|
standman87
|
 |
« Reply #40 on: July 21, 2003, 10:46:36 PM » |
|
By the way... sorry if it sounded like I was jumping all over you, Stanton. I didn't mean to sound like I was condemning you or dismissing your opinion without thinking it over. Don't worry Josh - you can pound the Stanton pretty hard before he goes crying in a corner. I usually just respond appropriately. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I tried to say the right things in the right way, but simple silence is the only way to conclude my attempt.
Ponderings and then restatements from both sides will cause more of the same.
So remember: Stan, yes, this man, gave his best and is leaving it up to you and Him to do the rest.
Farewell
|
|
|
|
standman87
|
|
« Reply #41 on: July 21, 2003, 10:49:11 PM » |
|
God has everything that ever has ever has been and ever will be totally planned out, down to every last detail. Exactly, because He is all-knowing. Haven't you ever thought that to let someone do something is still having power over them, for they can't do it without your 'letting it happen'? God lets us make our own decisions - yes - even when it comes to salvation. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 21, 2003, 10:55:21 PM by standman87 »
|
Logged
|
I tried to say the right things in the right way, but simple silence is the only way to conclude my attempt.
Ponderings and then restatements from both sides will cause more of the same.
So remember: Stan, yes, this man, gave his best and is leaving it up to you and Him to do the rest.
Farewell
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #42 on: July 21, 2003, 10:49:42 PM » |
|
God has everything that ever has ever has been and ever will be totally planned out, down to every last detail.
Yes, Scripture supports this; Proverbs tells us that God has His hand on every lot that is cast. And that's pretty trivial stuff. And though I disagree with you, Stanton, I'm at least glad to see that you don't think God can change His mind, which an alarmingly high number of Christians seem to believe. If God could change His mind, then we'd all be in a world of hurt, methinks; what's to say He wouldn't one day decide to just scrap that whole salvation thing? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
standman87
|
|
« Reply #43 on: July 21, 2003, 10:58:29 PM » |
|
Haven't you ever thought that to let someone do something is still having power over them, for they can't do it without your 'letting it happen'? God lets us make our own decisions - yes - even when it comes to salvation. Please dont miss my last edit / add-on. I think it makes a great point worth making sure you read it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I tried to say the right things in the right way, but simple silence is the only way to conclude my attempt.
Ponderings and then restatements from both sides will cause more of the same.
So remember: Stan, yes, this man, gave his best and is leaving it up to you and Him to do the rest.
Farewell
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #44 on: July 21, 2003, 11:13:31 PM » |
|
God lets us make our own decisions - yes - even when it comes to salvation. No He doesn't. Jesus tells us in John that "you did not choose Me, I chose you." Romans tells us that there are NO righteous men, and that there is no one who seeks God. Elsewhere in Romans, we are told that, before we become Christians, we are SLAVES to the sinful nature; slaves don't have freedom. Slaves do what their masters tell them (they have no choice), and, in this case, the master is our sinful nature, which prevents us from choosing God unless He intervenes on our behalf. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #45 on: July 22, 2003, 07:40:55 AM » |
|
I should point out that a serious debate on the issue merits a new thread. Of course, this thread will do in a pinch as well... I would like to comment on Josh's essay for a moment. There were several points that I thought were fairly easily refuted and a few that I'm not sure I can refute without resorting to the semantic trickery that has shadowed this debate. One part that I was fairly disturbed by, though, was the analogy at the end. For those who don't wish to read the whole thing, it proceeds: Free will could be likened to a loving father (God) who lives with his two children (mankind) by a set of train tracks. These children happen to be blind and deaf. One day, the father sees his two children playing on the train tracks, unaware of a quickly-approaching train that will spell certain doom for the two youngsters. Now, the father knows good and well that the children cannot save themselves from disaster and death, but, since he values their free will over their lives, he leaves them to their own devices. He stands, ready to embrace his children if they flee from the train, but he refuse to run out and save them, which he could easily do. Arminianism teaches that God fully knows that some of His beloved will not accept His offer for grace, but He stands by, willingly watching them perish, when He could easily save them and take them away to eternal joy with Him. I ask you, is this a loving God? The problem with using simile or metaphor to convey one's point is that the validity of the argument depends on the accuracy of the metaphor. In this case, Josh's metaphor is critically flawed: it does not represent the way man relates to God in practically ANY worldview popularly held. I will attempt to give a better one: God, once again, is a loving father with