 |
 | 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/11/2004 3:05 PM (GMT -6) |   | Tom,
quote:
Tom: Hey borg. A great question, one that deserves a thread of its own. Yes, I do think there’s one intended meaning of Scripture. I just don’t think everything Scripture means is EQUALLY fundamental. There ARE some beliefs that are basic and fundamental that we ought to really fight for, things about which I would never say, “Hey, whatever floats your boat.” Beliefs like whether there is a God, whether Christ is God come to us, some things about sin and salvation, etc. These are relatively clear.
I would think that LFW is pretty fundamental seeings that the normal language of virtually every human on the face of the earth pays tribute to it. Borg, after all, seems to be saying what he thinks you OUGHT to agree with. Moreover, I've heard compatibilists admit that moral accountability is illogical on their own view. Surely logic is fundamental, eh? Indeed, there are those who, having abandoned a belief in God, STILL can't shake their belief in free will!
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 11/11/2004 5:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Tom, there is no need to start a new thread as this should be my last follow up question. But you said that there are different hills to die on, I totally agree. And you also said that we don't have to have everything right in order to worship and love God, and I agree. But I'm interested in hearing what you think is going beyond the bounds of being able to worship and love the SAME God as someone who disagrees with you. For example, some say Mormons are still saved because they worship God, they just have some of their doctrines mixed up, especailly the "jack" mormons. But there are others who have said that Mormonism has gone beyond the bounds of salvation and grace, and hence Mormons will repent forever in hell.
I'm not charging Open Theists with having a "different" religion, nor am I charging Open Theism with going beyond the bounds of salvation, for I do not believe either of those statements. At the same time, I think we would both agree that we tend to view God quite different, some differences in small matters and some differences in large matters. How much doctrine/dogma must one have in order to be saved?
How much wrong doctrine can a person have before they should be considered to have missed the point completley? In this light, doesn't it become important to take a firm stand on the providence of God? If one view is creating God into an evil malicious being, then isn't it worth dying on? If one is diminishing the Glory of God and Christ, isn't it worth a hill dying on? Where do you draw the line? just a curious question that would love to see your point of view.
blessings
"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 | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/11/2004 5:13 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
John,
quote:
When the Bible says "God cannot lie," etc., it need not necessarily mean that He is some kind of automaton, acting rather like a "holy machine" of some kind that can do nothing BUT act holily. In my view, there's a very good reason why Scripture says God "can't" lie--Because His holy CHARACTER is such that every moral sensibility He has is positively repulsed by even the THOUGHT of doing evil.
I still don't see how this is different from compatibilism. Isn't compatibilism the belief that people act according to their strongest impulse/desire? And if so, isn't that what you're contending for in the case of God and Christ?
While it is similar, from what I understand, compatibilism denies the power of contrary moral choice, while my view affirms it. It is not the case that in my view God "can't help" choosing as He does, while in compatibilism and determinism, as far as I understand those views, God does not have the power of contrary moral choice at all. In my view, God could sin if He willed to, but He simply wills not to.
Additionally, on my view God has the ability to see right through any and all temptation to sin and will always choose that which is benevolent (holy), and to sin could never be benevolent.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/12/2004 1:23 AM (GMT -6) | | borg: But I'm interested in hearing what you think is going beyond the bounds of being able to worship and love the SAME God as someone who disagrees with you. For example, some say Mormons are still saved because they worship God, they just have some of their doctrines mixed up, especailly the "jack" mormons. But there are others who have said that Mormonism has gone beyond the bounds of salvation and grace, and hence Mormons will repent forever in hell.
Tom: Repent forever in hell? The idea doesn’t make sense. But anyhow, I just don’t have a lot of those answers, borg. I’m happy to take things on a person by person basics. If somebody says "I'm an atheist. Jesus was just a nice guy, but not God. His death doesn’t have any real significance for anybody," then I'm thinking, "This guy's not in; not part of the family," and I wanna move him TO that. If someone says, "I'm a Muslim. I think Christianity is a lie. I've read the gospels and observed Jesus' life and teachings. I don't see anything there that suggests he was uniquely God in the flesh. I don't believe he died for anybody. Jesus was just a good prophet. But I love God and really do want to live rightly and believe what's right," I'm thinking (like Jesus thought about the Pharisee he ate dinner with), "This guy is not in the family, but he's not as far as some people are from the Kingdom," and I'd work on moving him TO an experience of Jesus. But if someone says, "I believe Jesus died for me and I'm trusting in him and trying to live a life that honors him, but I'm a 5 point Calvinist who believes God unconditionally determines for reasons I don't understand every evil that occurs in the world," I'm thinking, "OK, this guy's in, but he's on the OTHER side of the room from me. If we can't convince each other on providence, we at least are brothers in Christ."
