God does love everybody

[spaminator101]

While most Calvinist will argue that God does not love everyone, Only loving those whom He predestined. God does love everyone in a sense.

God has a commen love for the whole world. Every Person falls under this catagory. If God did not love the whole world then He would not let us continue to live on the earth. However those whome He has predestined He has a special love for. Because of this love He chose to save them.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
However those whome He has predestined He has a special love for. Because of this love He chose to save them.

[/ QUOTE ]

What did he save them from? I think he hates me, but the lightning bolts keep missing, not the two outers though.

Mack

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
What did he save them from?

[/ QUOTE ]

from Hell

[malorum]

1 Tim 2:1-6;
2 Peter 3:9

[spaminator101]

Romans 9
Ephesians 1
John17

[malorum]

Does god act contrary to his stated desire to save all people by virtue of an involuntary twitch.
Has he got some form of tourettes syndrome??

[malorum]

just a thought. perhaps he couldnt be bothered to save everyone because he was due to play in a freeroll

God set out a test, and the Christians failed.

See, he instilled us with a powerful mind capable of reason, logic, compassion, etc. He gave us dominion over all the earth. And he gave us a set of lies which would betray everything good in us -- told us we were insignificant, unworthy, unable to do anything for ourselves without his help or mercy. Those who bought into this schtick (aka Christians) sickened the Almighty. But there were those who chose to ignore that hogwash and took pleasure in their god-given bodies and minds and lived as free-thinking men rather than unworthy sheep, and were good in heart not because it offered some afterlife reward but because it was the course of reason. These men lived as creators, challenging the world and the ideas around them, rather than sacrifice their given faculties for reason in favor of comfortable myths. These men passed the test and were the true receivers of God's blessings.

[David Sklansky]

I wrote something similar a while ago. My father actually believes something similar to that.

[malorum]

Off topic.
New thread material.
But while were at it.
Yes these rational men are truly creators:
Of Global warming, of nuclear bombing, and of rational government (see Stalin)

[ QUOTE ]
Off topic.
New thread material.
But while were at it.
Yes these rational men are truly creators:
Of Global warming, of nuclear bombing, and of rational government (see Stalin)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah I see, so men of reason are Stalinist golbal terrorists. Sounds reasonable?

[malorum]

Many political systems, including the american constitution and political leaders make extensive reference to God and religious ideals. Soviet communism was notable in representing a system supposedly based on reason rather than upon religious ideals.
The soviet suppression of religion did not really seem to make the CCCP a better place.

[ QUOTE ]
Many political systems, including the american constitution and political leaders make extensive reference to God and religious ideals. Soviet communism was notable in representing a system supposedly based on reason rather than upon religious ideals.
The soviet suppression of religion did not really seem to make the CCCP a better place.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you insist on using Soviet Communism as an example of "reason" then I will insist on using Spanish Inquisition as an example of Christian "compassion". And we will get nowhere.

Oh, and P.S., your premise is entirely wrong. The founding fathers were likely more influenced by reason than Christian ethics. Men like Jefferson were students of the Age of Enlightenment and the authors of that period. And thus they built a government based more on reason than Christian dogma, otherwise there would be no need for a separation of church and state if you believe that the goal was to codify christian morality.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
God set out a test, and the Christians failed.

See, he instilled us with a powerful mind capable of reason, logic, compassion, etc. He gave us dominion over all the earth. And he gave us a set of lies which would betray everything good in us -- told us we were insignificant, unworthy, unable to do anything for ourselves without his help or mercy. Those who bought into this schtick (aka Christians) sickened the Almighty. But there were those who chose to ignore that hogwash and took pleasure in their god-given bodies and minds and lived as free-thinking men rather than unworthy sheep, and were good in heart not because it offered some afterlife reward but because it was the course of reason. These men lived as creators, challenging the world and the ideas around them, rather than sacrifice their given faculties for reason in favor of comfortable myths. These men passed the test and were the true receivers of God's blessings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow I actually like that idea a lot, strange as it may seem.

Mack

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
I will insist on using Spanish Inquisition as an example of Christian "compassion".

[/ QUOTE ]

Good example. I recall I quote to the effect:
"The screams of the penitent are like the singing of angels, each scream represents a soul taking another step toward heaven".

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Off topic.
New thread material.
But while were at it.
Yes these rational men are truly creators:
Of Global warming, of nuclear bombing, and of rational government (see Stalin)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah I see, so men of reason are Stalinist golbal terrorists. Sounds reasonable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me a war not motivated by religion, and I'll show you a religous motivation for that war.

Regards Mack

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
Show me a war not motivated by religion, and I'll show you a religous motivation for that war.

[/ QUOTE ]

WWI and WWII
please teach me some history.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God set out a test, and the Christians failed.

See, he instilled us with a powerful mind capable of reason, logic, compassion, etc. He gave us dominion over all the earth. And he gave us a set of lies which would betray everything good in us -- told us we were insignificant, unworthy, unable to do anything for ourselves without his help or mercy. Those who bought into this schtick (aka Christians) sickened the Almighty. But there were those who chose to ignore that hogwash and took pleasure in their god-given bodies and minds and lived as free-thinking men rather than unworthy sheep, and were good in heart not because it offered some afterlife reward but because it was the course of reason. These men lived as creators, challenging the world and the ideas around them, rather than sacrifice their given faculties for reason in favor of comfortable myths. These men passed the test and were the true receivers of God's blessings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow I actually like that idea a lot, strange as it may seem.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't propose it to be the case. Just that if there was a god, who would he want to call His people: the sheep who denounce their earthly bodies and minds, or those who seek and strive to know more rather than accept multi-millenia-old myths?

I wrote an essay "God is Dead" on this subject in which God ends his own supreme being life after seeing the flaw in his own creation: namely, that a being meant to serve and worship is in the end, ugly and useless, while a being meant to create, challenge, and achieve without the day-to-day reliance on the almighty, is in the end much more beautiful and worthwhile to the universe.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Show me a war not motivated by religion, and I'll show you a religous motivation for that war.

[/ QUOTE ]

WWI and WWII
please teach me some history.

[/ QUOTE ]

WWII - What do you want? Are you suggesting the German plan to eradicate Jews from the world is not a religious motivation. It was not condemned by the Vatican either, which is as good as support in my book.

[ QUOTE ]
The Pope's defenders have claimed that such a declaration would only have caused the Nazis to retaliate heavily against both the Church and the Jews, and that by remaining silent he enabled a Church underground to save tens or hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe but maybe not, I don't trust them anyway, these kinds of justifications are too convenient for me.

Give me time WWI will be no better is my guess.

Mack

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
God set out a test, and the Christians failed.

See, he instilled us with a powerful mind capable of reason, logic, compassion, etc. He gave us dominion over all the earth. And he gave us a set of lies which would betray everything good in us -- told us we were insignificant, unworthy, unable to do anything for ourselves without his help or mercy. Those who bought into this schtick (aka Christians) sickened the Almighty. But there were those who chose to ignore that hogwash and took pleasure in their god-given bodies and minds and lived as free-thinking men rather than unworthy sheep, and were good in heart not because it offered some afterlife reward but because it was the course of reason. These men lived as creators, challenging the world and the ideas around them, rather than sacrifice their given faculties for reason in favor of comfortable myths. These men passed the test and were the true receivers of God's blessings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a good way to nullify Pascal's Wager type arguments.

chez

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


While most Calvinist will argue that God does not love everyone, Only loving those whom He predestined. God does love everyone in a sense.

