Dr. Leighton Flowers was named the Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists in 2018. In addition to preaching on a wide range of biblical subjects, Leighton regularly travels to churches of all sizes to conduct seminars that specialize on evangelism and apologetics. He has participated in debates with leading apologists and led training conferences for the Annual Convention, Conclave, Apologetic Conferences, and the SBC Annual Convention.
Previously, he served as the Director of Youth Evangelism for Texas Baptists for 13 years. In this position he oversaw the statewide youth leadership training camp called Super Summer and the Youth Evangelism Conferences impacting thousands of teenagers with evangelistic messages, missions mobilization and discipleship training. Leighton has also assisted in the oversight of such ministries as See You At The Pole, a worldwide prayer movement (began by his father, Chuck Flowers) which is impacting people not only in Texas but all around our world.
Leighton earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Applied Theology from Hardin-Simmons University (1997); a Masters of Divinity with Biblical Languages from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (2000); and completed his Doctorate at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (2016).
Leighton and his wife Laura, a Licensed Therapist in Richardson, have four children (Colson, Cooper, Esther and Caden) and live in North Garland just outside of Dallas where he also serves as an Adjunct Professor of Theology for Trinity Seminary. Prior to coming on staff with Texas Baptists, Leighton served as a pastor in the local church for over 10 years. He and his family are active members of First Baptist Richardson.
Do you believe that Calvinism is a damnable heresy because by definition it makes God the author of evil? Just curious
Welcome Daniel. Heresy is usually kept for those teaching a false gospel. And Calvinists deny that God is the author of evil, though they have to believe contradictions are true in Scripture to do so.
Here’s my view. Calvinism, imo, has a deformed view of the true gospel, but still the true gospel.
Calvinism’s Gospel – God has provided salvation sufficiently for all and planned for it to be “freely” and irresistibly accepted by some.
NT Gospel – God has provided salvation sufficiently for all and planned and provided for all to be sufficiently enabled to freely seek it.
The bigger problem, imo, is that Calvinism must have God as the author of evil for their idea of reprobation to work. And reprobation is the logical outcome of believing the divine plan was that only some were to benefit from the offer of salvation. The gospel, to them, is not good news for everyone. And they admit it.
But they are professing the true gospel, but it is a deformed view of it, like looking at your real self in a warped mirror. So we shouldn’t immediately think Calvinists are all unsaved. They would have to be if they believed in a false gospel, right?
I understand the view others have that Calvinists have a false gospel. And the ones who call Calvinism the gospel certainly should be called out for claiming a false gospel. But Calvinists still do invite each and every person to trust only in Jesus for salvation. Yes, they undermine that message later to harmful results in many, especially those who never were truly saved, but thought they were. I think that happens alot because of infant baptism and childhood indoctrination into Calvinism without any true conversion experience.
br.d
Hello Daniel
I think that conclusion depends upon the person.
I have heard some people (not here at SOT101) who make that statement.
But here at SOT101 the interest is in dialog with Calvinists with the hopes of getting them to think outside of the box their minds are captured in.
.
Personally for me – I see the Calvinist mind captured having been drawn into a form of mental ensnarement.
.
In the O.T. God warned his people – for example – to utterly tear down the high places.
But as you know – they did not heed those warnings.
.
They said to themselves – if one God is good – then multiple gods is even better.
They told themselves they could have the blessings of the God of scripture – and the blessings of Baal, or Dagon, or Moloch, etc
.
So we find the children of Israel throwing their first-born into the fire
.
Whenever God’s people do that – they end up with what is called “Syncretism”
The synchronizing of multiple belief-systems
.
John Calvin was a young man in his twenties who was said to be very combative and head-strong
Martin Luther was a shinning star within the Reformation
And Erasmus became a shinning star with his New Testament translation.
.
Young John Calvin greatly desired to be a shining star.
But he needed something that he could use as a spring-board
And he found that in the writings of Augustine.
He developed an unfortunate trust and worshipful adoration for all things Augustine
.
In Augustine’s day – there were two very prevalent and pervasive systems – Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism.
.
Manichaeism spread with extraordinary speed through both the east and west, from North Africa to China. Being widely promoted by apostles, it reached Egypt at around 240 A.D., and Rome at around 280 A.D. The Roman Emperor Galerius issued the Edict of Toleration in 311 A.D., which ended the Diocletianic persecution of Christianity. Manichaean monasteries existed in Rome in 312 A.D. during the time of the Catholic Pope Miltiades.
.
And the Greek teacher Plotinus – took some of the doctrines of Plato and reshaped them into religious form.
.
Augustine corresponded by letter to a close friend Nebridius, who praises how Augustine’s letters: “speak of Christ, Plato and Plotinus.
.
Consequently – Augustine’s inventions were based on certain Gnostic and NeoPlatonic components – mixed into Catholic theology.
.
The two key and unique components within Calvinism are:
1) DUALISM – in which “Good” and “Evil” are Co-Equal, Co-Necessary, and Co-Complimentary”
2) Determinism – as found in Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
.
These are the two components which have perennially caused the conflict for Calvinism
And these are in fact the two components which every Calvinist internally struggles with.
.
Blessings
br.d
br.d,
On the other hand…
When the Bible uses the term, “author of…”, the word to the right of “of” is not “evil”.
1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation
However, it doesn’t indicate that God is, or is not the author of “evil”.
Let’s think about this for a moment. Who, other than God, can define what evil is, or isn’t.
Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:
How did God know what evil was? Did Satan have to author it before God knew? Just because Satan DID evil, that doesn’t mean that he is the author of evil. God had to make that judgment of what the evil was, which makes God the law giver, in that “this is good, but that is evil”.
I would say that God is indeed the author of evil…otherwise, how would anyone know what evil is? Satan authored it, and God was the student of Satan to learn it? God didn’t know what evil was until Satan authored it? That just doesn’t make sense to me.
So yes, I conclude that God is indeed the author of evil. However, evil is necessary in order to make a choice between life, or death.
Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Ed Chapman.
Yes – good points Ed.
On the subject of the SEMANTIC GAMES which Calvinists play – they do have the word “Author” to play with.
.
John Calvin
-quote
But it is quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely PERMITS them, when Scripture shows
Him not only willing but the AUTHOR of them.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 176)
.
1) Calvin’s god decrees whatsoever comes to pass
2) Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of what he decrees
3) The vast majority of whatsoever comes to pass is evil
.
Therefore it follows:
Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of evil.
.
This is where we get into the various SEMANTIC TAP-DANCE routines that Calvinists love to play.
For example
– Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of whatsoever comes to pass
– But not in such a way as Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of evil
.
This is like saying:
– All [S] are [P]
– But in such a way as SOME [S] are NOT [P]
In logic this is a clear contradiction.