Does any of this help?
borg: I'm not charging Open Theists with having a "different" religion, nor am I charging Open Theism with going beyond the bounds of salvation, for I do not believe either of those statements. At the same time, I think we would both agree that we tend to view God quite different, some differences in small matters and some differences in large matters. How much doctrine/dogma must one have in order to be saved?
Tom: I don’t know. I think it’s far less than we sometimes assume. But I agree the faith content is not empty. Some people think it is. Some would say the ONLY core is love. If we really love, we’re saved. It’s all about behavior. I’d agree its about love, but I’m just not so sure anybody’s loved that way who hasn’t shared SOME fundamental beliefs about God. The question is, why are “beliefs” at all important? If they’re important at all, they’re only important relative to what is REALLY important, and that’s love. I think we’ll have to live with the answer to this question being a moving target; being an ongoing process of self-examination within the community.
borg: How much wrong doctrine can a person have before they should be considered to have missed the point completley?
Tom: Again, I just don’t know precisely. But more importantly, is this our job? I suppose there are a few beliefs and a kind of life that Paul, John (1John) and others in the NT hold out as boundary markers. But the whole Evangelical passion to draw lines so they can point their fingers and say “You’re in” and “You’re out” seems misplaced. How about an open set where what’s important is whether or not somebody’s moving toward or any from God in Christ as held out in the gospels and a commitment to living that relationship out in community with others who share it?
borg: In this light, doesn't it become important to take a firm stand on the providence of God? If one view is creating God into an evil malicious being, then isn't it worth dying on? If one is diminishing the Glory of God and Christ, isn't it worth a hill dying on? Where do you draw the line?
Tom: It’s more difficult for me to see that any one specific view on divine providence or theodicy is at the core of Christianity’s faith content. That God is not an evil malicious being, for sure, yeah. But no view makes this claim about itself. Each view believes what it does because it WANTS to avoid making this claim and to believe about God what is most glorious and honorable and worthy, even if we disagree about what that is.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 11/12/2004 3:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom-
Even though we disagree on many issues, I think you answered Borg's questions rather well. Paul lays out the evangel clearly in 1 Cor. 15:1-9 where he states that Jesus died for our sins, was entobmed and that He was roused the third day and was seen by the host of men, lastly by Paul. I agree with you that this is essential for a saving faith. Beyond this basic and simply belief we are all building with gold, silver, or hay and straw on the foundation of Christ. I also agree with you in that if a person is, in my words, comfortable in their current position serving God, then I do not try to sway them towards what I believe. It is when I meet a christian who is questioning his current beliefs, that I bring forth my beliefs hoping to help this person along their journey with God. I also like how, on this discussion board, we can disagree and bounce issue off each other and I think that my beliefs have been stregnthened through the many discussions we have had.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/12/2004 4:59 AM (GMT -6) | | KK: 100% of the people get their choice, either eternal separation from God or eternal community with God. God gets what He wants, people who have freely chosen to love Him. Somehow I suspect you [Lock] understand this, that you married a spouse who chose to be with you, that a spouse forced into the marriage relationship would not have been as preferable.
Tom: There ya go. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Cottonman
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 11/12/2004 5:00 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB,
As jovial as it may be to bicker with you regarding one another's circumstances and charactor, it seems as if niether you nor I wish to do so. So I will evade that issue intentionally. Happenstance you wish to take it up again, I am more than ready, after all I started the personal rancor.
I am dissapointed that you do not seem to have grappled with my question head-on. You, a superstar, are being called out to defend your view. Yet if OVT does not give me answers, you point me in the direction of compatibilism. Coming from someone who believes that compatibilism makes God into a monster, as I assume you do but by all means correct me if I am wrong, this does not at all present your case as fairly as it should be presented.
What I have done here is to merely discuss, and at times attack, you on your own ground. I have not inserted my own views on the matter, nor will I at this time. However, I humbly ask you not to throw in the towel and give up on me. If your view is the right one, I want in on it. But by pointing me to compatibilism you have inserted a hidden indorsement against LFW, or at least a hidden endorsement against the idea that God is good if LFW exists.