God has a commen love for the whole world. Every Person falls under this catagory. If God did not love the whole world then He would not let us continue to live on the earth. However those whome He has predestined He has a special love for. Because of this love He chose to save them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no quibble with your point, I just avoid calling it love since he allows them to exist only as his vessels to demonstrate his love to those he has chosen. It's like if I were your enemy, but one of my brothers was your henchmen and you came down on hard times financially. I may lend/give you money to help you out, though my ultimate motive is to help my brother out. It's me being nice to you, is it me loving you?

[David Sklansky]

"I just avoid calling it love since he allows them to exist only as his vessels to demonstrate his love to those he has chosen."

Not Ready. You once wrote a post similar to Spaminator's original post. Udon'tkmowmickey (do I capitalize the "u' at the beginning of a sentence?) rightly doesn't let you two off the hook so easy. He stays consistent with his beliefs.

But there are implications for those beliefs that you are clearly uncomfortable with. Plus you have stated that it is not necessary to have those beliefs to be saved. So why cling to them? It's not like you have to become a Catholic.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


But there are implications for those beliefs that you are clearly uncomfortable with. Plus you have stated that it is not necessary to have those beliefs to be saved. So why cling to them? It's not like you have to become a Catholic.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you addressing me or Notready or Spaminator?

You can capitalize the U whenever you feel like it David.

Bible = God's Book = Pass the acid, dude

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
God set out a test, and the Christians failed.

See, he instilled us with a powerful mind capable of reason, logic, compassion, etc. He gave us dominion over all the earth. And he gave us a set of lies which would betray everything good in us -- told us we were insignificant, unworthy, unable to do anything for ourselves without his help or mercy. Those who bought into this schtick (aka Christians) sickened the Almighty. But there were those who chose to ignore that hogwash and took pleasure in their god-given bodies and minds and lived as free-thinking men rather than unworthy sheep, and were good in heart not because it offered some afterlife reward but because it was the course of reason. These men lived as creators, challenging the world and the ideas around them, rather than sacrifice their given faculties for reason in favor of comfortable myths. These men passed the test and were the true receivers of God's blessings.

[/ QUOTE ]

That rules. Seriusly, my thoughts have been the same for quite some time.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Plus you have stated that it is not necessary to have those beliefs to be saved. So why cling to them?


[/ QUOTE ]

Which?

[jokerthief]

Does God love Satan?

[David Sklansky]

"Which"

I'm talking about this whole issue and specifically udon'tknow mickey's answer to spaminator.

"While most Calvinist will argue that God does not love everyone, Only loving those whom He predestined. God does love everyone in a sense.

God has a commen love for the whole world. Every Person falls under this catagory. If God did not love the whole world then He would not let us continue to live on the earth. However those whome He has predestined He has a special love for. Because of this love He chose to save them.


udon'tknowmickey:


"I have no quibble with your point, I just avoid calling it love since he allows them to exist only as his vessels to demonstrate his love to those he has chosen. It's like if I were your enemy, but one of my brothers was your henchmen and you came down on hard times financially. I may lend/give you money to help you out, though my ultimate motive is to help my brother out. It's me being nice to you, is it me loving you?"

Spaminator's statement is silly. Udontknowmickey realizes that. But his point, if true, makes these discussions irrelevant. If you can be saved even if you think udon't mickey is wrong (about the whole predestination thing), then why not assume he is wrong?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If you can be saved even if you think udon't mickey is wrong (about the whole predestination thing), then why not assume he is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember all the details concerning predestination that udon't went into but the Bible teaches the doctrine unequivocally so why would I assume it's wrong?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
kidluckee:
God ... instilled us with a powerful mind capable of reason, logic, compassion, etc. He gave us dominion over all the earth. And he gave us a set of lies which would betray everything good in us -- told us we were insignificant, unworthy, unable to do anything for ourselves without his help or mercy. Those who bought into this shtick (aka Christians) sickened the Almighty. But there were those who chose to ignore that hogwash and took pleasure in their god-given bodies and minds and lived as free-thinking men rather than unworthy sheep, and were good in heart not because it offered some afterlife reward but because it was the course of reason. These men lived as creators, challenging the world and the ideas around them, rather than sacrifice their given faculties for reason in favor of comfortable myths. These men passed the test and were the true receivers of God's blessings.

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky :
My father actually believes something similar to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh oh.

[David Sklansky]

"I don't remember all the details concerning predestination that udon't went into but the Bible teaches the doctrine unequivocally so why would I assume it's wrong?"

1. If it is true in the way udon'tknowmickey means it, rather than a cute way of saying that God can see the future, what's the point of talking about it, or anything else for that matter? If there is even a slight chance in your mind the precept is wrong, or that you have misunderstood it, why not go under the assumption you have, since there is no reason not to?

2. If the Bible teaches it unequivacably, how come the great majority of studious Christians don't agree with you? (Notice that your answer presumably cannot be the same as your answer as to why atheists don't believe in God or why Muslims don't believe in Jesus.)

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
I wrote something similar a while ago. My father actually believes something similar to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet disputed my claim that it was better to live as if there were no God even if there happened to be one.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

1. what's the point of talking about it


[/ QUOTE ]

I said in a previous post that this is a very difficult doctrine. I don't necessarily agree with the way it is usally expressed. Also, I don't bring up the topic. But I do try to answer questions if asked.

[ QUOTE ]

2. If the Bible teaches it unequivacably


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe anyone who accepts the Bible as God's word will accept that it teaches predestination. The concept is contained in both the Old and New Testaments. Arminians accept it and Catholic giants like Augustine and Aquinas taught it as did Luther. The battle is over the details of what it means, and it isn't necessary to presenting the Gospel. My position is that God is sovereign and man is responible and I can't make these two ideas fit together logically. My failure.

[spaminator101]

Actually I have thought a lot about this. I really don't know. This one is very hard for me.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
WWII - What do you want? Are you suggesting the German plan to eradicate Jews from the world is not a religious motivation.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I understand it, the persecution of the Jews was not a motivation behind the War itself. It was German internal political policy. The invasion of Poland and the anexation of austria were not I believe intended to facilitate the elimination of Jews, or as part of the process of rendering the world 'Judenrein'.
Equally the allied response to the German military invasion, was a response the military expansion, rather than a response to Germany's anti-semitic internal politics.

[scalf]

..tewaga...g*d shining on everyone..


or : "for g*d so loved the world...."

it just is


gl

/images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe anyone who accepts the Bible as God's word will accept that it teaches predestination. The concept is contained in both the Old and New Testaments. Arminians accept it and Catholic giants like Augustine and Aquinas taught it as did Luther. The battle is over the details of what it means, and it isn't necessary to presenting the Gospel. My position is that God is sovereign and man is responible and I can't make these two ideas fit together logically. My failure.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it is the details that are vitally important. By one interpretation of predestination, that is that those predestined to perdition are only so because of God's foreknowledge of their free response to the gospel, all men can know that God really loves each and every one of them and wishes them to be saved.