two children (mankind) playing by the train tracks. These children happen to be blind and deaf. As He sees a train rushing towards his beloved children, He runs to them, trying to pull them off the tracks. One of the children allows Him to do so, being dragged to safety. The other child resists, struggling against His attempts. The Father could force this child off the tracks, but instead He stands there, weeping bitterly and holding out His hand, as the child refuses to believe that the train could possibly hit him. The Father allows the child to reap the consequences of his bad decision, though He knows what the results will be. In predestination, on the other hand, the situation is the same: Father, kids, and train. But here, the Father runs forth, forces one child off of the tracks, and pushes the other one down, keeping him there until the train kills him. Which is the more loving Father? The one who saves those who will be saved but allows those who don't want to be saved to have their own way, or the one who saves some, whether they want to be saved or not, and forces the rest to writhe in eternal torment? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #46 on: July 22, 2003, 09:26:26 AM » |
|
Not a bad analogy, but it falls apart at the end when you claim that the Father leaves some of his children to writhe in pain; Calvinism states that every last one of God's people is saved, period. In free will, only some are saved. (Only the elect, remember, are God's people).
Another flaw: The child who decides to stay on the tracks and be hit is self-destructive and, in a word, stupid. And the Father, of course, knows this. So I honestly can't see how giving him his choice and letting him die is the loving thing to do, because the child, like all of us, is woefully MESSED UP.
Here's a totally unrelated question that I would ask to Vlad! (and anyone else on his side of this debate): When you become a father, what do you intend to do about your children going to church. Do you make them go to church and hear about Jesus? What if the children sit you down and tell you that they dislike church and they have no interest in Christ, and they ask you not to talk about it? What do you do: Honor their choice (which could be deterimental to their eternal fate) or ignore their choice (which could very well save their lives)? The question of election seems to be similar; it's a matter of priority. Which comes first: Choice or eternal life?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #47 on: July 22, 2003, 10:17:54 AM » |
|
Not a bad analogy, but it falls apart at the end when you claim that the Father leaves some of his children to writhe in pain; Calvinism states that every last one of God's people is saved, period. In free will, only some are saved. (Only the elect, remember, are God's people).
Not so! In my analogy, both of the children are creations of the Father, not children in the predestinationist sense that both have been chosen. Another flaw: The child who decides to stay on the tracks and be hit is self-destructive and, in a word, stupid. And the Father, of course, knows this. So I honestly can't see how giving him his choice and letting him die is the loving thing to do, because the child, like all of us, is woefully MESSED UP. The one who decides to stay on the tracks is indeed being self-destructive. I can't pass judgement on God Himself as to which is more loving, especially because I can't see the whole picture. But here's how I see it: God has, as His master plan, an incredible future in store for us. He has spared no effort in making sure that His beloved will be close to Him. But heaven is so glorious because we will be close to God. If being close to God is not something that a person wants (e.g. the child who resists the Father on the tracks), God will not force us into heaven. It's not that humans are 'thwarting' God's plan in any way, but rather He is allowing us freedom to choose. I can certainly see what you're saying, especially with the child to church analogy. To take a break for a second and address that very question, I would say that I will bring my young children to church regardless of whether they think it's boring. If a child tells me that he thinks Christianity itself is a waste of his time and that he would rather not participate in church at all, he has reached the age where he can make a rational decision, even a wrong one. It would wound me deeply, and I would feel that my parenting was at fault (which it quite likely would be), but I wouldn't force a child who made a rational and thinking choice to go against that choice without his permission. What it boils down to (at least for this little corner of the discussion) then is whether we as humans are qualified to make our own decisions on the matter. The Calvinist would say we are not--we're no better than the toddler who lashes out at the parent for taking him to church because he thinks it's boring or for some other superficial reason. A free-will advocate would say that once we reach adulthood we have the ability to make a thought-out choice, even though many do not think or make a poor choice. I believe the latter: God created us with the ability to think and make decsions because He wanted us to choose Him of our own free will. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #48 on: July 22, 2003, 02:16:57 PM » |
|
Not so! In my analogy, both of the children are creations of the Father, not children in the predestinationist sense that both have been chosen.