I beg you not to misunderstand me, I am not declaring victory. I am merely asking for futher dialouge. You ask why I am on this list. Well, let me tell you the reasons that DO NOT contribute to my presence. First, I am not here to sharpen my arguments against OVT. That would be arrogant and contentious. I am not here in order to display an intellectual achievement that I do not possess. I am not here with the hope that I will convert OVTists to compatibilism. I am here to explore the issue and wrestle with it. Why are you here? Because to me it is seeming that your presence is for the purpose of gaining support of your preconcieved notions. But that would indict you in a sense, and I wish not to do so. Let's wrestle.
Tom: What an interesting attitude you have Cotton. I’m actually afraid to say anything now for fear that you’ll find a way to interpret it as it was not intended.
I did in no way mean to frighten you. Please have no care for my twisting of your words. Say what you say and I will do likewise.
Tom: If she considers what good is lost were LFW not to exist at all, I think yes, in spite of her suffering she can make that claim that LFW is a good thing. But the answer to whether or not LFW is a good gift stands on BOTH the potential good and evil and not just on the evil.
Once again I will be cantankerous, but hopefully in a more friendly fassion. You sound like Paul Helm, TGB. I could find quotes that would display 90%-100% of what you just said that come from the die hard Reformed camp, with the exception of the term LFW. The potential of goodness gives LFW goodness. Fine, what about the contrary claim that the potential of glory gives compatibilism goodness? Understand that I am not claiming that as my own view, but merely wondering how you respond to the charge of Helmism?
Tom: Well, I’m not trying to solve the problem of evil or even come close to solving it for you or anybody else. So I doubt you’ll convince me that I haven’t explained anything to myself about evil. If my views help others, I’m happy. If they find solace in other contrary views, I’m happy for them. Whatever floats your boat Cotton.
How could you be happy for someone who seems to you to be attributing evil to God? If that is what compatibilism is doing, I am not happy for them people. Far from happy, I'm pissed. God is good, everything he does is good and he does everything good. So no, I do not believe you when you say you are happy. I am not calling you a liar, but I think you have mispoken. If so, all is forgiven. I have done the same countless times in this thread and many times in this post alone. I beg your graces.
Just a word to the others, I am addressing TGB here because he was the first, he and Einstein to jump on board. Einstein's comments are fully addressed in each of my posts, if not directly, then by way of implication. Dearest Einstein, if you are not satisified with my answers, I will be more than happy to answer your questions/objections directly.
I await futher response from each of you. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Albert Einstein
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 83
| Posted 11/12/2004 5:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Cottonman
Just a word to the others, I am addressing TGB here because he was the first, he and Einstein to jump on board. Einstein's comments are fully addressed in each of my posts, if not directly, then by way of implication. Dearest Einstein, if you are not satisified with my answers, I will be more than happy to answer your questions/objections directly.
I've blocked børg and löck now, so we can proceed in a coherent dialog.
Let's start with:
When a person commits a crime, is that person's parents, grand-parents, great grand-parents.... arrested, hauled before the court and tried as well?
I await your answer.
Hint: Ezekial 18
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Cottonman
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 11/12/2004 6:05 AM (GMT -6) | |
I've blocked børg and löck now, so we can proceed in a coherent dialog.
poor incoherent borg and lock! I had not recognized any incoherance, but that does by no means entail that it was non-existant. I apologize for creating division. This is not my aim, nor will it become my aim. As I am sure it was not borg nor lock's aim and certainly not einstein's aim. Unfortunately maybe someone overshot. Could've been me.
Let's start with:
When a person commits a crime, is that person's parents, grand-parents, great grand-parents.... arrested, hauled before the court and tried as well?
I await your answer.
Hint: Ezekial 18
I am not sure where federal theology and the immediate view of adamic imputation fits into the argument at hand, dear sir. Even though I have humbly submitted to my resolution of niceness, I will not submit to a rehtorical question. I believe that I am capable of tracking your argument Einstien, if you would merely draw it out for me instead of seeking to trap me in a folly by going against a relevent scripture passage. I have asked a question, please answer mine and I will do likewise. I apologize for my stubborness. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Albert Einstein
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 83
| Posted 11/12/2004 6:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Cottonman
I am not sure where federal theology and the immediate view of adamic imputation fits into the argument at hand, dear sir. Even though I have humbly submitted to my resolution of niceness, I will not submit to a rehtorical question. I believe that I am capable of tracking your argument Einstien, if you would merely draw it out for me instead of seeking to trap me in a folly by going against a relevent scripture passage. I have asked a question, please answer mine and I will do likewise. I apologize for my stubborness.