Whereas a differing interpretation, the Calvinist one, means that men are asked to believe the preposterous notion that God created certain men for the sole purpose of damning them, and thus men can have no confidence of the love of God for them. Which of course leads more people to reject the gospel, the insidious fruit of individual non-authoritative interpretation of scripture.

[David Sklansky]

"But it is the details that are vitally important. By one interpretation of predestination, that is that those predestined to perdition are only so because of God's foreknowledge of their free response to the gospel, all men can know that God really loves each and every one of them and wishes them to be saved.

Whereas a differing interpretation, the Calvinist one, means that men are asked to believe the preposterous notion that God created certain men for the sole purpose of damning them, and thus men can have no confidence of the love of God for them. Which of course leads more people to reject the gospel, the insidious fruit of individual non-authoritative interpretation"

Although it may not be my place to get involved, it sure seems that you did a nearly perfect job of backing Not Ready into an inescapable corner. His only way out of it is to say that regardless of the consequences, the Calvinist interpretation is not an interpretation at all, but rather crystal clear reading, while other so called interpretations are obvious bending of the words to avoid difficulties.

[BluffTHIS!]

Fortunately I stand on the shoulders of theological giants who stand themselves on the solid foundation of the true church and true doctrine, whereas so many of these others stand on the shoulders of theological midgets who stand in the quicksand of individual interpretation that produced the plethora of conflicting protestant denominations. Thus I, being only a midget myself, can stand a little taller in my theological understanding.

[spaminator101]

excuse me but predestination was massly beleived before Arminianism was even thought up.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Whereas a differing interpretation, the Calvinist one, means that men are asked to believe the preposterous notion that God created certain men for the sole purpose of damning them,


[/ QUOTE ]

Show me where Calvin said this.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

it sure seems that you did a nearly perfect job of backing Not Ready into an inescapable corner


[/ QUOTE ]

Please define the corner into which you think I'm backed.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Fortunately I stand on the shoulders of theological giants who stand themselves on the solid foundation of the true church and true doctrine,


[/ QUOTE ]

Midgets like Augustine and Aquinas?

[spaminator101]

These men weren't created for the sole purpose of damning them. They all had a purpose. I know youve heard this a million times. But really think about it. Refering back to your question im my post about predestination YOu mentioned the Indians. Well think about the impact it would have had if they were Christians. There probably would have been less fights with new settlers. Many things would have been different and the way it turned out is obviously the best way because thats the way God did it.

[David Sklansky]

"Please define the corner into which you think I'm backed."

You are not backed into any corner if BluffThis's statement that Calvin claimed something whose logical implications are that some people were created merely to be damned is wrong. (When you said "Show me where Calvin said this", I hope you didn't mean that if he didn't use those exact words, the implications should be disregarded..)

Anyway it probably isn't appropriate I referee this debate since I am at least 99.99% sure that Jesus was just a man.

[David Sklansky]

"These men weren't created for the sole purpose of damning them. They all had a purpose"

True. BluffThis shouldn't have used the words "sole purpose." So why not treat those guys similar to animals? No heaven. But no hell either.

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
So why not treat those guys similar to animals? No heaven. But no hell either.

[/ QUOTE ]

That David is a very good question. I have no idea why God didn't do this. My only explanation is that we cannot comprehend the mind of God.

[BluffTHIS!]

From The Secret Providence of God by John Calvin:

"He doth not make wills evil, but useth the wills of men already evil as He pleaseth; nor can He, of Himself, will anything that is evil." " Just in this same manner (continues Augustine) does the Scripture, if diligently considered, shew that not only the good wills of men, which God Himself has made good out of evil wills, but also the wills which He has made good by His grace are directed by Him to good actions and to the attainment of eternal life; and, moreover, that those wills of men which preserve the good order of things in the world, from age to age, as kings, and princes, and rulers, etc., are so under the power of God, that He inclines them whithersoever He will, either to confer kindnesses on these, or to inflict punishments on those, according to His will and pleasure."

In this passage Calvin is discussing some of St. Augustine's writings and quoting from him. By the first sentence alone you might think he meant that God does not in fact preordain some to damnation. However, you have to understand all the aspects of Calvinst TULIP doctrine together. The T, total depravity, means that all men are created evil and damned and then God chooses only some of those to be good and thus be saved, while leaving the others in the state in which they were born, which is the U in TULIP of unconditional election.

That the above is the correct interpretation of Calvin is shown by the following statement of the demonmination that is the prime inheritor of his theology, the presbyterian church:

""God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass ... By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished." (The Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., from chapter 111, entitled "Of God's Eternal Decree")"

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
These men weren't created for the sole purpose of damning them. They all had a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will change my statement to that they were created, foreordained to damnation without ever having the possibility of being saved. If you want to say that is the act of a rational God, whether you attribute other purposes to Him creating such men, then you are grasping at straws.

[spaminator101]

My response still applies.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The T, total depravity, means that all men are created evil and damned


[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

And you have not shown that Calvin said God created the lost for the sole purpose of condemning them.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I will change my statement to that they were created, foreordained to damnation without ever having the possibility of being saved.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe in God's omniscient foreknowledge the same is true.

[spaminator101]

Im interested in how he answers the question he seems to be avoiding.

[udontknowmickey]

who's talking to who now? I'm confused. Notready said "wrong" in his reply to BluffThis but he was quoting spaminator...

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The T, total depravity, means that all men are created evil and damned


[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

John Calvin: "there are babies a span long in hell"



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will change my statement to that they were created, foreordained to damnation without ever having the possibility of being saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe in God's omniscient foreknowledge the same is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not logically true since if God had no intent to create them in the first place He would not know their response, and in no way limits the free will of those foreknown to be damned. He created them for eternal life with Him, but knows that they will not repsond. If He did not create those foreknown to be damned by their own choice, then there would effectively be no free will.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

John Calvin: "there are babies a span long in hell"


[/ QUOTE ]

Give me a citation for this. I can multiply the Reformed theologians who believe all babies are saved. Augustine didn't, I don't know about Calvin. BTW, what does this have to do with what you said is total depravity?

If God knows someone will not believe and creates him that person is foreordained to not believe. That doesn't violate free will.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Notready said "wrong" in his reply to BluffThis but he was quoting spaminator...


[/ QUOTE ]

?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

John Calvin: "there are babies a span long in hell"


[/ QUOTE ]

Give me a citation for this. I can multiply the Reformed theologians who believe all babies are saved. Augustine didn't, I don't know about Calvin. BTW, what does this have to do with what you said is total depravity?

If God knows someone will not believe and creates him that person is foreordained to not believe. That doesn't violate free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Institutes of Relgion, section 9, although I can't quote the entire text. And if various reformed theologians believe babies can be saved, must they not also believe in baptism of infants? It is true however, that Calvin in his commentaries on the gospels said that all babies are not excluded per se and in fact are dedicated to God, and thus if reading that passage alone you might not think it possible that he believed babies could be damned. But when taken together with other quotes such as above, it is clear that he meant only that some babies are called while some are not.