Calvin made a distinction between ultimate and proximate causation. Thus, to him there are different kinds of authorship that can even work harmoniously with each other as in a cause-and-effect relationship. We see that in Philippians 2:12-13 – “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to do work for His good pleasure.” Thus, what God wills, man responds cordially for good or evil. Thus, God is the ultimate author of sin and man the proximate. We see this same kind of twofold authorship with the inspiration of the infallible Holy Scriptures. At face value this is not contradictory. The question then becomes is it evil for God to be the ultimate cause of man’s willing sin? If so, by what standard can we make that absolute judgment? And where does it come from? Lastly, when speaking about evil and sin, we must consider the two terms are not synonymous. Yet, they are rarely ever defined. Somethings to think about. Peace.
Michael M. Volpe,
You mention:
Philippians 2:12-13 as if it states that you can only do what God wills you to do.
That’s not what it states, however.
Once you become a Christian, it is NATURAL for you to WANT to do God’s will…no coercing going on, no twisting of arms.
But that doesn’t mean that you ARE going to do what God wills you to do. FREE WILL!
Now, my Phillipians 2:12-13 states:
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling….
That shows me that these people could have DISOBEYED God’s will. But they didn’t. Not only that, they weren’t obeying JUST to impress Paul, either. They obeyed from the HEART, not due to some SOVERIEGN GOD dictating their every move.
Ed Chapman
God does not coerce the will against itself but makes it cordially willing from within whether for good or evil. So then, we have a will but it’s not free from the control of God or our desires He gives us. Or, to put it another way, we like what we are determined to will either in accordance with or against the knowledge of God.
Lastly, freewill is not needed for love, faith and obedience to have value. Neither God, Christ, the angels or the saints in heaven have freewill to sin, yet practice these three virtues better than those who think they have freewill.
And we see the same with us when in love. We can’t help but willing love but have no power to will otherwise. The same is for those who have a sense of destiny. Or, even in personal preferences. We can’t will otherwise and cordially accept this inner compulsion.
Michael,
God does not coerce the will against itself…..
.
br.d
This in Calvinism is called the NO FORCE argument and it is a red-herring.
.
The idea that a human would have to be FORCED to do anything – logically entails that human has a degree of AUTONOMAY.
And in Calvinism – humans are not granted any degree of AUTONOMY.
.
Calvin’s god decrees WHATSOEVER comes to pass – which includes WHATSOEVER impulses will come to pass within your brain.
.
If I determined every impulse in your brain – I certainly don’t have to FORCE you to do anything
.
Calvin’s god does not have to FORCE you to perform SIN_X at TIME_T
All he has to do is decree the impulse in your brain to perform SIN_X at TIME_T
That decree does not grant you any ALTERNATIVE
.
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin
-quote
“God merely *PROGRAMMED* into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives and actions”(The Doctrine of Divine Decree pg 4)
.
One does not have to FORCE a robot to do what it is programmed to do :-]
No force necessary!
blessings!
br.d
Calvinist’s, including Calvin, affirm God makes all things certain by His decree but does not make evil and sin certain by His efficient power. By separating His decree and Divine efficiency they think somehow that relieves them from the charge of making God the author of evil even though He determines all things
But, in the end calvinists and freewill believers agree that man creates evil out of nothing from the power of the will. Thus the former indirectly affirms free will, whereas the latter directly. Because the Calvinist is inconsistent, you win the argument every time.
As for me, I don’t believe you can separate God’s decree and efficient power concerning evil and sin. I affirm God is the author of man’s evil and sin. And He does it by creating a cordial willingness. Thus, for God’s own glory to and for Himself, He makes man both fitted for and deserving of hell by His power and decree. Therefore, I’m not a Calvinist but an absolute theistic determinist.
I like discussing theology with people of other perspectives when they are respectful and show a sense of humility. I encourage you to emulate Mr. Flowers. May God’s peace be upon all of us.
Michael M Volpe,
You had said:
“But, in the end calvinists and freewill believers agree that man creates evil out of nothing from the power of the will. ”
Question…where is Satan in all this? And as for your doublespeak, it’s insane to say that God decrees all things, but ya, let’s blame THE OTHER GUY…humans. LOL. Come on, dude! Really? Sorry, but I don’t buy into that logic at all.
Ed Chapman
br.d
I don’t know where Michael comes up with these totally wild statements!
.
Creating something out of nothing is classified in Theological literature as: Creatio Ex Nihilo
The power for Ex Nihilo is attributed solely to God and to God alone.
.
Man is never said to have the power to create anything out of nothing.
.
The other problem with Michael’s statements about the human will – is that he presents man as an AUTONOMOUS creature – and man’s will operating independent of Calvinistic divine sovereignty.
.
Calvinist R.C. Sproul
-quote
If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, God is not God.
.
Calvinist Paul Helms
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by god, but *EVERY TWIST AND TURN* of each of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of god (The Providence of God pg 22)
.
Calvinist Louis Berkhof
-quote
God is immediately operative in *EVERY ACT* of the creature. Everything that happens from moment to moment is determined by the will of god – and in every instance *THE IMPULSE TO ACTION PRECEDES* from god (Systematic Theology)
.
.
.
I suspect Michael has a very inventive imagination – and is simply making stuff up out his head
And then presenting what he makes up as absolute unquestionable declarations
.
This does kind of follow a pattern with Calvinists.
Every Calvinist seems to present whatever pops into his imagination as the GOLDEN STANDARD.
.
Interesting how that behavior pattern is so consistent with Calvinists!
br.d,
Exactly. It’s a fascinating religion to study, but I certainly don’t see what they see, such as David, wicked from the womb, and Romans 9, “created” for hell (destruction). And, of course, John 6, that God chooses who is going to heaven, Romans 3, no one is righteous, no not one…but they missed out on Abraham, and…
Luke 1:6
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
And Jesus hadn’t even died on the cross yet to “impute” HIS righteousness of living a sinless life. But no one is righteous, no not one, huh?
Oh, and let’s not forget the “given” faith in order to believe, or irresistable grace, that you’ll never be able to change your mind, and that God uses Satan to do God’s will which causes someone to sin, that benefits another, because good comes out of evil…very strange stuff they have.
Ed Chapman
br.d
Some kids run around play acting Superman
Some kids run around play acting the Lone Ranger
The imagination allows them to become like the Superhero.
.
John Calvin – for all intents and purposes was a “Super Apostle”
He speaks with authority not as the scribes and pharisees
He is a Superhero
He speaks EX-CATHEDRA
.
So I think it makes perfect sense to find Calvinists play acting that out.
Michael
Calvinist’s, including Calvin, affirm God makes all things certain by His decree but does not make evil and sin certain by His efficient power
.
br.d
Actually that is FALSE
.