Huh?
Anyways, despite the fact that I'm dependent upon my parents bringing me into the world (and their parents, and their parents' parents...), and despite the fact that I'm dependent upon my employer for wages on which I subsist and despite the fact that I'm dependent upon farmers for food (I'm reallying beating this horse, aren't I?), despite all the dependencies I have on others, the courts STILL recognize my autonomy and that the responsibility for my actions resides solely in me.
Where did this idea of autonomy come from?* From the actual state of the world, i.e. we're free moral, free will agents.
We may try and believe we aren't free moral, free will agents but we betray ourselves by acting as if we are.
God supports this in Ezekial 18 (and other places). I won't quote Ezekial 18 here, you probably know it.
Now, what was your question? (minus the banality)
*Can a mechanistic creature even ponder LFW? Do animals realize they are instinctly controlled and humans have LFW? I doubt it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/12/2004 6:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Cotton: I am dissapointed that you do not seem to have grappled with my question head-on.
Tom: I thought I did. Don’t know what else to say.
Cotton: You, a superstar, are being called out to defend your view.
Tom: I ain’t no superstar, no spotlights flashin on me… (a line from a song in “The Fighting Temptations”).
Cotton: Yet if OVT does not give me answers, you point me in the direction of compatibilism.
Tom: If the OV doesn’t give you answers, what else can you do?
Cotton: Coming from someone who believes that compatibilism makes God into a monster, as I assume you do but by all means correct me if I am wrong, this does not at all present your case as fairly as it should be presented.
Tom: Compatibilism is a biblically unacceptable portrait of God TO ME. But if it’s not TO YOU, how much should I invest in convincing YOU to see it my way?
Cotton: What I have done here is to merely discuss, and at times attack, you on your own ground.
Tom: And I responded. You don’t buy my response. It’s all the response I have. So I don’t know what else to say.
Cotton: However, I humbly ask you not to throw in the towel and give up on me.
Tom: Tell me what to say, what to do. I don’t know how to help you make sense of my response.
Cotton: If your view is the right one, I want in on it. But by pointing me to compatibilism you have inserted a hidden indorsement against LFW, or at least a hidden endorsement against the idea that God is good if LFW exists.
Tom: I endorse anybody’s adoption of a theodicy that makes sense to THEM and helps THEM worship and love God—provided they don’t toss out the fundamentals of the faith (as we’ve discussed a bit in the last few posts). This is not a front burner issue for me. I’ll try to make sense of it to those who ask, but I don’t know what else to do but that.
Cotton: Why are you here? Because to me it is seeming that your presence is for the purpose of gaining support of your preconcieved notions. But that would indict you in a sense, and I wish not to do so. Let's wrestle.
Tom: Cotton, if you don’t wish to do so, why do so? But you’ve done so. You said why you think I’m here and then said you don't way to say it. I don’t get it.
But anyway, I don’t think my views are “preconceived.” They were when I was a classic Arminianist! I believed what I was taught without really challenging it or thinking it through. But I thought my way through to the OV. So I’m not sure why you think my views are “preconceived.” Which views?
Cotton: You sound like Paul Helm, TGB. I could find quotes that would display 90%-100% of what you just said that come from the die hard Reformed camp, with the exception of the term LFW.
Tom: Cool.
Cotton: The potential of goodness gives LFW goodness.
Tom: No, LFW is necessary to making our goodness possible.
Cotton: Fine, what about the contrary claim that the potential of glory gives compatibilism goodness?
Tom: Explain to me the glory of unconditionally determining the evil choices of people? I don’t have any category or means for understanding such “glory”?
Cotton: How could you be happy for someone who seems to you to be attributing evil to God?
Tom: Because it only seems to ME that their attributing evil to God.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Cottonman
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 11/12/2004 7:52 AM (GMT -6) | |
Now, what was your question? (minus the banality)
My question is simply how can OVT escape resorting to the greater good defense. Please see my response to TGB which will appear shortly. I fail to see how the gift LFW is any different than the gift of an acorn man killing laser gun that provides food for my child and protects him from bad people. It necessarily follows in my mind that LFW is a bad gift. But God does not give bad gifts. We either have to say that it is necessary for the greater good, and by virtue of that it's good, or God is evil, or he didn't really give it in the first place. Those seem to me to be the only three options if my premises are correct. It is entirely possible that they are not. I ask you to correct my incorrection.