A quote from the puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards:
"Reprobate infants are vipers of vengeance, which Jehovah will hold over hell, in the tongs of his wrath, till they turn and spit venom in his face!"

Regarding total depravity, you are correct that it does not deal per se with what I said, but rather about man being unable to save himself. Nonetheless, that doctrine presupposes that the effect of orginal sin is damnation without a response to the gospel.

If you do not agree that this is what Calvin meant, then anwer the New Guinea question I have put before and which I will now place concretely in time. A tribesman in the inner regions of New Guinea dies 1 month after Jesus' resurrection. Thus there was no possibility of his having heard the gospel preached. From all that you believe and read in the bible, could such a man possibly have been saved? Please don't cop out with a "I hope and pray that God would save such a person" response since the condition is that the man positively could not have heard the gospel.

[NotReady]

You might do better either by asking me what I believe about infants or trying to be accurate about what Calvinism (as distinguished from Calvin) believes. I don't know because the Bible doesn't say definitely. Human reason might conclude that babies are condemned because of total depravity but Jesus said "Such are the Kingdom of God" - so I don't know.

I've said before and I'll repeat it - the tribesman could be saved because God can save whoever He wants.

[BluffTHIS!]

OK I should have phrased it better. Do you think it likely that he was saved without having heard the gospel? Remember we are talking about an anonymous hypothetical man and not about a specific person so you are not being asked to make a judgement reserved to God about a specific person's eternal fate, just what the probability is.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
or trying to be accurate about what Calvinism (as distinguished from Calvin) believes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already gave a doctrinal quote from the prime Calvinistic denomination above which I requote:

[ QUOTE ]
""God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass ... By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished." (The Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., from chapter 111, entitled "Of God's Eternal Decree")"


[/ QUOTE ]

Thus I have accurately described the beliefs of both Calvin and his doctrinal disciples who espouse Calvinism.

[NotReady]

I don't subscribe to the PCUSA confession. I mostly accept the Westminster Confession though not without qualification. Why don't you want to discuss what I believe rather than trying to set up a straw man argument? Do you accept everything every Catholic theologian has said?

I disagree with the way this is worded.

[ QUOTE ]

These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said at the start of this subject, this is a difficult doctrine. Our reason is wholly inadequate and as soon as we leave what the Bible literally says we risk logical contradictions or modes of expression that are questionable. The Word never explains in detail what predestination means, it never uses the phrase "free will", and it never uses the word design with respect to those who are lost. That's why I stick to Scripture which says that God is sovereign and man is responsible. Calvin did the same and he never discussed predestination without severe warnings against undue speculation.

[udontknowmickey]

**snip**

I'm an idiot. Ignore me. I misread the previous posts.

[NotReady]

I truly don't know. Romans 1-3 seems to hold little hope for those who have not heard the Gospel. But people were saved before God seperated the Jews from the rest of the nations. My bottom line on this is as follows:

1. God is not obligated to save anyone. He doesn't have to give anyone a chance since all are already guilty.
2. God is just and no one goes to heaven who deserves it and no one goes to hell who doesn't.
3. God is love and he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. There are many verses about God's patience and forbearance, about how He wants people to repent and live.
4. I trust Him to do right.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm an idiot. Ignore me. I misread the previous posts.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never do that myself. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't have to give anyone a chance since all are already guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you say this and not believe the strict Calvinistic intrepretations that say some are indeed designed for perdition?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you want to discuss what I believe rather than trying to set up a straw man argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly don't expect you to defend all the various differing protestant beliefs and will be happy to discuss what you specifically believe. I don't know that you have stated before, so if you have and I missed it I apologize for asking: what specific denomination do you belong to? Or do you attend a generic "bible believing" church?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How can you say this and not believe the strict Calvinistic intrepretations that say some are indeed designed for perdition?


[/ QUOTE ]

I take issue with the word design. It connotes that God is the author of sin which all Christians totally reject. Calvin talked about proximate and remote causes, for instance. I don't think this really explains anything but it emphasizes there is a difference between predestination of the saved and foreordination of the lost. In one sense, everything that happens in the universe is foreordained, everything is encompassed within God's eternal plan, God controls whatsover comes to pass. But the Bible says that "God made man upright" and God said it is all very good when He finished creation.

All I can say is there is mystery here which no one can explain fully. Read Romans 9. When the hypothetical questioner tries to apply this doctrine in a way that would cast blame on God, Paul doesn't go into a detailed explanation. He simply says we have no right to question God's goodness or justice, and that we have to accept.

If you want to use the word design, go ahead. I'm not saying it's wrong, just be sure that you include that God does no wrong and that man is responsible.

And remember, what you believe about predestination is not important as far as salvatiion is concerned. Someone posted the Apostle's Creed recently. There's nothing in it about predestination. If you accept that God is just and loving and your job is to seek and do His will, predestination will take care of itself.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to use the word design, go ahead. I'm not saying it's wrong, just be sure that you include that God does no wrong and that man is responsible.

[/ QUOTE ]

And thus the logical contradiction of such protestant beliefs is exposed. For if a man were created, without as you say having been given a "chance" by God to believe in and respond to the gospel, which can only take place due to God's grace, then the sinful actions of such a man would have been due to God creating such a man who was given zero grace. Thus the logical answer is that all men, living and dead, have been given a certain minimal grace, although some men might be given more grace and thus more "chances". This is consonant with the bible and the quote I gave in another post from 1 John 2:1-2, since if Jesus died for the sins of all, then all had a chance. And trying to say his redemption merely was not efficaceious for all still has the same logical implications.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

what specific denomination do you belong to? Or do you attend a generic "bible believing" church?


[/ QUOTE ]

The only Reformed church in my area is Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Prebyterian Church in America is somewhat similar. I think Reformed Baptist is also. But I do not require that a church believe exactly as I do in order for me to be a memeber. I'm considering switching to a Southern Baptist church because I think the opportunities for service are much greater there.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How can you say this and not believe the strict Calvinistic intrepretations that say some are indeed designed for perdition?


[/ QUOTE ]

I take issue with the word design. It connotes that God is the author of sin which all Christians totally reject.


[/ QUOTE ]

As a person who affirms God's sovereignty and creative control over everything, I see no reason why we cannot also affirm that God is the author (defined as the creator) of sin. I don't believe this explicitly contradicts any passage of the Bible, or any statement that is logically derived from the Bible.

I am in agreement with Vincent Cheung in what he writes in this article below, where he gives a much fuller treatment of this topic than I ever could.

http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/05/31/the-author-of-sin/

I agree with most of the rest of the post though:
[ QUOTE ]

Calvin talked about proximate and remote causes, for instance. I don't think this really explains anything but it emphasizes there is a difference between predestination of the saved and foreordination of the lost. In one sense, everything that happens in the universe is foreordained, everything is encompassed within God's eternal plan, God controls whatsover comes to pass. But the Bible says that "God made man upright" and God said it is all very good when He finished creation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thus we have a simple conclusion:

1) God created all things
2) It was good and just for God to create what He did
3) God created evil
4) Therefore, the creation of evil was good. (from 1-3)

I see no problems with this. It does not say that good is evil (which would be a logical contradiction), but simply that the creation of evil was good.