Okay, well, if both of them are beloved children, and if we look at it from my Calvinist point of view, then both would be saved. Period. The Father rescues every last one of His people. God created us with the ability to think and make decsions because He wanted us to choose Him of our own free will. I know of several places in Scripture that refute this, and I used several of them earlier in this debate, I believe when I was addressing Stanton. So forgive me if this is redundant, but... Romans tells us that we are slaves to our sinful nature, and slaves have no freedom; they do what their master (sin in this case) tells them. Romans also tells us that there are none who seek God. So when given the choice between two paths, people will ALWAYS take the one that is less godly, more sinful, unless God intervenes and prods us onto the right path (and this is done in different way- sometimes He loves us into loving Him, sometimes we have to go kicking and screaming). There are none righteous, no not one... I could go on. But I won't. I'll be totally honest with you; I don't understand the free will position AT ALL, and I really and truely have yet to see a Scripture that looks like it supports that position. Having said that, you seem to have thought this thing out well, and I certainly respect your opinion, even if I don't "get it." So I'm not going to beat this discussion to death; I've given several verses that I think are strong support of my opsition, and I doubt that I'd get any further by giving you any more. Though I will, if you want me to.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #49 on: July 22, 2003, 02:33:31 PM » |
|
Okay, well, if both of them are beloved children, and if we look at it from my Calvinist point of view, then both would be saved. Period. The Father rescues every last one of His people. No, you fail to understand: I'm not saying that both the children have to be beloved, just that they're children! Even Calvinists believe that God created those that He condemns. I'm sure you've mentioned this before, but I want to be clear on it: do you believe that people have free will in how we live? As in, does God: a: Control us, so we have no will of our own b: Set us along a path that we cannot resist, so while individual actions might be willed the general path of our life is not controlled by us c: Not control us at all, but know what we will do anyway d: Not control us and not know what we're going to do at all or something that I've missed altogether? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #50 on: July 22, 2003, 02:48:46 PM » |
|
I'm not saying that both the children have to be beloved, just that they're children! Even Calvinists believe that God created those that He condemns.
Oh, ok, sure. Then that's fair. Because no, God does not save all of His creation. Doesn't even try to. I'm sure you've mentioned this before, but I want to be clear on it: do you believe that people have free will in how we live? Well, let me put it this way. There are exactly two kinds of events in the world: 1. Events that God FORCES to happen. The Flood, for instance, was sent directly from God. 2. Events that God merely allows to happen. He did not torment Job, for example; He merely chose not to do anything about Job's torment. All of our actions fall under one of those categories. The human nature, by definition, forces us to do what is unwise, unrighteous, and ungodly, 100% of the time. God, however, intervenes sometimes by way of the Holy Spirit. So, basically, when you do something wrong, it's your own fault; you screwed up, and God chose not to do anything about it. When you do something right, though, it's the result of the Holy Spirit pordding you toward what is good and true. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
smartash
|
|
« Reply #51 on: July 30, 2003, 04:09:39 PM » |
|
i just want to take a moment to squeeze a tiny comment in here and then let the thread carry on as before: it is SO beautiful to see all of you so very passionate about your beliefs AND the fact that you all have scripture/philosophy/intelligents to back them up. wonderful! in a world (and in the christian church) that is so lost in complacency, such knowledge of critical biblical issues is so rare!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\"I haven't come for only you, but for my people to pursue. you cannot care for Me with no regard for Her; if you love Me you will love the Church.\"
\"i am a whore i do confess, i put You on just like a wedding dress and i run down the aisle, run down the aisle. i'm a prodical with no way home, i put You on just like a ring of gold and i run down the aisle, i run down the aisle to You.\"
-- Derek Webb, She must and Shall Go Free
|
|
|
|
standman87
|
|
« Reply #52 on: July 30, 2003, 10:52:55 PM » |
|
...God does not save all of His creation. Doesn't even try to. Admiting that a predestinationist do not believe in a loving God could stop all of the debates. I think the Bible is clear that God tries to lead all people to Him, but some just reject Him. This saddens Him, but that is the risk He takes - to have such joy in those that accept. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I tried to say the right things in the right way, but simple silence is the only way to conclude my attempt.