In Calvinism vernacular – the phrase “Rendered-Certain” simply states the fact that by virtue of the fact that decree is INFALLIBLE – it follows – that which it decrees is also INFALLIBLE.
.
So “Rendered-Certain” simply means “Made Infallible”
.
Additionally – Calvin’s god has “Certainty” of whatsoever will come to pass – simply because his decree establishes whatsoever will come to pass as “Infallible”.
.
And the infallible decree is in fact Calvin’s god’s “Efficient Power”
So he does make evil and sin “Certain” (aka infallible) by virtue of the “Efficient Power” of the decree.
.
Michael:
I affirm God is the author of man’s evil and sin.
.
br.d
That would be the LOGICAL approach – so I congratulate you on that.
Many Calvinists are more emotional than they are logical and they reject rational reasoning for emotions sake.
.
Michael:
He does it by creating a cordial willingness.
.
br.d
Again – it is critical to acknowledge the fact that an infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
.
In Academic Reformed circles – this is commonly understood as “BE OTHERWISE” or “DO OTHERWISE”
Determinism – does not grant creation the power or ability to “BE OTHERWISE” or “DO OTHERWISE” than that which is decreed.
.
And since Determinism is EXHAUSTIVE (the movement of every atomic particle) it follows – the decree determines every impulse that will come to pass within the human brain.
.
So in Calvinism – whatever the state of your “will” is at any nano-second in time – can *ONLY* be what Calvin’s god decreed it to be – and that decree – because it is infallible – does not grant any ALTERNATIVE.
.
Michael
I encourage you to emulate Mr. Flowers. May God’s peace be upon all of us.
.
br.d
Thank you!
I appreciate that!
Sometimes it is a little necessary for me to respond to irrational dogmatism which is an expected behavior pattern.
.
blessings!
You and I agree that one cannot separate the decree from God’s efficient power. But Calvin and the Calvinists (wrongly howbeit) disagree:
“You must now see that although God does, in His own secret and sovereign way, harden men’s hearts, no fault can possibly be imputed to Him, because every man hardens his own heart by the essential evil and wickedness of his own nature. But when God turns the hearts of men to the obedience and worship Himself, that is another form of His working altogether…. But with reference to His hardening men’s hearts, that is a different way of God’s working…. He so overrules their depraved wills by His secret judgment and counsel that they can do nothing but what He decreed…. God hardens whomsoever He will, yet everyone so hardened is the cause and author of his own hardening.” – John Calvin, God’s Eternal Predestination and Secret Providence, pages 283-284.
“God is neither the author or approver of evil.” – The Westminster Confession of Faith.
“There are other things, however, which God included in His decree and thereby rendered certain, but which He did not decide to effectuate Himself, as the sinful acts of His rational creatures. The decree, in so far as it pertains to these acts, is generally called God’s permissive decree. This name does not imply that the futurition of these acts is not certain to God, but simply that He permits them to come to pass by the free agency of His rational creatures. God assumes no responsibility for these sinful acts whatsoever.” – Louis Berkof, Systematic Theology, New Combined Edition, page 103.
So, since both Calvinists and free will believing Christians affirm God created all things good, and since the latter believe the will has the power of contrary choice, regardless of having true knowledge and God’s preserving power, then one can rightly ask, where did evil come from, if not by His immediate Divine power? Man must create it Ex nihilo from the power of his own will.
Yet, the Scriptures declare God is the Creator of evil – “I make peace and create evil.” Isaiah 45:7. And that’s what makes Him God! The Hebrew word for calamity is not used here, but ra, which often refers to moral evil as it does in Genesis 3:22. And the evil God brings about is not a judicial hardening as it is in Jeremiah 18:4. This is seen not only in Isaiah 45:9-10, but most of all in Romans 11:36 – “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever.” There are no exceptions, not even my unbelief and sin. So, I bow before this all-consuming God and cry out to Him through Christ’s imputed righteousness – “”For You are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not recognize us. You O Yahweh, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is Your Name. Why O Yahweh, do You cause us to stray from Your ways and harden our heart from fearing You? Return for the sake of Your servants, the tribe of your heritage…. We have become like those whom You never ruled, like those who were not called by Your name. Isaiah 63:16-19.
Though we don’t agree, I have strong reasons why I’m an absolute determinist and not as stupid or wild as you and Chapman think. Anyway, if you (Mr. br.d) are at least willing to hear a full argument for my position, I’ll send you a free copy of my book called Commemorative Justice and a pamphlet I wrote called Evil, Suffering and Hell: Why? God’s peace.
Michael,
God doesn’t harden men’s hearts.
Good hardened the Pharoah’s heart.
And there was a spiritual prophesy reason.
The Pharoah plays the role of Satan, holding God’s people in the BONDAGE OF SIN.
Moses plays the role of Jesus, the redeemer.
The children of Israel playing the role of God’s human creation.
Egypt as the role of sin.
Wandering the desert as the role of a Christian Walk.
Jordan River as the role of natural death.
Canaan, the Promised Land, as the role of entering heaven.
And that is what Romans 9-11 is telling you.
The promise given to Abraham was about two things. Canaan and Isaac.
That’s the carnal. That’s all that the Jews can see. They don’t see anything else.
But we see the spiritual side of the story that Canaan is heaven, and Isaac is Jesus.
There is two sides to the story. Carnal, and spiritual.
And God uses the Jews to tell a story about himself.
See Deu 29:4/Romans 11:8. Due to their blindness, that they can’t see the spiritual side of the story, God gives them mercy in the end.
Those whom God used will get mercy. He used the Pharoah.
But this is not to be known that God hardens the hearts of people in general.
Expository preaching will get you nowhere fast.
Ed Chapman
Michael,
And on that same note, God USED Jonah, too.
Prophets, in the Bible, their sole purpose in scripture is the prophesy of Jesus, wittingly, or unwittingly.
3 days, 3 nights. Actually, all of jonah 2 is about Jesus.
I snicker in church when the preacher wants to talk about the topic of obedience regarding jonah. That’s the carnal side. But the spiritual side is Jesus dying, sent to hell, and rising from the dead.
Jonah was used for destruction.
Ed Chapman
br.d
There is an interesting phenomenon to observe with Michael
.
Calvinism is a belief system which maintains what Sociologists call a “Closed System of Logic”
.
The Calvinist authority structure exerts a much higher degree of control over information.
Thus Calvinism social structure exercises what Sociologists call “Milieu Control”
.
Milieu Control – is what we see with the WOKE mind-set
An example of this – would be a biological man who identifies as a woman
He demands you accept his identity.
.
Notice one of Michael’s last statement to me was framed:
-quote
*YOU MUST SEE* that although God does, in His own secret and sovereign way, harden men’s hearts, no fault can possibly be imputed to Him.
.
Notice how this is framed in the form of a demand *YOU MUST SEE*
.
