with respect to this discussion, is that the claim “God became a man” not be the logical equivalent of “square circles.” If it were, it would be self-contradictory and therefore meaningless to us.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/25/2004 2:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Gerry: WJS, Do you believe that God, the Word, became incarnate? Do you understand this?
Tom: Yes, I do understand this claim.
Gerry: If so, please explain this so that I can comprehend it so that I can also believe it…
Tom: You already comprehend “the claim” that God became human. The mistake you’re making is confusing the inability to explain everything about the incarnation, the inability to plummet and map out all its truths, with claiming that the incarnation is therefore a contraDICTION. You’re assuming “beyond comprehension” means “self-contradictory.” But these aren’t by definition the same.
It’s self evident that we are by design able to only believe claims we find meaningful and that we are only able to attribute meaning to what we understand. We cannot attribute meaning to what is self-contradictory. So yes, to believe in the incarnation we must understand the “claim” that ‘God became human’. What’s not required is that we know everything there is to know about how God became human. What’s required, with respect to this discussion, is that the claim “God became a man” not be the logical equivalent of “square circles.” If it were, it would be self-contradictory and therefore meaningless to us.
Tom
Tom,
I anticipated a response from WJS. Are you WJS? Twice I've asked questions of WJS. Twice you have responded. Twice WJS has not responded. Curious! Is WJS your USA alter ego?
You have not correctly assessed my thinking. I did not, as you claim, confuse "the inability to explain everything about the incarnation, the inability to plummet and map out all its truths, with claiming that the incarnation is therefore a contraDICTION." You too quickly jumped to a wrong conclusion when you said, "You’re assuming 'beyond comprehension' means 'self-contradictory.' But these aren’t by definition the same."
My question fully accounts for these distinctions. My question, addressed to WJS, was aimed at drawing out these distinctions, distinctions WJS did not seem to be making. I actually knew what I was doing when I raised my questions.
When you jump in head first, Tom, you may want to make sure that the pool has both water and depth. I'm sorry you leaped into an empty pool. 
Gerry
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/25/2004 5:03 AM (GMT -6) | | GerryWhen you jump in head first, Tom, you may want to make sure that the pool has both water and depth. I'm sorry you leaped into an empty pool.
Tom: Jumping into Calvinism is very much like leaping into an empty swimming pool head first!
Sorry to interrupt ya'll. WJS, go for it! Just wanted to chime in! Sorry.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/25/2004 8:02 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
GerryWhen you jump in head first, Tom, you may want to make sure that the pool has both water and depth. I'm sorry you leaped into an empty pool.
Tom: Jumping into Calvinism is very much like leaping into an empty swimming pool head first!
Sorry to interrupt ya'll. WJS, go for it! Just wanted to chime in! Sorry.
Tom
Tom or WJS,
Actually, the "jump" that you mention ("jumping into Calvinism) is not really a jump at all. Rather, it is a confident reposing in the trustworthy arms of God who purposes all things and effectively brings all things to pass and does it well. It is Christian faith in the one, only, and true God. It is as B. B. Warfield once said: "Calvinism is Christianity come into its own." 
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/25/2004 8:30 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 5/25/2004 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry Attrick
Actually, the "jump" that you mention ("jumping into Calvinism) is not really a jump at all. Rather, it is a confident reposing in the trustworthy arms of God who purposes all things and effectively brings all things to pass and does it well.
So, according to you:
1. God purposed this slaughter
2. God effectively brought this slaughter to pass
3. God did this slaughter well
Laika,
The slaughter is truly dreadful and horrible.
Has the Lord never done this? Does the Lord never do this? Has the Lord not done this in the past? Jeremiah says that the Lord has done this. Listen to the Word of the Lord.
"Young and old lie together
in the dust of the streets;
my young men and maidens
have fallen by the sword.
You have slain them in the day of your anger;
you have slaughtered them without pity" (Lamentations 2:21).
"Who can speak and have it happen
if the Lord has not decreed it?
Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
that both calamities and good things come?
Why should any living man complain
when punished for his sins?" (Lamentations 3:37-39).
If you think the horrors pictured (that you posted) are terrible, how much more dreadful and terrifying will be the Day of Judgment?  So, when the Lord shows the fury of his wrath in advance of the Day of Judgment, who are we to say, "This is not from the Lord"?
Do you know a prophet from the Lord who will render Jeremiah's words false?
All that the Lord does, he does well. "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25).
Gerry.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/25/2004 9:24 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Lee: As far as 1. goes, no, God doesn't decree his own decree, for instance! All is under God's control, I would say, making everything decreed is a bit problematic.
Tom: The “all things” embraces all events of our world. I don’t think Calvinists (who believe all things are decreed by God) include in that God decreeing his existence for example. Calvin believed all events, the flow of history (our choices, good and evil, everything that happens in the world) happens because God decreed that it happen and precisely as God decreed it to happen. I’m not making this stuff up! I’ve packed the office for furlough in a few weeks, but I’ll try to get to Calvin’s Institutes if I can.
John Calvin's Institutes are all over the World Wide Web. I think that below is the passages that you are looking for:
God’s Providence includes all things on earth, including human affairs, for there is no such thing as fortune or chance. Scriptures tells us that all things happen in accord with God's will – events, inanimate objects, which do act according to their own properties and under God's ever-present direction including the sun, in all its power and glory, is at God's command.
The nature of providence is not mere foreknowledge but active governance of events. God not only watches over but exercises a special care over each of His works. God actively regulates all individual events, so that nothing takes place by chance.
The true causes of events are hidden to us for the limits of the human mind see as fortuitous those things which are actually ordered by God's purpose. In this sense “fate” and “fortune” are used in Scripture to explain events seemingly contingent, but known by faith to derive from a secret impulse of God.
The more I read the chapter the sicker it makes me. Ya'll can read the rest here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Reformation/McMahonLongerOverviewCalvinsInstitutes.htm
I really don't understand how anyone could present God as the MONSTER that Calvin portrays him in his Institutes.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
| 171 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:26 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 |
|
|