Incidently, I was way off in my representation of Federal Theology and the immediate view of the imputation adamic guilt. Adam is seen as the head of humanity and representitive of the covenant that God made with him and his descendants (some would call this the covenant of works, but other Reformed theologians disavow that claim, such as John Murray, and others). I really doubt if a Reformed theologian would consider this is applicable in this instance under these circumstances. Plus, I'm pretty sure that virtually no one on this list would agree with it anyway and it would just turn into an unnecessary tangent.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 11/12/2004 8:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
100% of the people get their choice, either eternal separation from God or eternal community with God.
God gets what He wants, people who have freely chosen to love Him.
God gets what He wants, a small group of His creation "truly" and "freely" love Him. You have not answered the real question, only dogded it with analogies which do not fit. My marriage cannot be compared with God and His creation. According to the OT view, even though God knew that the majority of mankind would possibly choose wrongly and produce unbelievable amounts of evil, it was worth the risk, so that a small group of mankind could properly love Him. This comes off as either heartless or poor planning when looking at from the majority's perspective.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Cottonman
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 11/12/2004 8:24 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB,
Thank you for your response.
Tom: Compatibilism is a biblically unacceptable portrait of God TO ME. But if it’s not TO YOU, how much should I invest in convincing YOU to see it my way?
I would hope that you would invest a little more time since I had originally asked you to and I assume that is why you answered in the first place. Why do you give up? I beg of you not to give up now because I am sure that many who are observing will run away touting my arguments as fatal to OVT, plus I might have the same propensity rise up in myself.
Tom: And I responded. You don’t buy my response. It’s all the response I have. So I don’t know what else to say. Tell me what to say, what to do. I don’t know how to help you make sense of my response.
I sincerely hope that you think of something. Its not that I merely don't buy your response, I feel as though I have exposed them to the same "errors" that you ascribe to Reformed theology. I am certain that I am not the only one who feels this way. I am asking for your best, and if that is what you have given me...please get some aid from someone else. I am not trying to make you look or feel stupid. If you are correct in your arguments, the stupid one is clearly sitting in this chair.
Tom: I endorse anybody’s adoption of a theodicy that makes sense to THEM and helps THEM worship and love God—provided they don’t toss out the fundamentals of the faith (as we’ve discussed a bit in the last few posts). This is not a front burner issue for me. I’ll try to make sense of it to those who ask, but I don’t know what else to do but that.
Please make sense of it FOR ME. This sounds self-involved, but please look past that and give me your best arguments or even those arguments that are not your own.
Cotton: But that would indict you in a sense, and I wish not to do so. Let's wrestle.
Tom: Cotton, if you don’t wish to do so, why do so? But you’ve done so. You said why you think I’m here and then said you don't way to say it. I don’t get it.
You are right. I'm sorry. That should not have been done. Just to let you know what I meant by indicting you: that would have been attempted if I had written a few paragraphs on that particular matter. I do not consider it an indictment if it consists in a few words. So honestly, I did not attempt to indict you at all. Sorry that that impression was given, as it clearly was.
Cotton: The potential of goodness gives LFW goodness.
Tom: No, LFW is necessary to making our goodness possible.
I did not mean to affirm innate goodness to LFW. But I did mean to affirm that it is seen as a good gift under your system. If you claim that it is not a good gift but is ONE of the following options, our disagreement would be dead in it's tracks. 1)LFW is an evil gift from God with evil intentions. 2)LFW is a necessary evil that a good God indirectly caused (I actually might take issue with this and employ some of the Arminian/OTV arguments against meticulous providence). 3)LFW is non-existant.
If you see another option I will consider it carefully. However, I cannot see how the gift of LFW could be amoral. It necessarily has to have moral value attached to it because the giving of that gift was supposably done by God. Moreover, anything that is necessary to fulfill God's chief end in creation certainly cannot be looked on as having no moral value whatsoever.
Tom: Explain to me the glory of unconditionally determining the evil choices of people? I don’t have any category or means for understanding such “glory”?
That is simply not my purpose here at this time. I clearly stated my purpose within my introduction (which ironically was not so clear). Consequently, no counter argument will be inserted. One is simply not necessary when I am sincerely seeking to understand the teaching of LFW.
Cotton: How could you be happy for someone who seems to you to be attributing evil to God?
Tom: Because it only seems to ME that their attributing evil to God.