This follows the same pattern as the WOKE mindset
Some people today are describing this as the “WOKE mind virus”
.
I think when you know how to look for it – you will find the same mind pattern with Calvinists
This is a “Socialization” phenomenon
.
How the Calvinist social structure works to CONDITION the mind to memorize MANTRAS and mindlessly recite them.
I guess I was not clear. I quoted Calvin, WCF and Berkof to show that they erroneously separate God’s decree from His efficacious power so as to deflect the charge they make God the author of evil while still maintaining He makes all things certain by His decree, especially evil and sin. I granted that this is inconsistent.
I then asked the question where does evil come from? I concluded saying, by implication, both the Calvinist and freewill believing Christian have to affirm that man creates it ex nihilo by the power of his will because both agree God created everything good and that God does not efficaciously work evil in human nature. Thus, when it comes to evil the two affirm the same even though the former are determinists and the latter indeterminists.
Lastly, I said I do believe God is the author of man’s evil and sin, because He must create and sustain everything by both His decree and efficacious power. And I gave some exegesis.
But you responded with an analogy, and then said to Chapman I have a woke mindset.
So, to distinguish what I’m saying from both the Calvinist and freewill believers, I leave with an a Scriptural analogy and a charge.
God creates willing evil in and through creatures and then punishes them for it, so that He may manifest and magnify His power of His wrath on vessels prepared and fitted for everlasting destruction. Only then to show the power of His grace by forgiving others He previously made willingly evil.
For when God creates evil in the creature they cannot but desire it and break God’s commands against the knowledge of His truth. Thus, they are fitted to be deserving of wrath even though they could not, nor would not do otherwise. We are like clay to a potter. And with God being His first audience, He does this in order to celebrate Himself to Himself in Christ.
By what standard can we use to arbitrate between God and man and determine that is wrong? And if there is something above both that can determine this, where did it come from? How would that not make us equal with God and make Him finite?
Note how I never berated you like you’ve done with me, especially in your responses with Chapman. Like Mr. Flowers, a first rate thinker would not say such things. Emulate him.
br.d
Hello Michael
.
I have a question for you:
In Calvinism – is creation granted the “Freedom” to countervail an infallible decree?
br.d
AH!
I see I misunderstood some of your language.
Many of your statements have followed a pattern of making declarations
So I assumed you were following that pattern.
I agree with the points you make here
.
1) Calvin’s god does in fact *MAKE* sinful evil impulses infallibly come to pass within the human brain
.
2) Those impulses are determined by antecedent factors (infallible decree) totally outside of man’s control
.
3) Thus in Calvinism – all sinful evil impulses are *MADE* to come to pass within the human brain – by antecedent
factors outside of the brain’s control
.
4) Thus it follows – man is granted NO SAY, NO CHOICE, and NO CONTROL over any sinful evil impulse or act.
.
5) Thus in Calvinism – it is more truthful to say – man *PERFORMS* sins and evils on Calvin’s god’s behalf.
.
.
Now you ask in the final question:
“By what standard can we use to arbitrate between God and man and determine that is wrong? ”
.
The irony of this question – is the fact that the Calvinist himself stands as the arbitrator without realizing it.
.
Calvinist language is designed to *obfuscate* the very components which you sight above
Calvinist language is not a TRUTH-TELLING language
Calvinist language is a COSMETIC language
.
Cosmetics are designed for two primary functions
1) Hide what we don’t want people to see
2) Create an appearance which we calculate people will accept
.
Calvinist language is designed to hide the EVIL aspects of the doctrine
It is designed to create SEMANTIC MASKS in order to cover the TRUE FACE of the doctrine
It is designed to create an appearance which the Calvinist calculates NORMAL people will accept.
.
For example – Calvinists call the doctrine a “Doctrine of Grace”
John MacArthur calls his ministry “Grace to you”
We both know – these are FALSE representations.
.
Under scrutiny – we can identify Calvin’s doctrine – as a doctrine of “GOOD-EVIL”
Calvin’s god creates the vast majority of human individuals specifically for “EVIL” based on his “GOOD” pleasure
So what we have here is “EVIL” for the sake of “GOOD” pleasure
Thus we have a doctrine of “GOOD-EVIL”
.
This system of “GOOD-EVIL” is a critical part of what every Calvinist internally struggles with.
That is why Calvinist language is a COSMETIC language – designed to hide the TRUE FACE of the doctrine
.
So the Calvinist himself – by his need to *obfuscate* the EVIL components of the doctrine serves as the red-flag
He himself sees something “wrong” with the doctrine
His response to what he sees “wrong” with the doctrine – drives him to hide its TRUE-FACE behind a COSMETIC mask
The COSMETIC mask is the premier characteristic of Calvinist language
.
So the Calvinist himself – by his language – declares he finds something “wrong” with the doctrine.
blessings!
As for your question: is creation granted the “Freedom” to countervail an infallible decree?
The answer should be no, but it’s not so simple because there are different grades of Calvinism. By separating God’s decree from His efficacious power concerning man’s evil so as not to be charged with making God guilty of sin Himself in making all things certain, it creates a system of thought that has antinomies. But the mind cannot maintain opposing truths. So even if both are maintained, in practice one becomes dominate over the other. For Calvin he sided more with God’s absolute sovereignty, whereas the majority of his theological heirs’ side with the idea that man creates sin (at least in Adam) though God makes everything certain. That is why men like McArthur, Piper, Keller and even Sproul to a lesser degree unwittingly use cosmetic language. Though they maintain the dogma of theistic determinism, their focus is on man creating evil from himself so as not to make God the author of evil. That is why unlike Calvin, they also affirm God’s permissive decree and will, a consequential necessity for the atonement, and the free-offer of the gospel, whereby God desires the salvation of even those whom He does not choose. There are even hyper-infralapsarians like Van Til and John Murray, who ground this free-offer in Christ’s limited atonement.
But there are more consistent Calvinist’s like Gordon H. Clark and Herman Hoeksema. Clark is even more of a consistent determinist than Calvin. Though both he and Calvin maintain a hypothetical necessity for the atonement, and reject the free-offer, Clark does not separate God’s decree from His efficacious power concerning man’s evil. Nor does he, like Calvin leave to mystery the conflict between God’s decree to reprobate and the call of the gospel and the law. Clark more than Calvin states that something is good only because God wills it, and that in no sense did Christ die for the unelected.
Yet, no Calvinist is fully a consistent determinist. That is why men like you, Flowers, Bair, Craig, Stratton and Thompson are able to pick apart their arguments, especially those who maintain the free-offer and have to use cosmetic language. For all Calvinists affirm God has freewill. But true and consistent determinism would even deny that of God. Thus, that would be and is the opposite of freewill indeterminism. Everything God does would be absolutely necessary, even for Himself. And since He is God and His own limit, this necessity would be a cordial or willing compulsion whereby He could not, nor would not do otherwise. We see something similar in ourselves when in love. We are compelled to love a person and we find ourselves unable not to love. Nor would we want to. There is no power of contrary choice involved yet we experience a sense of freedom in that inner compulsion to possess the object of our desire.