Ponderings and then restatements from both sides will cause more of the same.
So remember: Stan, yes, this man, gave his best and is leaving it up to you and Him to do the rest.
Farewell
|
|
|
|
DvChWi
|
|
« Reply #53 on: July 30, 2003, 11:10:17 PM » |
|
Admiting that a predestinationist do not believe in a loving God could stop all of the debates. I think the Bible is clear that God tries to lead all people to Him, but some just reject Him. This saddens Him, but that is the risk He takes - to have such joy in those that accept. Hey, a predestinationist God is still loving. Remember, God owes us nothing at all, sinful as we are. To give redemption to even some people is the greatest possible act of love. For a definative statement of God's choosing in the scriptures, read Romans 9. I don't think there is any way of getting around that passage. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Fun facts about Chuck Norris:
Newton's Third Law is wrong: Although it states that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, there is no force equal in reaction to a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Chuck Norris CAN believe it's not butter.
|
|
|
|
BigBird
|
|
« Reply #54 on: July 31, 2003, 12:07:00 AM » |
|
John 10
22Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. 24The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."
25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one." Just one example of Jesus being completely honest with those that are not His children. He actually tells them that they are not His sheep. This makes complete sense to me as a "Calvinist", how does a free-willist explain it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ixoye41
|
|
« Reply #55 on: July 31, 2003, 12:16:37 AM » |
|
In verse 25 there Jesus says "I did tell you, but you do not believe".
He is saying that the people he is speaking to have already chosen not to be his sheep. He follows that up by confirming that they indeed are not his sheep.
Lets not leave out the remainder of this story though. It goes on to say that the Jews wanted to stone Jesus and he begins to explain to them why they should believe in him (see v37-38). Why would Jesus bother to explain why they should believe him if they could not eventually see the light and turn to him?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
[][
|
|
|
|
BigBird
|
|
« Reply #56 on: July 31, 2003, 12:20:43 AM » |
|
perhaps he was delivering a message to all the people, maybe he didn't know whom the Father had chosen...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DvChWi
|
|
« Reply #57 on: July 31, 2003, 12:43:08 AM » |
|
Why would Jesus bother to explain why they should believe him if they could not eventually see the light and turn to him? Calvinism does not leave out the path taken to salvation, as in hearing the message, thinking about it, and making the decsion(yes, you did make a decision, but God predetermined you would and made it possible). Calvinists still share the Gospel with all, because we have no idea who the elect are. In Jesus' case, he still would preach to the whole group, even though some were non-elect. I still challenge you to take on Romans 9..... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Fun facts about Chuck Norris:
Newton's Third Law is wrong: Although it states that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, there is no force equal in reaction to a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Chuck Norris CAN believe it's not butter.
|
|
|
|
BigBird
|
|
« Reply #58 on: July 31, 2003, 12:52:43 AM » |
|
^^^
yeah he said it better
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oneafroboy
|
|
« Reply #59 on: July 31, 2003, 11:07:13 AM » |
|
I usually don't like doing freewill vs predestination debates, because that was an issue heavily discussed throughout my four years of high school at a Presbyterian school.
I will say this. If we all believe the Bible is true and is without error (at least in its orginial text), then we have a starting ground for discussing this topic. There is no way around the aformentioned verses presented here by a few of the Calvanists. Predestination is a word used in the Bible. We all must agree then, if the first condition is met (believing the Bible to be true), that there is such a thing as predestination. Maybe we can discuss what that word *means*, but we cannot deny the fact that God has "predestined an elect". (I think others did a good job in giving references to this. See previous posts.) It is then also important to note the places in which we see God has "predestined" those He "foreknew". (For example, see 1 Peter 1:1-2.)