Now you have completely lost me. So the strict doctrines of the Puritans are not objectively wrong? That is a bold statement indeed. I'm not sure how far one can go with a strictly pragmatic view of theology. Perhaps we will see just how far as Liberation Theology developes more fully.
I do not presume to have any influence over you whatsoever. However, if it is fair for me to say: please do not focus on the above paragraph. Please give me a solid argument for how you can escape the greater good defense | | Back to Top | | |
|
Cottonman
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 11/12/2004 8:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Don't feel bad Cottonman-
I think it was more of a personal thing for Albert.
Alas! the dear lock has been resurrected from the sting of being cast into the outer darkness of cyber-space. Welcome back my incoherent friend. Take heart and wear you label with dignity! I am looking forward to getting one of my own someday. I am hoping for supercilious obtuser, or the equivilant. That is unless TGB can give me one that says "OVT Adherent" that fits properly. | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 11/12/2004 10:48 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm probably getting over my head, but Albert those conclusions don't seem to work. I don't think you can narrow down to merely those two options. I think Cottonman's question has gone unanswered in that you are dodging the crux of it and rather attempting to poke holes in something that he hasn't necesarily endorsed.
1. God makes the choice for all people. Those not selected unto eternal life have room to complain (unfair).
2. God invites all but only some respond. Those who don't respond don't have ground to complain because they got what they wanted (fair).
I see several flaws in this, I would be grateful if you would clarify to me so that I can more fully understand this idea. Why do you conclude that those who weren't "selected" for salvation have room to complain? What meaning does grace have under this idea? No one can complain because God didn't give them the gift of eternal life. It seems that under this premise you are claiming that we have a right to complain about something that was never ours to start with.
The second premise seems flawed in two ways: bear with me.
A) Yeah perhaps man might have no ground to complain for where he is, but if it is and was the Lord's will to save everyone, then we have an eternally disappointed God. The bible, to the best of my knowledge, never says God desires to save only those who will come to Him, but rather, it seems obvious that God desires to save ALL men, unless you are willing to grant an exclusive term to the word "all" which I don't think you would be willing to. So perhaps damned man cannot complain, but what of God? In the first premise God can't complain because He did as He wanted, and in the second premise man can't complain because he did as he wanted. This, to my mind, doesn't make sense, for it makes more out of man and less out of God.
B) I would still think that the damned would have reason to complain. God is still to some degree sovereign over their salvation. He placed boundaries in the areas where they would live, He gave them the parents that He gave them, He made them to be born in a certain time ear, He also made all the people in close relation to them that had influences on them, etc. And so perhaps God left them to decide, but why couldn't the damned cry out after the fact, "Why wasn't I born in the Bible belt, I would have believed then?!" or "Why was I born in a Muslim country where I was taught that the Islamic faith was the way to go! It's not my fault that all my presuppositions were tainted by the glasses of my culture!" and on...and on... and on... I think the list of complaints could go on forever; that had God just changed a thing or two, they would have believed, had He just tugged at their heart one more time they would have believed, etc. Do you think that in the day they are damned they will be glad for their libertarian free will or will they still complain "unfair".
And because TGB is willing to grant compatability, as long as it helps us love God and worship Him: there is a thrid option that stands:
3) God makes choice for all people, damned cannot complain because they wanted to be damned. (Fair)
and perhaps more extreme...
4) God makes the choice for all people, damned cannot complain because God has mercy on whom He wills and gives gifts as He so chooses. (Fair)
Sorry for the simplicity of this post, but my weak mind cannot grasp why those two conclusions seem so dominating to you. I look forward to reading your response.
"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 | | |
|
Cottonman
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 11/12/2004 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Albert Einstein
Cottonman,
1. God makes the choice for all people.
Those not selected for eternal life have grounds for complaint.
2. God invites all but only some respond.
Those who don't respond don't have any grounds for complaint, they got what they wanted.
too logical, to easy to understand? not turgid and convoluted enough for you?
If by logical you mean presenting an arugment with no suport whatsoever. I'm glad you were thinking more clearly when you came up with general & special relativity. Do you fail to present evidence because you have none, or because it will be thrown back in your face? If you cannot tame your tongue you will be shown foolish by your own words. Maybe you should block me, sir.
Incidently, I know of no Reformed theologian, except for those who follow Beza, who will not endorse the first half of #1 and all of #2. Maybe you should brush up on the Westminster, Belgic, Augsburg and 2nd London Baptist confessions.
Untill then I will be waiting for answers that are not non-answers. | | Back to Top | | |
| 184 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:51 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 |
|
|