So, what is God’s free compulsion? It is the desire and ability to glorify Himself to Himself first in the highest possible manner through the man Jesus Christ. For this election and reprobation of mankind serves this necessity better than everything else created. Thus, God makes both the elect and non-elect willing for their ends. Both are fitted for the purpose they serve to make Christ possible so that God might be fully glorified in Him. Therefore, in relation to God, neither the rational creature nor God Himself has freewill. This implies Christ could not nor would die for the unelected. The gospel then is good news for God, Christ and the elect only. For the elect the gospel is the aroma that resurrects them from death to life, whereas it is the smell of death for those already dead.
This is logically consistent Christian theistic determinism. You’ll disagree with it, but more because you reject the premises are not true. So how then can one decide which consistent argument (pure determinism vs pure freewill indeterminism) is true? By which system not only answers its own epistemological problems but even those of its opposite system. I maintain only pure Christian determinism answers the problems of evil, suffering, hell and salvation in light of a sovereign God who in some sense is love also. Mr. br.d, like I offered before, if you request, I’ll send you a free copy of both my book Commemorative Justice and a pamphlet called Evil, Suffering and Hell: Why? Or you can at least order the book on Amazon. The book is a theodicy based on pure determinism, or God considered as an Absolute and not a maximally great being. May Christ’s God’s peace be upon us both.
Michael,
I’m sorry, but your explanation is why Calvinism is so convoluted. Have you ever considered Romans 5:13, 4:15 for a moment?
Think of the word “DISPENSATIONALISM” for a time.
Law vs. NO LAW.
Romans 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 4:15
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Pay attention in Romans 5:13 where it states, “UNTIL…THE LAW”.
Abraham fell under that, and so did all those in the flood, as well as many other places.
Adam got knowledge of good and evil from a tree. Abraham didn’t. Think of this for a bit…
Leviticus 18:6
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.
Leviticus 18:9
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy
mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their
nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Leviticus 18:11
The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Leviticus 20:17
And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s
daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a
wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he
hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Deuteronomy 27:22
Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the
daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
—————————–
And now, ABRAHAM, who obeyed God!
Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Now, because you have read Genesis 26:5 above, you might get the idea that Abraham was “sinless”? How can that be, with the statement, “for all have sinned”?
Genesis 20:12
And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
__________________
And yet, God never informed Abraham of this grievous sin, but blessed brother and sister with a promised inbred son. According to the codified law, Abraham is cursed, because he did a wicked thing, and should be cut off from the sight of his people, and shall bear his iniquity…yet, he was NOT cursed at all, but BLESSED. God never told him about this sin, but gave brother/sister an inbred child instead.
And while you are at it…
Gentiles worshiping idols…
Acts 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
So, you have Adam that got GUILT when he KNEW “what” his sin was, due to KNOWLEDGE that God didn’t want him to have.
But why did Adam eat of that tree?
1 Corinthians 15:42-46 tells you why. Because God made him WEAK…
42 It is sown in corruption (THAT MEANS TO DIE, aka DECAY)****This is why I do not believe in Original Sin…
i.e.
Acts 13:36
For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:
Acts 13:37
But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
διαφθορά diaphthorá, dee-af-thor-ah’; from G1311; decay
Moving on…
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is sown in weakness…
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
****46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
That is why I do not believe in Original Sin. Adam’s body was made of DIRT, which decay’s and dies. Dirt is weak and dishonorable, and dies. And, Adam COULD HAVE “obtained” eternal life, but did not eat of THAT OTHER TREE that no one talks about. And he could have “obtained” it, even in a fallen state, had God not blocked access to it…
Genesis 3:22, 24
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Now, this “KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil may have been passed down for a couple of generations, but…Abraham didn’t know this stuff…
Abraham got righteousness just by BELIEVING.
Romans 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
But for the children of Israel…
Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
But under Jesus:
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
The Jews:
Romans 9:31
But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
And my final note…The law was a SETUP for FAIL…
Romans 5:20
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound.
The law was a SETUP so that sin WOULD INCREASE! NOT DECREASE. But why?
Again, Romans 5:20
But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
And this is why the Jews will be saved in the end of this…and that is Romans 9-11. Calvinism’s take on Romans 9-11 isn’t about HUMANITY, but about the SALVATION of the Blind Jews.
To those Jews who are the UNBLINDED already, they are the DISPENSATION OF GRACE, aka REMNANT.
In short, the bible is about LAW vs. FAITH/GRACE. Abraham (faith) vs. Moses (Law).
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Calvinist as a whole believe justification by faith alone by the imputed active and passive obedience of Christ to God’s law. There is an exchange between the elect’s unrighteousness and Christ’s righteousness. Thus, they are saved by grace alone. And, they further maintain by God’s grace He imparts the law in the soul for sanctification only.
So, when it comes to salvation it’s faith vs law. When it comes to sanctification it’s obedience vs antinomianism.
The difference between the Calvinist and freewill believing Christian is the former believes faith is a gift by election, while the latter believes it’s the man’s will in response to the gospel and is created from the self. Otherwise, it would have no value as true faith.
Both agree faith has moral value but is not a work. The Calvinist says it’s not a work because it’s a gift along with the grace of election, justification and sanctification. So, the believer can’t take credit for it as to merit in any sense.
I leave it up to you to explain how faith, is not a work for merit if not given by God but created by the freewill of man.
Anyway, though I’m a determinist and agree with them on election and justification, I’m not a Calvinist because my position on determinism and some other dogmas would be considered as heresy by them and even Calvin himself. I’d be hanging from a noose along with free willers and anabaptists back in the day. Peace.
Michael,
Obedience to WHAT, exactly?
I agree that faith is not a work…but if I say that it’s MY FAITH ALONE, then you will say that I am interpreting faith as a MERIT of my own…right? That’s why Calvinists would accuse ME of WORKS, if I say that it’s MY FAITH not a given one.
But that’s not even the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1. Dissect it.
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) FAITH IS:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Substance:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #5287: Assurance
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines assurance as: Pledge, Guarantee
Romans 8:24-25
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Hoped, Hope:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #’s1679, 1680: Expectation or confidence
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines hope as:
to expect with confidence; Expectation is defined as: Anticipation; Anticipation is defined as: The act of looking forward, and, visualization of a future event or state.
Hebrews 11:1
Now FAITH IS: The guarantee of things (substance/assurance) expected (hoped/waiting for).
Bottom Line, God made a promise to Abraham, and Abraham believed it, and LIVED what he believed, and the LIVING IT is WORKS that justified what he believed.