[ QUOTE ]

All I can say is there is mystery here which no one can explain fully. Read Romans 9. When the hypothetical questioner tries to apply this doctrine in a way that would cast blame on God, Paul doesn't go into a detailed explanation. He simply says we have no right to question God's goodness or justice, and that we have to accept.

If you want to use the word design, go ahead. I'm not saying it's wrong, just be sure that you include that God does no wrong and that man is responsible.


[/ QUOTE ]

absolutely

[ QUOTE ]

And remember, what you believe about predestination is not important as far as salvatiion is concerned.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true?

[ QUOTE ]

Someone posted the Apostle's Creed recently. There's nothing in it about predestination. If you accept that God is just and loving and your job is to seek and do His will, predestination will take care of itself.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting idea with that.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm considering switching to a Southern Baptist church because I think the opportunities for service are much greater there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you have espoused that the bible should believed fairly literally in every intstance, how can you consider that denomination when they don't have the office of bishop which is mentioned in the NT and which is clearly seen to have been in existence before the protestant date for the institutional Catholic Church of 350 A.D.? And before you ask, I can give citations talking of bishops and apostolic succession of same by Clement, pope and bishop of Rome in 90 A.D. and Irenaeus in 180 A.D.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

then the sinful actions of such a man would have been due to God creating such a man who was given zero grace.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a sense in which this is true. Again, Calvin distinguished between proximate and remote causes. Also again, everything that happens in the universe is "caused" by God in the sense of sine qua non or "cause in fact". But because someone would not have sinned if God had not created him (God is the remote cause) that doesn't make God the author of sin nor does it relieve the sinner of his guilt.

Because all are guilty, God is under no obligation to save anyone. A fortiori, He is under no obligation to ensure someone hears the Gospel. And He is still a just and loving God, and man is still responsible.

You can phrase it so that there is a logical contradiction so far as man's reason is capable. But I believe that is the fault of man's reason, not because there is really a logical contradiction.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Because all are guilty, God is under no obligation to save anyone. A fortiori, He is under no obligation to ensure someone hears the Gospel. And He is still a just and loving God, and man is still responsible.

[/ QUOTE ]

To say all are guilty, again implies that they were created so. So how can a man given zero grace be responsible since his guilt in which he was created and which merits damnation, cannot be washed away except by the grace of Christ's atonement given to him?

[ QUOTE ]
You can phrase it so that there is a logical contradiction so far as man's reason is capable. But I believe that is the fault of man's reason, not because there is really a logical contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if such a man is created guilty and thus will be damned if not given grace, how can it be a failure of that man's reason which cannot but sin since only by grace can he adhere to the moral commandments of the gospel and not sin?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

3) God created evil


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll read the article later, but I strongly disagree with this statement. I know there is a verse that says that, but I think it can be easily shown it is referring to evil in the sense of injury or disaster - for instance, God created Katrina. But in Him there is no darkness and He doesn't even tempt to sin. The word author is normally associated with cause in the proximate sense, and I think most theologians reject that usage.

[ QUOTE ]

Is this true?


[/ QUOTE ]

It must be. How many Christians have exactly the right idea of predestination? Plus I don't see it as part of the Gospel.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

how can you consider that denomination


[/ QUOTE ]

If I waited for perfection in doctrine and practice I would never attend any church.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

To say all are guilty, again implies that they were created so.


[/ QUOTE ]

God created man upright. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

Are you Pelagian?

"If God knows someone will not believe and creates him that person is foreordained to not believe. That doesn't violate free will."
Notready

This does violate free will. If free will is defined as man being able to make a decision that is not 100% predictable by any other being.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
God created man upright. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

[/ QUOTE ]

So now to restate your beliefs:

1) Man is created upright;

2) A man who never hears the gospel preached and thus is the recipient of zero grace cannot but fail to sin;

3) God doesn't have to and sometimes doesn't offer such men a chance at redemption by hearing and responding to the gospel.

Is that right? If so, then it again logically implies such men were created to be damned and that God is the author of their sin since they were doomed to sin and without hearing the gospel could not receive grace and thus receive the effects of the redemption of Christ if they responded. Thus they had no possibility to avoid damnation. Again, how can such men be responsible for their sin when it requires grace to act morally and to have their sins washed away by Christ's atonement?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If free will is defined as man being able to make a decision that is not 100% predictable by any other being.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't define free will that way. If you do, you exclude the possibility of God.

However, you have touched on one of the great mysteries. The Bible doesn't explain this either. I don't fully understand the will, free or otherwise. When I say free will isn't violated I mean primarily that one is not compelled by any outside force.

The direction you are moving is towards true randomness. That's a nice can of worms if you want to open it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

1) Man is created upright;

2) A man who never hears the gospel preached and thus is the recipient of zero grace cannot but fail to sin;

3) God doesn't have to and sometimes doesn't offer such men a chance at redemption by hearing and responding to the gospel

[/ QUOTE ]

So far as it goes, this is correct. But it is incomplete. You have arrived at Romans 9 but left out the first 8 chapters. I reject your logical implication because it denies what the Bible teaches. The above points are also taught by the Bible. As I said, I can't reconcile some concepts in the Bible to satisfy human reason. So you may choose your ultimate standard. Your ability to reason or the Bible. If you go with reason, you will eventually run into other logical contradictions. We are finite and sinful. We cannot rationalize all of reality. The attempt to do so always results in contradiction, Christian or non-Christian. But I believe God is Absolute Rationality and there are no real contradictions in Him or His word. The fault is ours, not His.

"I don't define free will that way. If you do, you exclude the possibility of God."
Notready

I do not exclude the possibility of God. I don't believe God is omnipotent.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't reconcile some concepts in the Bible to satisfy human reason. So you may choose your ultimate standard. Your ability to reason or the Bible. If you go with reason, you will eventually run into other logical contradictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what I am about to say, I am not referring to various Christian doctrines that have mystical or supernatural implications that cannot be fully apprehended by human reason because it is too limited in its understanding.

By your statements above you imply that various Christian doctrines can be logically inconsistent with each other or with the human reason that God has given us. Since God is truth and cannot be the author of error, how can this be? The rational explanation is that either Christianity is false, or that your understanding of it is in error. I cannot see how anyone but a cult member can believe that although some things might not be fully explained by God, that it is possible that sound doctrine is in conflict with itself internally or with its core axioms, or with human reason once those axioms are accepted, even if those axioms could not be proved to a virtual certainty to non-believers. Note that in all this I am talking about logical implications when I speak of reason, and not about whether certain beliefs appear "reasonable" on their face apart from the whole.

Thus, the only logical explanation for two conflicting passages in the bible (assuming one is not an OT one supersed by the NT), is an explanation that is a synthesis of two taken in the context of the entire bible and consonant with core axiomatic beliefs and logic, or that one of the two has to be understood in a more limited sense.