Now, if you are like me, who did not grow in an explicitly Calvanistic denomination, where you didn't hear the word predestination until high school (or something like that), it doesn't make sense. Personally, I reacted to it. I said it wasn't true. My response was something like this:
"Then why does God still blame us? For who resists His will?"
Of course, Paul knew the answer to this. He said, "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? ... Does not the potter have the irght to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
(You can find this in Romans 9.)
But the more I read, the more I couldn't deny the fact that I was chosen. So, next I went to the other extreme. We have no choice, etc., etc. But then, too, I felt I was missing the picture. As I continued to read, I realized it wasn't simply predestination. My science teacher, recently having become a Presbyterian pastor, puts it this way: "The fact is predestionation and the mystery lies in free will." Somehow, the two work together. We still make the decision, that God foreknew that we would do, and so He predestined it to happen. But it also works like this: God predestined us to make the decision, the He foreknew, and we made it. I think the problem lies in the fact that we always look at time linearly. We forget (and I contest anyone who thinks God did not create time, we know our universe is made out of a space-time fabric of some sort, and God created the universe) the God is outside of time or that maybe time is not linear. Even though we cannot fathom it, maybe God's sovereign choice works together with our wills. The best analogy I can come up with is an author and his/her book. The author is writing the story, but everything the characters do is in character--what they would do anyway. Of course, I know this analogy falls apart at some point, but that's the best we I can reconcile the two--even then, I'm not satisfied.
But here's an interesting question. So do you (who are Calvanists) believe God controls everything? For instance, that He controls whether I eat cereal or waffles for breakfast? Or just slavation? Or whatever He wants? Of course, God's allowance is a form of control.. Anyway, these aren't really my questions but they lead up to a bigger one. Oooh. Actually this deserves another thread. Go back and look for a new thread.
Laterz. B)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\"Living your life like you're trapped in a bad rap video is just not that appealing.\"
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #60 on: July 31, 2003, 11:41:35 AM » |
|
There is no way around the aformentioned verses presented here by a few of the Calvanists. Predestination is a word used in the Bible. We all must agree then, if the first condition is met (believing the Bible to be true), that there is such a thing as predestination. Maybe we can discuss what that word *means*, but we cannot deny the fact that God has "predestined an elect". Exactly. One can debate Calvinism, but debating predestination? That just doesn't work. Well said, Afro. Now, if you are like me, who did not grow in an explicitly Calvanistic denomination, where you didn't hear the word predestination until high school (or something like that), it doesn't make sense. Personally, I reacted to it. I said it wasn't true. My response was something like this:
"Then why does God still blame us? For who resists His will?"
I did grow up in a Calvinist church, but it wasn't until I was a sophomore or so in high school that I myself became a Calvinist. For instance, that He controls whether I eat cereal or waffles for breakfast? Yes and no. I strongly doubt that God is actually forcing you to eat a certain thing for breakfast, but He controls it in the sense that He allows you to eat what you want rather than intervening and miraculously causing you to eat a certain thing. So He is in total control, even if He isn't pushing you around like a little pawn in a chess game. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #61 on: July 31, 2003, 11:44:49 AM » |
|
I was just reminded of a story that seems somewhat relevant, for some reason. Back in the Civil War, there was a certain Calvinist minister who enlisted in the Confederate army. Apparently, he developed quite a reputation for constantly talking about predestination and God's providence. At one point, he was in battle and he dove behind a fence to shield himself from enemy bullets. A fellow soldier saw this and questioned him, asking him why he would hide behind the fence if he really believed in God's sovereign providence. The Calvinist's reply: "Sir, at this exact point in my life, this fence IS God's providence." I love that story.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
|
« Reply #62 on: July 31, 2003, 12:11:27 PM » |
|
Good story, Josh. I think you made what I was trying to say a *lot* less complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oneafroboy
|
|
« Reply #63 on: July 31, 2003, 12:12:24 PM » |
|
Oh, yeah. That ws me--the unregistered guest guy.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\"Living your life like you're trapped in a bad rap video is just not that appealing.\"
|
|
|
|
polka_dot
|
|
« Reply #64 on: July 31, 2003, 01:13:48 PM » |
|
Oookay, I've never really thought much about free will before, so forgive me if sound like an idiot, but I have some questions... Okay, well, if both of them are beloved children, and if we look at it from my Calvinist point of view, then both would be saved. Period. The Father rescues every last one of His people.