Faith is NOT GIVEN, the promise was, and it is UP TO YOU to believe it…or not. It’s not up to God whether you believe it or not. It’s ONLY up to you. That means, TO YOU, as a Calvinits, that it’s by my own merit, aka MY WORKS…right?
Ed Chapman
Ed,
The answer to your question – obedience to what?
God requires perfect obedience to His law which requires not only unsullied love towards God and even man, but exact conformity to His statues and even faith.
And since we are sinners in every aspect of our nature, we can’t give Him that perfection which also requires perfect faith. But Christ can and did. So, by a given faith (not of ourselves) we appropriate Christ’s righteousness through assent. Since this simple given assent honors God because of its object – Christ, God receives it by imputing our sins to Him and His perfect faith, love and obedience to us for both eternal life and the forgiveness of sin.
Thus, we honor the law in all its fullness while receiving grace. This creates in the mind gratitude and not a spirit of merit, fear or guilt. We obey because we want to and not so much because we have to. This is how God writes the law upon the hearts of His chosen. Thus, their assurance is not even their given faith nor obedience derived thereof, but in faith’s object – Christ. We live by faith in Christ’s righteousness alone for both justification and sanctification.
How do we know we are elected? That we assent to Christ against the backdrop of our depravity that would otherwise reject Him for our own righteousness. No man who is not elect will receive His alien righteousness for justification.
Many will divide Christ’s righteousness by asserting only His passive obedience (His suffering) gets imputed to us for forgiveness of sins only. Thus, our imperfect faith takes the place of active obedience (perfect conformity to God’s law) for eternal life, which unwittingly becomes a ground for merit.
And they do this because it’s understood that if justification requires perfect obedience and perfect suffering and perfect faith, then only by election and imputation can anyone be saved. For all fall short except Christ. Peace
Michael
I’m not a Calvinist because my position on determinism and some other dogmas would be considered as heresy by them and even Calvin himself. I’d be hanging from a noose along with free willers and anabaptists back in the day. Peace.
.
br.d
You have a good sense of humor Michael! 😀
It is appreciated!
.
However – please allow an observation
From many of your statements of personal position – they do appear to be leaning more towards Calvinism then they do towards theological Determinism.
.
For example – it is very common for a Calvinist to not be able discern the fact that there is a FORM of “freewill” in Calvinism. And based on that lack of discernment – Calvinists will erroneously label NON-Calvinists as “Freewillers”
.
The Westminster confession states “They come most freely”
And as Dr. Paul Helms states – this is a confession of human free-will
But – as Dr. Helm’s goes on to point out
The Reformed position on “Freewill” is not LIBERTARIAN free-will
The Reformed position on “Freewill” is COMPATIBILISM (the thesis that “Freewill” is COMPATIBLE with Determinism)
.
Your posts have generally followed the pattern of the typical Calvinist who doesn’t recognize the Reformed position does in fact embrace “Freewill” by embracing COMPATILIST “Freewill” while rejecting LIBERTARIAN “Free-will”
.
So both the Calvinist and the NON-Calvinist embrace “Freewill”
But they are not the same
.
blessings!
Both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy embrace the will as the power of contrary choice. By implication you agree also. Yet, you would deny being either.
I embrace election and imputation but that does not make me a Calvinist. My position on determinism rejects Calvinisms freewill position which is hidden in Adam. He had the power of contrary choice within himself to create evil by which God then reacts either with a hypothetical or consequential necessity for the atonement.
I reject Adam had that kind of power of the will. I also reject God has the power of freewill. And affirm an absolute necessity for the atonement. For these differences among others, I would be considered by Calvinists a heretic.
Back in the day you I would be in the gallows together but for different reasons. 😁
Michael:
Both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy embrace the will as the power of contrary choice.
.
br.d
Yes!
.
“Contrary Choice” – is simply choice between CONTRARY options.
In such case CONTRARY options must exist for a person to choose.
This represents a state of affairs in which MORE THAN ONE option exists
And those option(S) are available to a person to choose
.
I would hope you are aware – Jon Edwards in his work “On Contrary Choice” points out that this FORM of choice does not exist within Exhaustive Divine Determinism (EDD).
.
The state of affairs in which CONTRARY option(S) existed would be an UNDETERMINED state of affairs.
This state of affairs would falsify Determinism (EDD)
Therefore – there is no such thing as CONTRARY choice for a Calvinist.
.
But it is critical to point out – that no Calvinist can live coherently with this aspect of the doctrine
Because living without CONTRARY choice entails loosing a sense of human NORMALCY.
And there is no human being who can find doing so palatable.
.
Michael
By implication you agree also. Yet, you would deny being either.
.
br.d
I’m not sure what you mean by I would deny being either?
I certainly don’t deny the existence of CONTRARY choice.
CONTRARY choice – is by definition Libertarian Choice.
It LOGICALLY entails a state of affairs in which CONTRARY options exist within creation for man to choose between
.
BTW:
Every Calvinist – and every Determinist (including yourself) lives *AS-IF* he has CONTRARY choice.
This is what I call the *AS-IF* thinking pattern for all Calvinists/Determinists
.
1) The Calvinist asserts his doctrine is TRUE
2) The Calvinist treats his doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to retain a sense of human NORMALCY
.
Dr. William Lane Craig explains
-quote
Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside of himself.
Every determinist recognizes he has to act *AS-IF* he has option(S) to weigh, and can decide on what course of action to take….. (Determinism is unlivable)
.
Sean Carroll (Theoretical physicist – Atheist Determinist)
-quote
Every person in the world, no matter how anti-free-will they are, talks about people *AS-IF* they make decisions.
.
John Calvin
-quote
“Hence as to future time, because the issue of all things is hidden from us, each ought to so to apply himself to his office, *AS-IF* nothing were determined about any part.”(Concerning the eternal predestination of God)
Edwards, like most Calvinists will argue that since the fall, no man has freewill because of man’s sinful nature. For nature determines the will. Thus, man cordially wills to do evil.
Edwards would argue that Adam was different. He had a good nature. And since God is neither the author or approver of evil, and though He makes all things certain, the question for him and other Calvinists is – where did evil come from? He would, like Sproul, say it’s a mystery. But you and I know it can only either come from God or man.
So, by default, modern Calvinists decide for man. Why? Because it is more consistent with the idea that God desires the salvation of all in the call of the gospel, which Edwards also believed in spite of affirming God’s decree makes everything certain.
His immediate followers found this idea of the free offer of the gospel and Edwards view of the will incompatible, which it is. So they rejected the idea that nature determines the will, upheld the free-offer but maintained God determined all things without being the author of evil. Within a hundred years New England theology turned into Unitarian Universalist. Why? Because it reaffirmed free will but in a Calvinistic garb. The mind can’t maintain contradictions
Anyway, I affirm this: unlike a rock, both God and man make choices. But for neither is the will free from their nature or from God’s necessity to glorify Himself in the highest possible manner. God’s will is limited by Himself whereby He cannot will differently then He does. The creatures will is determined for good or ill by God’s will and power and the nature He gives.