I have had to word this extremely carefully and might have to ammend it, because you-know-who will examine it minutely.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


I'll read the article later, but I strongly disagree with this statement. I know there is a verse that says that, but I think it can be easily shown it is referring to evil in the sense of injury or disaster - for instance, God created Katrina. But in Him there is no darkness and He doesn't even tempt to sin. The word author is normally associated with cause in the proximate sense, and I think most theologians reject that usage.


[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that God created evil stems from the fact that nothing exists that was not created by God. Rephrasing the syllogism

1) Everything that has a beginning was created by God (John 1:3)
2) All that God does is good and just (definition)
3) Evil exists (do I need to prove this?)
4) Either: (from 3)
4a) Evil had no begining, and we're left with two forces in the universe, God and Evil. I think I can muster up sufficient Scripture to disprove that, but I don't think I need to
OR
4b) Evil had a begining
Continuing from 4b)
5) Evil was created by God (1 and 4b)
6) The creation of evil by God was good and just (5 and 2)

The article addresses the verses you cite as well.

[ QUOTE ]

It must be. How many Christians have exactly the right idea of predestination? Plus I don't see it as part of the Gospel.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that it is true in the sense that no one can have a perfect understanding of predestination, but to reclarify:

Is it true that one can know all the Scripture's testimonies and explicit teachings regarding predestination, reject it, and still be saved?

IE) I know that the Bible teaches that God foreordains all things, even my salvation, but I don't believe it and I think it is false.

On another note:Can we have a person who says in his heart: God, I chose you. You gave me life, you gave me breath, but you didn't give me faith. This faith was my own, it is not of your doing. Now save me, because I chose you. I believed that you died for me and you washed my sins away. Would God honor his request?

I have answers of my own, I'm curious to how you would answer these.

[udontknowmickey]

Bluff, I agree with almost all of what you wrote. One exception:

[ QUOTE ]

Since God is truth and cannot be the author of error, how can this be?


[/ QUOTE ]
God being truth doesn't mean He cannot be the author of error. Did He not send a lying spirit in 1 Kings 22:23)

"Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you."

But everything else you've said is pretty much spot on. It is an accurate criticism of much of mainline Calvinism. But you'll notice that my worldview (which I will say is the biblical one until proven otherwise) is completely intact. I have affirmed all the logical implications that the sovereignty of God leads to. I have given a (as clear as I was able) explanation for how human responsibility isn't contradictory to divine sovereignty.

The Bible is infallible, and it's words are clear. It is merely we as fallible human beings that insert false presuppositions where they do not exist. We, (including me) are all guilty of that.

[David Sklansky]

"The Word never explains in detail what predestination means, it never uses the phrase "free will", and it never uses the word design with respect to those who are lost. That's why I stick to Scripture which says that God is sovereign and man is responsible. Calvin did the same and he never discussed predestination without severe warnings against undue speculation."

Then why not assume an interpretation that doesn't get you into difficulties with so many other Christians? I feel like the gunslinger in the movies who throws his unarmed opponent a gun before a duel. Don't you realize that all your deep thinking about Christianity and evolution will not be taken seriously if you insist on believing in stuff that even you say is not necessary to believe in?

[David Sklansky]

3) God doesn't have to and sometimes doesn't offer such men a chance at redemption by hearing and responding to the gospel.

All you have to do to make this sound not so terrible is say that people like that are similar to animals, are sometimes useful to people who will be saved, and have will have no afterlife at all. I'm trying to help you Protestants out here. Otherwise it's BluffTHIS in a walk.

Man has free will, therefore God is not omnipotent.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
3) God doesn't have to and sometimes doesn't offer such men a chance at redemption by hearing and responding to the gospel.

All you have to do to make this sound not so terrible is say that people like that are similar to animals, are sometimes useful to people who will be saved, and have will have no afterlife at all. I'm trying to help you Protestants out here. Otherwise it's BluffTHIS in a walk.

[/ QUOTE ]

This won't work because we Christians believe that God created us in His own image, which is not true of the animals over whom He gave us dominion, and thus all men in fact have eternal souls, whether their eternal fate is salvation or damnation.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't believe God is omnipotent.


[/ QUOTE ]

We define God differently.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

you imply that various Christian doctrines can be logically inconsistent with each other or with the human reason that God has given us.


[/ QUOTE ]

I clearly don't imply this because I also said the following:

[ QUOTE ]

But I believe God is Absolute Rationality and there are no real contradictions in Him or His word.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are many doctrines that we do not understand fully. They appear to us to be unreasonable or contradictory. The appearance of contradiction is paradox and is not the same as actual contradiction. Paradox exists in the Bible but logical contradiction does not.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Is it true that one can know all the Scripture's testimonies and explicit teachings regarding predestination, reject it, and still be saved?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really talking about errors in doctrine. What you are describing is a willful rejection of God's word even though the person knows the correct interpretation. I don't know, can a Christian commit murder because he knows he's forgiven and so won't go to hell? I view the two as stemming from the same attitude and perhaps evidence that the person isn't really a Christian.

Paul said someone can eat meat freely but if he believes it's sin, then it is sin. So if it's ok to eat meat and I believe it isn't ok I'm making a doctrinal error. I should become a vegetarian. But if I say I don't care what God says about eating meat and so I'm going to do so, I'm sinning.

We shouldn't judge whether someone who acts as the above is a real Christian but that person should reconsider the sincerity of his faith. On doctrinal disputes, I believe we should be charitable and civil and remember how often we've been wrong in the past and are likely to be again.

As to your last example, I think what you are doing is trying to quantify saving faith, or to set down in words what someone has to think in order to be saved. No one really thinks just what you wrote and nothing more. We are far more complex than that. If someone has an attitude of demanding salvation from God it raises the question of whether or not genuine faith is possible. Saving faith requires trust in God alone for salvation. Can you do that and still make salvation a demand, something God owes you?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

if you insist on believing in stuff that even you say is not necessary to believe in?


[/ QUOTE ]

I said it isn't necessary to believe for salvation. But it's in the Bible. If the Bible is the infallible word of God, if predestination is in the Bible, how can I deny predestination? I effectively deny the divinity of the Bible.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

and have will have no afterlife at all


[/ QUOTE ]

I've said before I don't exclude the possibility of annihilation. I even hope it's true. But the Bible seems to say otherwise. And I think the fact that God is just takes care of the problem.

If it's Bluff in a walk on this issue then he has other difficulties, such as the Bible itself.

[NotReady]

OK I read the article. Since he likes to get to the point directly, I will. Why did Adam sin? He doesn't discuss this, and Adam's sin is where all these discussions must eventually arrive.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


I'm really talking about errors in doctrine. What you are describing is a willful rejection of God's word even though the person knows the correct interpretation. I don't know, can a Christian commit murder because he knows he's forgiven and so won't go to hell? I view the two as stemming from the same attitude and perhaps evidence that the person isn't really a Christian.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I agree with you here. I just want to make sure that we're on the same page.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


OK I read the article. Since he likes to get to the point directly, I will. Why did Adam sin? He doesn't discuss this, and Adam's sin is where all these discussions must eventually arrive.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is addressed in Vincent' Cheung's book "Systematic Theology", which is free online at:

http://www.rmiweb.org/books/theology2003.pdf

Do a quick search for "The Work of Christ"

I will give a brief description of it here:

The reason Adam sinned is the same reason anything happened. For the glory of God.