The Father rescues all of his people? Does this imply that God forces people to love him? Why would God create people that were forced to love him? Doesn't that basically reduce us down to puppets? I wouldn't want someone loving me because I forced them to. By saying that God created people purposely who didn't love him, are you implying that God willfully chose to put sin in the world? And by that, are you saying that God wanted murderers and rapists in the world? I don't get it. Did God create Adam & Eve to eat the fruit in the garden? Then why did he command them not to eat it? If all of God's people will be saved, why do you share the Gospel? Won't God save them anyways? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
OUT! OUT! You demons of stupidity! - Dogbert
|
|
|
|
DvChWi
|
|
« Reply #65 on: July 31, 2003, 04:19:40 PM » |
|
[/QUOTE] The Father rescues all of his people? Does this imply that God forces people to love him? Why would God create people that were forced to love him? Doesn't that basically reduce us down to puppets? I wouldn't want someone loving me because I forced them to. Yes and no. It is predetermined that we will love God, but from our point of view, we did exactly what we wanted to do. God just un-hardened ours hearts towards him.(Actually, he does more than that, but get what I'm saying) By saying that God created people purposely who didn't love him, are you implying that God willfully chose to
put sin in the world? And by that, are you saying that God wanted murderers and rapists in the world? I don't get it. Yes. A hard truth, but I believe its a truth none the less. Besides, whats scarier, a God who controls absolutely everything, or one that can't control the evil in the world? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Fun facts about Chuck Norris:
Newton's Third Law is wrong: Although it states that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, there is no force equal in reaction to a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Chuck Norris CAN believe it's not butter.
|
|
|
|
DvChWi
|
|
« Reply #66 on: July 31, 2003, 04:20:25 PM » |
|
cont. Did God create Adam & Eve to eat the fruit in the garden? Then why did he command them not to eat it?
Yes, because it was all part of the grand scheme of Redemption. If all of God's people will be saved, why do you share the Gospel? Won't God save them anyways?
See the Civil war wall example. We have no idea who the elect are, so we preach to all. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Fun facts about Chuck Norris:
Newton's Third Law is wrong: Although it states that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, there is no force equal in reaction to a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Chuck Norris CAN believe it's not butter.
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #67 on: July 31, 2003, 05:24:12 PM » |
|
...and, statistically, Calvinist denominations do much more for foreign missions than non-Calvinist churches do. =) Oh, I'm so proud!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BigBird
|
|
« Reply #68 on: July 31, 2003, 05:41:52 PM » |
|
Yeah, the hard reality is that God is in absolute control of everything. I remember Mark and Vlad's mom stating "if only mountains didn't have valleys" in her "If Only" performance poem. The truth is though, that if mountains did not have valleys, then they wouldn't be mountains at all...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
polka_dot
|
|
« Reply #69 on: July 31, 2003, 06:24:34 PM » |
|
Yes. A hard truth, but I believe its a truth none the less. Besides, whats scarier, a God who controls absolutely everything, or one that can't control the evil in the world? I never said that God can't control evil in the world. I believe that he simply chooses not to. God could perfectly well control everything if he wanted to, but he doesn't want to. He wants us to love him, not because he forced us to, but because of his character.... See the Civil war wall example. We have no idea who the elect are, so we preach to all. So you're basically saying that God will ensure that every one of his people will hear the gospel? This is hurting my head. When I die, I'll probably find out that 99% of what I believe isn't truth anyways! But it's fun to debate and try to fit an image of God into my puny brain... Yeah, the hard reality is that God is in absolute control of everything. I remember Mark and Vlad's mom stating "if only mountains didn't have valleys" in her "If Only" performance poem. The truth is though, that if mountains did not have valleys, then they wouldn't be mountains at all... Will there be valleys in heaven? Can't good can exist without evil? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 31, 2003, 06:26:51 PM by polka_dot »
|
Logged
|
OUT! OUT! You demons of stupidity! - Dogbert
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #70 on: July 31, 2003, 07:11:06 PM » |
|
So you're basically saying that God will ensure that every one of his people will hear the gospel?