Free will as the power of contrary choice is neither necessary or sufficient to give value to choice, faith, love or obedience. For God, Christ, the angels or saints in heaven do not have the power of contrary choice to do evil, yet practice virtue better than those who assume power of contrary choice. Freewill is not needed nor possible for God or man.
Therefore, God and the rational creature have a will and make choices, but neither are free but determined by God and our natures whether for good or evil. And when we make a choice by our will it’s cordial, meaning we like what we choose even knowing if it is wrong.
Unlike Allah or fate, God makes the will of the creature willling its preferences and choices but with no power of ourselves to do otherwise. And we are held accountable because our determined decisions will either do what God hates and must destroy, or the good He must respect for His own sake.
Allah punishes good and rewards evil regardless of man’s freewill. Whereas, the true God cannot but punish evil and reward good He determines through His creatures cordially willing either one.
Lastly, if the will is free for both God and creature from everything but its own power to choose, then the chance/fate dialectic embedded in the will in order for one to determine choice or destiny, makes everything irrational for the sake of freedom. For what chance has fated, fate chooses but for no reason but power to be or not be.
You may balk at this, but if the will is free even true knowledge does not determine it. So what does?
The free will is power that is neither good or bad, but inherently can change at any given moment. Thus at bottom it is pure flux and there can be no grounds for immutability or incorrigibleness to be liable for choosing. And how much knowledge and control does one need to be liable for any decision, especially for hell? How can God punish an amoral freewill that is freer than His? Freewill cant but choose and it is its right to do so. Matter of fact the only thing that can be evil is to punish the will for choosing, irrespective if it chooses what God considers evil. The only justification God can then punish is might makes right. But we know this is wrong.
Freewill Christian theology gave birth to existentialism. This is seen not only by logical implication but historical fact. Kierkegaard the staunch and consistent free willer was the founder of existentialism for a reason. Peace
Michael
Edwards, like most Calvinists will argue that since the fall, no man has freewill because of man’s sinful nature. For nature determines the will. Thus, man cordially wills to do evil.
.
br.d
Not quite!
Edwards is a determinist.
Edwards is not a NATURAL Determinist (in which the “Determiner” of whatsoever comes to pass is NATURE including man’s nature)
.
Edwards is a Theological Determinist (in which a THEOS is the “Determiner” of whatsoever comes to pass.
.
For your statement to not *OBFUSCATE* Theological Determinism – it would be like the following:
.
The state of nature – including every man’s nature – at every nano-second in time – is 100% meticulously predestined by a decree which is infallible.
.
And thus at every nano-second in time the state of man’s nature cannot possibly be OTHER than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
.
I would suggest you revise your language – and stop using the language “man cordially wills to do evil” because this language has LIBERTARIAN inferences.
.
It infers a degree of AUTONOMY to man’s will which is FALSE on EDD
It infers a degree of human CONTROL over man’s will – which is FALSE EDD
.
Therefore it is language which lacks honesty.
.
.
I’m also surprised that you continue to attribute man does not have “Freewill” on the Reformed (in this case Jon Edwards) view.
.
I gave you information on the article “Christological Arguments for Compatibilism in Reformed Theology) in which the Reformed author of that article clearly identifies Edwards as a COMPATIBILIST.
.
And I provided numerous quotes from Reformed scholars on how Calvinism embraces a COMPATIBILIST form of “Freewill”.
.
I’m hoping you will not ignore that COMPATIBILISM is clearly an integral part of the Reformed position on “Freewill”
.
But never the less – the statements I made are LOGICALLY sound
1) A state of affairs in which CONTRARY OPTIONS exist within creation for a person to choose between – would constitutes a state of affairs in which something was left OPEN.
.
A state of affairs in which something was left OPEN would constitute a state of affairs in which something was left UNDETERMINED.
.
In such case – Determinism would be falsified.
Therefore there is never a state of affairs in which a Calvinist has CONTRARY OPTIONS to choose between.
.
Never the less – every Calvinist/Determinist lives *AS-IF*
1) CONTRARY OPTIONS exist
2) He has choice between those options
3) That choice is *UP TO* him
.
All of which are denials of divine Determinism.
Edwards, like all Calvinist’s believe God determines all things by His decree. But the disconnect comes when you ask where did Adam’s evil come from if God created all things good and is neither the author or approver of evil?
He may say like Calvin it’s the decree but not by His efficacious power. Otherwise God would be its author. So, Edwards conceals his inconsistent determinism. Why? Because in the end man in Adam creates evil by the power of his will though somehow (without explaining it) God made certain with His decree.
But how can God make certain anything, especially evil by His decree without efficacious power? The decree becomes an ineffectual something or other concerning man’s will to evil. His disciple Nathaniel Emmons tried to fix this inconsistency but to no avail.
Anyway, I use the term cordial to mean preference or liking something. God and man can prefer, love or like something over and against something else without having the power of contrary choice to do otherwise. God loves Himself against evil and cannot do other wise. And He makes the choice everyday to destroy evil. The same goes when we are in love. We are compelled to love another and make choices everyday to fulfill that love but without the power to do otherwise. The same goes with a belief in God. I can’t stop believing nor do I want to. I’m compelled from within to choose Him.
These ideas and language is consistent with determinism. Freewill indeterminacy does not have a monopoly on the terms choice or cordialness. It depends on how they are defined and if the definitions have a basis in reality.
What is not consistent is to say man has the power of contrary choice determined by nothing but the self to will and God’s determinism. Nor is it consistent to say man’s will is determined by God except when it comes to the first impulse to evil.
But I’ll will once again reconsider what you’re saying because it maybe the definitions don’t agree and/or we are misunderstand them.
Anyway, I think we’ve exhausted this without going round and round. For another day. Peace
Seriously, why is Satan NEVER mentioned by you guys? Why is it always MAN? And since I don’t believe in Original Sin, there is no such thing as “IN ADAM” statements.
The same is applied to Satan’s sin. And God then uses Satan to externally incite man to sin from within God makes certain by both His decree and efficacious power. Adam then, and any after him (with or without original sin) therefore are compelled to sin by liking or preferring it against the knowledge of the Truth.
Anyway, just finished doing yard work. I have a good night.
Michael,
Where do you get that idea from? When you wake up, tell me where you get that idea from. That’s the nuttiest thing I’ve ever heard in my life of being a Christian. And I’m 59 years old.
Ed,
Romans 11:36 states – “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Cf. Acts 17:28). This is the most powerful verse in the Bible. The implication is God is the cause of all things, including the will of the creature, unbelief, evil and sin. There are no exceptions.