To deny that God had sovereign control over Adam's sin would be the same as affirming that there exists some other force in the universe outside of God's control.

1) God actively causes and works all things for His glory.
2) God is absolutely sovereign over everything.
3) Adam sinned.
4) God was sovereign over the act of Adam's sin
5) God actively causes and works Adam's sin out for His glory.

You, as well as I, even if we deny God's sovereignty and show that God had the power to not have Adam's sin. Did not God give us the Law? All he had to do was to make it so that there were no rules! No judgement then! No sin! But God did lay down the law, with His divine foreknowledge that Adam would transgress and plundge all of humanity into sin.

Why? Because He had planned also to send His Son to redeem His people, that His glory may be shown in their redemption and in the destruction of the reprobates. Revelation 18-19 demonstrate this exact thing happening. God is given praise for His righteous judgement upon Babylon.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But God did lay down the law, with His divine foreknowledge that Adam would transgress and plundge all of humanity into sin.


[/ QUOTE ]

But did God cause Adam's sin, force him to sin, is He the author of Adams's sin, did Adam have a real choice?

Calvin states that Adam had free will but he doesn't discuss it.

[udontknowmickey]

You realize that this question is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I put forth a syllogism on evil's existence. If the assumptions are true (God created everything that has a beginning, Everything God does is good and just, Evil exists, only God has existed from eternity), and the logic is true (which I do believe and no one has pointed out otherwise), then the logic is inescapable. God created evil, and in doing so, it was good.

You are merely trying to rabbittrail the entire discussion so you don't have to face the facts.

Thus regardless of if I answer your question or not, my point has already been made unless you choose to dispute the original syllogism.

To answer your question anyways, just to show you that it poses no threat to my worldview:

[ QUOTE ]

But did God cause Adam's sin, force him to sin, is He the author of Adams's sin, did Adam have a real choice?


[/ QUOTE ]

Did God directly cause Adam to sin? Yes.

Did God force Adam to sin?

In a sense yes, but the term "force" has a connotation that it is being resisted to an extent. To imply that Adam could have resisted God's will in this matter even a little bit would be to deny God's complete sovereignty over all things.

Is He the author of Adam's sin? We've already established this. If God is creator and absolute controller of everything, then God created Adam, and caused Him to sin. I have already affirmed that this leads us to conclude that God is the author of all sin. Adam's sin is but one example of this. Christ's crucifixion on the Cross is another.

God being the author of Adam's sin does not make God a sinner. In order for God to be a sinner, He must create a law, and break it, but this is impossible, because it is God who defines what our laws are.

Did Adam have a real choice?

You'll have to define what you mean by "real" against "fake." I deny that Adam's decision was made apart from God's sovereign will and thus was never "free" from God.

[ QUOTE ]

Calvin states that Adam had free will but he doesn't discuss it.


[/ QUOTE ]

How is this relevant? You and I both know that the Reformers did some things/taught some things that were not in accordance to Scripture. Just because Calvin says one thing doesn't mean it's true. Just because you or I say something doesn't mean it's true. But when Scripture says something, it is true.

[David Sklansky]

"You are merely trying to rabbittrail the entire discussion so you don't have to face the facts."

Oh my God! A debate between Not Ready and udon'tknowmickey! I'm on the edge of my seat!

[David Sklansky]

"This won't work because we Christians believe that God created us in His own image, which is not true of the animals over whom He gave us dominion, and thus all men in fact have eternal souls, whether their eternal fate is salvation or damnation."

But even Not Ready says it might work. If some humans cannot be saved it seems reasonable to assume they have the same fate as animals even if they are in a different category. (I can't believe I'm doing this.)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

God created everything that has a beginning, Everything God does is good and just, Evil exists, only God has existed from eternity


[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to get technical evil is not a thing.

Your post is a good example of what happens when we try to rationalize that which is above our understanding and not revealed by God. Good and necessary consequence run amok. When you say God forced Adam to sin and then holds the entire human race guilty you are effectively redefining any intelligible concept of justice. Perhaps this is the real situation. In that case, I frankly don't have a clue what justice means.

[David Sklansky]

"I said it isn't necessary to believe for salvation. But it's in the Bible. If the Bible is the infallible word of God, if predestination is in the Bible, how can I deny predestination? I effectively deny the divinity of the Bible."

Thank you for that very good question. Father David will now explain. Remember when talking about dying with no afterlife you said, "but the Bible seems to say otherwise"? With such a statement comes the admission that there are parts of the Bible that are not crystal clear. Perhaps that is due to faulty translations. Perhaps it is due to reading comprehension issues. Whatever. Just because the Bible is infallible, doesn't mean your interpretation of it is. Do you really think that those Christians who interpret the predesination issue differently than you are all blatently lying to themselves about absolutely clear cut passages? Surely there is some legitimate ways to come to different conclusions about those passages.

Its like a contract bridge problem. Sometimes there is much to gain and nothing to lose by assuming the unlikely possibility that an opponent has, for instance, no hearts. It s OK to profess your doubts my son. But realize that if you don't make that assumption, you marginalize yourself and lose much of your power to persuade others of the more important aspects of Christianity. Do you think God wants you to waste your talents that way? Now you are lumped in the same boat as udon'tknowmickey. Do you want that? It's not like I am suggesting you become Catholic or something equally terrible.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you really think that those Christians who interpret the predesination issue differently than you are all blatently lying to themselves about absolutely clear cut passages?


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea why you say this. I thought I made it very clear that predestination is a difficult concept and that I don't know what it means in its entirety and that I can't reconcile predestination and man's responsibility. Nevertheless the Bible is clear that God predestines and that man is guilty. So am I supposed to say those passages are not part of God's word?

[udontknowmickey]

It sounds like you're running through Romans 9 again.