That's what I believe. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #71 on: July 31, 2003, 07:57:28 PM » |
|
Man, I'm gone for two days and I miss out on some awesome discussion. So now I have to try to address about a million points. If I miss yours, please tell me: I know it makes me mad when someone I'm debating just ignores what I think is a great point, so if I do than I apologize beforehand. And Josh, now you can't whine about not having any backup Ok, let's get this party started: Calvinism does not leave out the path taken to salvation, as in hearing the message, thinking about it, and making the decsion(yes, you did make a decision, but God predetermined you would and made it possible). Calvinists still share the Gospel with all, because we have no idea who the elect are. In Jesus' case, he still would preach to the whole group, even though some were non-elect. I still challenge you to take on Romans 9..... But why share the gospel at all? Josh tries to get around this by going on a big spiel about how it's our privelige to share the gospel, and I agree: it's obvious in scripture that God chooses to work through us. But this seems to undermine your point: if they're elect, God's going to drag them to heaven whether they want to go or not. Why do work that's already been done? Predestination is a word used in the Bible. We all must agree then, if the first condition is met (believing the Bible to be true), that there is such a thing as predestination. Predestination is an English word used to express a concept that I think doesn't deny free will in the least: God predestined us to be chosen as His sons, as it says in the Bible. This doesn't mean that God is forcing people into Heaven who don't want to go and that He's damning people to Hell who have faith in salvation through Christ. This means that, before it actually happened, God had a plan for salvation. He planned to send His son to earth as a sacrifice far before it actually happened...thus, Paul says it was predestined. So yes, if we believe in inerrancy in the Bible we have to believe in what Paul says, but that doesn't mean the concept of predestination as you and Josh see it is supported by the inclusion of this word in the English translation of the Bible. Yes and no. I strongly doubt that God is actually forcing you to eat a certain thing for breakfast, but He controls it in the sense that He allows you to eat what you want rather than intervening and miraculously causing you to eat a certain thing. So He is in total control, even if He isn't pushing you around like a little pawn in a chess game. This is a teaching I can accept...I have some reservations about it, but they're not germane to the debate at hand. God does contol things in that He allows them to happen. I wouldn't say that God is controlling things as much as He is actively choosing not to control them. A fine distinction, but one I feel is important. Yes. A hard truth, but I believe its a truth none the less. Besides, whats scarier, a God who controls absolutely everything, or one that can't control the evil in the world? I don't believe God can't, I just believe He doesn't. As I mentioned above, God could control everything if he wanted to. I'm willing to concede the possibility that God could this instant decide to take the reigns and force the world into a utopian paradise. But He doesn't. Why? Because we would become automatons, marionettes who can only move in accordance with the movements of the puppeteer. If God wanted robots, He would have made robots. And what does it matter what's 'scarier' anyway? That's an emotional appeal, not a logical one. Yes, because it was all part of the grand scheme of Redemption. In this case, we have a God who created the world knowing full well that He was condemning His son to death when He did it. Doesn't this seem slightly monstrous to you? This may seem like an emotional appeal like the one I just denounced above, but think for a moment--if you love your son, why would you embark on a venture that would at some point require his death? Especially when you have the power to alter the venture and keep it from requiring the sacrifice of your son? Ok, now there are a couple of points I know I haven't addressed: Romans 9, and I Peter 1:1-2. I freely admit that I find these hard to explain. I fervently hope I am arguing for the truth, not just for a certain viewpoint regardless of its accuracy, so sweeping these under the rug would just be unfair both to you and to me. So I'll try to address these, but I acknowledge that what I type doesn't fully explain it even to me. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance. I feel that this can be explained by the same reasoning that I used for Paul's mention of predestination: we have been chosen because of God's plan to redeem us, not because we're the 'goose' in a giant game of 'duck-duck-goose.' The use of the term elect has caused some thinking on my part, but I think it could be a special term the believers had for themselves, much like we call ourselves by many names today. Believers, Christians, the body of Christ, the Church. I still challenge you to take on Romans 9..... It's hard to put into words my explanation of this passage. My best attempt: God wanted something that Jacob had and Esau didn't. Maybe God didn't want his chosen people to be hairy redheads; I don't know. So He chose Jacob to carry on His chosen line and left his twin out in the proverbial cold. Not that Esau really got the shaft in the end; as I recall, the two brothers make up and Esau founds a fairly robust if less prolific people of his own. God could easily have handed Esau over to Jacob's forces the same way He did for the Israelites many times, but instead He allowed them to reunite and embrace one another as brothers. Hmm...looks like God's wrath was burning mightliy against Esau there, doesn't it? Remember, Paul is a big anti-works guy. James would never give this example. Plus, he's writing to the Romans. A big theme of his writings to convert the pleasure-loving Romans whose pantheon included wrathful, wanton gods. Gods that weren't big on forgiveness and mercy. And these Romans probably felt the same way that many Americans now feel: it's works that are important. Give money to charity. Attend Church. Be a 'good person' (whatever that means) and God will look favorably upon you. So Paul is saying no! Your debt has been paid in full, but it's not your own merit that has paid this debt. So the passage which says "What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy" tells these Romans that God isn't a capricous deity demanding adherance to a Law, but rather a father who forgives His utterly undserving sons through His grace, and planned to do this for a long time. Whew. Now start picking my arguments apart. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #72 on: July 31, 2003, 11:29:37 PM » |
|
Everyone here obviously has thought about this issue more than me. I'm just enjoying the read. I still tend toward Arminianism, for the record. It jives with a God that loves his creation (his ENTIRE creation) better.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #73 on: August 01, 2003, 10:47:17 AM » |
|
Everyone here obviously has thought about this issue more than me. I'm just enjoying the read. I still tend toward Arminianism, for the record. It jives with a God that loves his creation (his ENTIRE creation) better. I should mention that Arminus believed that man could lose his salvation, making it much more works-dependant than I am comfortable with. Thus, I don't refer to my own position as Arminianism because that term usually suggests heretical beliefs. Just a side note. And bloop, we've been debating this for a long time, probably over a year. When this whole thing started I didn't have any idea where I stood, I was just lashing out at a belief that I thought was wrong but didn't really know why. So these arguments really are helpful for learning the issues, believe it or not |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #74 on: August 01, 2003, 03:33:53 PM » |
|
I should mention that Arminus believed that man could lose his salvation, making it much more works-dependant than I am comfortable with. but I believe that man can lose salvation, also. Am I a heretic, or am I not because I'm not really teaching that idea? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #75 on: August 02, 2003, 08:37:20 PM » |
|
I guess it depends on what you consider a heretic. Traditionally, a heretic is someone who depats from the doctrine of the Church. Protestant heretics are a bit more rare since (unlike Catholics who have a monolithic system of beliefs) we don't have a unified system that we're all supposed to believe. I'm a heretic in the eyes of the Catholic church, but I don't consider Josh a heretic although we disagree on many points. My views on scripture may make many phorumers consider me a heretic with respect to the Protestant faith as well ;_;
I don't know about believing that Christians can lose their salvation. I don't believe that's the case. If it means anything, I don't consider you a heretic. I just think you're mistaken.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
DvChWi
|
|
« Reply #76 on: August 02, 2003, 09:26:36 PM » |
|
but I believe that man can lose salvation Scary! Scary! But seriously, what do you believe causes salvation to be lost? And how does that belief affect your day to day Christian life? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Fun facts about Chuck Norris:
Newton's Third Law is wrong: Although it states that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, there is no force equal in reaction to a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Chuck Norris CAN believe it's not butter.
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #77 on: August 02, 2003, 11:08:13 PM » |
|
Scary! Scary! But seriously, what do you believe causes salvation to be lost? And how does that belief affect your day to day Christian life? I'm pretty humble with my beliefs on this one...I very well could be mistaken. It really isn't that scary for me and doesn't affect my day to day faith. I don't think I'm in any real danger of losing the faith at this point in my life. I'm not walking on eggshells with God if that's what you mean. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