Justice is defined by who God is and what He does. We have no claim to question God in saying that we think His actions are injust.

~~~

Replace evil with anything else that is a "thing."

The creation of tornadoes is good
the creation of Hitler is good
the creation of Pilate is good.
the creation of a fallen human race is good.

You're avoiding the point.

If you can claim that there exist contradictory (to us) things in the Bible that we can affirm at the same time, why aren't we justified by faith alone AND faith and works? Why can't we say Jesus is the only way AND Buddah can get you to heaven too... The possibilities are endless.

The instant you deny the right application of logic to Christianity, you deny all the foundational truths you stand for.

Even the WCF, which you said you hold on to (with some reservations) says it clearly 1:6

"1:6 The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture"

emphasis added. If you deny that we can apply logic to all of Scripture, why not deny the trinity, after all, it isn't explicit in the Bible. Why not deny Scripture's infallibility? It isn't explicitly in the Bible.

By the way, "human responsibility" isn't in the Bible either.

NotReady, my beef isn't with you. I will still affirm that you are a brother in Christ, and I admire your willingness to continue to dialogue with the 2+2 community, especially on such a volitile topic, but I do take issue when I feel like God is being poorly represented, and I feel the claims of "mystery" and "paradox" applied to God are exactly that.

I do hope that God would convict you that it is absolutely necessary to use logic in application to everything Scripture says. There is nothing wrong with God being the author of sin.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I do hope that God would convict you that it is absolutely necessary to use logic


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't deny that logic should be applied to Scripture. But logic is to be judged by Scripture, not the reverse.

[ QUOTE ]

If you can claim that there exist contradictory (to us) things in the Bible that we can affirm at the same time, why aren't we justified by faith alone AND faith and works?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Bible doesn't say that. And I don't say there is any contradiction in the Bible. There is paradox, the appearance of contradiction - "now we see in a mirror darlky", "there are some things in Paul hard to understand".

About a month ago I was at a point in my thinking concerning a doctrine of the Bible that has been giving me fits for several years. I finally decided to ask John Frame about it and was pretty sure what he would say (for those of you who don't know Dr. Frame is a well known theologian in Reformed circles, professor and author of some outstanding books). At the same time I had a feeling we would be getting into the predestiantion issue on this forum and I asked him how he discussed this doctrine with non-Christians. He has given me permission to quote him, so this is what he said:

[ QUOTE ]

In presenting this to intelligent non-Christians, I would emphasize that we have to be honest and admit what we don't know. If the Bible is true,we should expect to find some questions unanswered and unanswerable. If we could understand everything about God, he would not be the
incomprehensible God of Scripture. So the existence of mystery actually verifies the truth of Christianity. In any case, some non-Christians will appreciate the intellectual humility and honesty of this approach. Others will not. But that's the way it is in apologetics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was pretty sure this would be his response because it's pretty close to what Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther and many others would say.

[spaminator101]

Yeh, I thought one between me and udon'tknowmickey would be possible over our differences in free will but this, this. I really didn't expect this.

[udontknowmickey]

Alright then, I've said all that I wanted to say. Thanks for this dialogue

[NotReady]

I want to give one example from Scripture just by way of illustration. I'm not saying the following applies exactly the same to predestination of the saved and lost, but simply as food for thought.

Acts 2:23
this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
John 10
17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

The first passage states that the crucifixion is predestined. The second passage is in the words of Christ and he states that no one takes His life from Him, but that He does it of His own accord. Anyone familiar with His struggle in the Garden knows that His decision was not an easy one.

Notice that Jesus goes to the cross voluntarily. The ones who put Him there He could have easily defeated. He could have even avoided going to Jerusalem. God does not force Him to go or to submit to the soldiers. Yet that He would do so was fixed in eternity by God's counsel. Also note that in the Garden He said "Let this cup pass from Me. Yet not My will, but Thine be done." He was unwilling and willing at the same time. Also notice that the men who put Him to death are not excused by the fact that their actions were predetermined. Nor is there any indication they were forced.

I give this as an example of predestination and foreknowledge from the Bible. There are other examples which are similar. The teaching I get from this is that God plans and controls everything but sin and unbelief are not by this excused. I think that this much is plain. How this is possible is difficult and obscure. God tells us what we need to know, which as I've said a few times before, God is sovereign and man is responsible.

[udontknowmickey]

a few points, and then this really will be my last post.

1) I agree with you in all that you've said about predestination and and human responsibility, I was merely pointing out that the term "human responsibility" is not to be found in the Bible.

2) I had already previously pointed out that there is no feeling of 'being forced' like it's unwilling in the context I was speaking about. If it is God's will that an apple would fall from this tree, the apple has no choice in the matter. Likewise, if it is God's will hat Pharoah will harden his heart and not let the hebrews go, then Pharaoh has no sense that "no, I want to let them go." If it's God's will that David takes a census and chooses to incite satan to do so, there is no thinking on David's part "I feel like God is making me take a census, but I don't want to". If it's God's will, then it will be done, no feelings of being force.

3) If we deny that God is sovereign and active over every aspect of our life (and the universe for that matter), we're left with the question: then how does the universe run?

Do we have a watchmaker God now?

4) I have already given a reason for how divine sovereignty and human responsibility are logically compatible. The inconsistancy lies within our false presupposition that: responsibilty presupposes freedom.

Instead, responsibility presupposes a judge who will hold us accountable. An omnipotent, omniscent judge and a system of rules we will be held accountable to.

If we were under no one's control, but no one would hold us accountable for what we did, we would no longer be responsible.

And before I am accused of equivocating, notice the wording used in the passage of Romans 9:

19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" (ESV)

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" (NIV)

19(AK)You will say to me then, "(AL)Why does He still find fault? For (AM)who resists His will?" (NASB)

Notice the wording across the board is God judging us. Not us "having" human responsibility. We are responsible because God judges us.

My point throughout this series of posts was not to put the blame of sin on God, but to point out that it is illogical to say that God isn't the author of sin of we do in fact preach predestination. It's not like it's a sin to be the author of sin anyways. We are too quick to run away from terminology that should not scare us.

Ok, that's my last post then. Notready, you may have the last word.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Notready, you may have the last word.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just one point for clarification. What I mean about "human responsibility" is that man is responsible for his guilt, not God. That I think I can establish from Scripture.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
There are many doctrines that we do not understand fully. They appear to us to be unreasonable or contradictory. The appearance of contradiction is paradox and is not the same as actual contradiction. Paradox exists in the Bible but logical contradiction does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet you are comfortable with a view of Christianity that consists of a set of interpretations that are logically contradictory internally with each other and in some cases with its core premises. I find it ironic that it is the non-believer-in-chief here, David, who has pointed out that an explanation for such contradictions is your believing in wrong interpretations of the bible. The thread I started entitled "A Question for Protestants", addresses this topic but you have yet to respond there.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

that are logically contradictory internally with each other and in some cases with its core premises.


[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to this is in the very statement you quote.

[BluffTHIS!]

Demonstrate a logical contradiction in the things I have said.

[NotReady]

I didn't say there is one.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say there is one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just wait til David gets hold of this.

[BluffTHIS!]

I'm bumping this thread so it doesn't get lost in the crowd.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually I have thought a lot about this [does God love Satan]. I really don't know. This one is very hard for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd be as productive thinking hard about whether Bert and Ernie were gay.

[bronzepiglet]

[ QUOTE ]
God set out a test, and the Christians failed.

See, he instilled us with a powerful mind capable of reason, logic, compassion, etc. He gave us dominion over all the earth. And he gave us a set of lies which would betray everything good in us -- told us we were insignificant, unworthy, unable to do anything for ourselves without his help or mercy. Those who bought into this schtick (aka Christians) sickened the Almighty. But there were those who chose to ignore that hogwash and took pleasure in their god-given bodies and minds and lived as free-thinking men rather than unworthy sheep, and were good in heart not because it offered some afterlife reward but because it was the course of reason. These men lived as creators, challenging the world and the ideas around them, rather than sacrifice their given faculties for reason in favor of comfortable myths. These men passed the test and were the true receivers of God's blessings.

[/ QUOTE ]

A very noble picture, indeed.

Interesting, though, that most people in so-called developed nations receive 4-6 hours of instructions a day from television on exactly what to buy, what to wear, how to talk, what to believe, how to use their time, how to think (or not think), etc. and spend their lives as mindless automatons.

But the subset of them that also believe a few "myths" are the only ones squandering the "blessings" and deserving of scorn?