Isaiah 45:7 states God is the author of evil – “I make peace and create evil.” Many will interpret the word peace as well-being, and evil as calamity in order to evade the idea God is the creator of moral evil. But the Hebrew word for peace is shalom which means more than well-being, and the word for evil (ra) often means moral evil like it does in Genesis 3:22. There is a Hebrew term for calamity, and it is not used here. Others will say the evil spoken here is a judicial hardening which God brings upon the creature for creating their own evil like it is in Jeremiah 18:4. But the context of Isaiah won’t allow for that. How do we know? Just look at verses 9-10 in chapter 45. God uses the analogy of a potter in way that is not a reaction but a cause. And He further beings this home by using the analogy of parents to children. The latter has no say whatsoever as to their being or existence.
Seeing that God is the ultimate cause of all things, we can better understand when the Scripture says – “Yahweh makes everything for His own purpose, even the wicked for the day of wrath” (Proverbs 16:4), or – “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God Who has mercy …… So, then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.” (Romans 9: 16,18). And we know this is not a judicial hardening in reaction to man’s sin because verses 20-21 are used in the same sense as Isaiah 45:9-10 and not Jeremiah 18:4.
The root El for the Hebrew word Elohim means the DREAD of the FEAR itself. Why? Because the meaning of Elohim is the Putter-forth of all power. All power (including the will to evil) comes from God for His own glory – “Once God has spoken; Twice I have heard this: That power belongs to Yahweh” (Psalm 62:11). Thus, our wills and destiny are determined by God and not of ourselves. This is the fearful reality.
God is not moved to wrath or grace by the independent power of the creatures (Cf. Job 35: 6-8). The will of the creature is only a means that God might celebrate and reveal these attributes through and for Christ, back unto Himself for good or ill. Thus, we can conclude that Satan and man can only desire and then will evil because God causes them to do so. And, that is why Satan, who is stronger than man can easily tempt him.
We stand before a God Who is a consuming fire – “Who understands the power of Your anger and the fury according to the fear that is due You? So, teach us to number our days, that we may present to You a heart of wisdom (Psalm 90 11-12). By God’s unconditional grace for His own glory, I CHOOSE Him as this ABSOLUTE and not as the maximally great God of freewill theology. I cry out with the saints – “Why O Yahweh, do You CAUSE us to STRAY from Your ways and HARDEN our HEARTS from fearing You? Return for the sake of Your servants, the tribes of Your heritage” (Isaiah 63:17). AMEN
Michael
“Yahweh makes everything for His own purpose, even the wicked for the day of wrath”
.
br.d
CALVINIST VERSION:
Calvin’s god makes everything for his own purpose.
And he especially takes pleasure in making people wicked giving them no say in the matter.
Because Calvin’s god gets a special pleasure out of making people for his special day of wrath.
.
John Calvin explain
-quote
by the eternal good pleasure of god though the reason does not appear, they are NOT FOUND but MADE worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
Michael,
Oh, my golly gosh…the things you guys interpret is just mindblowingly insane.
Romans 9-11 is about the salvation of the Jews, due to their blindness, because he USES them as a means to tell a story about himself.
Isaiah 45:7 does NOT say that God is the AUTHOR of sin. There is only two places in scripture that uses the word “AUTHOR”. And neither of them is “of sin”.
Calamity is the CORRECT word for that Hebrew word, even though the word “evil” is also the English equivelant.
Exodus 32:14
And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
Jeremiah 18:8
If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Jeremiah 26:3
If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.
Jeremiah 26:13
Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God; and the Lord will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you.
Jonah 3:10
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
Does God “DO” evil in the sense of SIN? Based on your logic of God being the AUTHOR OF, it would appear that we have an EVIL AND WICKED God that sins just like we do, because he REPENTS.
Now, is that the HOLY God that you know as a Calvinist?
Now, in regards to JUDICIAL hardening…there is NO SUCH THING, as Deuteronomy 29:4 points out, that they are blind NOT DUE TO ANYTHING THAT THEY DID, OR DIDN’T DO.
Contrary to popular belief, there is a difference between Jew and Gentile.
Deu 29:4 is REPEATED in Romans 11:8
4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
And it’s ALL ABOUT THE JEWS HERE, not HUMANITY as a whole. Not the Gentiles.
For the Gentiles…
Romans 15:21
21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
You need to SEPARATE the Jew from the Gentile, and stop including all of humanity in the same boat. Romans 9-11 is indeed about the SALVATION of the BLIND Jews, who CAN’T see Jesus, but YOU CAN.
When Jesus left the scene, one of the questions of the apostles was about restoring the Kingdom. We have Ezekiel 36-37 that STILL NEEDS TO BE PLAYED OUT. And yes, they will STILL BE under the LAW of Moses, still blind to seeing Jesus, but they will believe that the KING in Ezekiel 37 is the guy that they’ve been waiting for…and THAT KING is NOT JESUS.
The Jews STILL HAVE prophesy to fulfil, but they will be saved in the END TIMES. Romans 9-11 is EXPLAINING that salvation of the blind Jews…not their sins. Their sins will be WIPED AWAY. Why? Because God used them…as the potter…for destruction, etc., as a PROP to tell a story about the SPIRITUAL realm of God vs. Satan. Satan is NOT A FRIEND to God, and certainly not an EMPLOYEE. Satan wants our soul, just as much as God wants our soul. And each are fighting for our soul.
But the things in the Bible that you Calvinists declare…ugh! Terrible.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
The specific Hebrew word for calamity is not used in Isaiah 45:7
The Hebrew word for evil (RA), like I said, can often be interpreted as moral evil as it does in Genesis 3:22.
Though RA can be translated was calamity, that will depend on context.
If Isaiah was referring to a judicial hardening in response to man creating evil out of nothing but the independent power of his own will, then calamity would be appropriate. But verses 9-10 uses analogies conveying God as the cause of evil and not in the sense as a response.
Thus, RA in this verse means moral evil. Why? Because the intent of Isaiah chapters 40 – 63 is to show God is not contingent upon the creature in any way. He is God, and we are clay.
And when the clay melts itself in the hands of the Potter (Jeremiah 18:4) it is because God previously hardens the heart for His own glory (Proverbs 16:4).
This comports with the comprehensiveness of Romans 11:36. Peace.
Michael Volpe asks a great question: “So how then can one decide which consistent argument (pure determinism vs pure freewill indeterminism) is true? By which system not only answers its own epistemological problems but even those of its opposite system.”
The answer, if anyone can receive it, is to examine carefully and consistently through sound and prayerful exegesis what is taught in the Scriptures. The whole counsel of God, as revealed in His Word. Such a study will quickly demonstrate beyond all question that neither pure determinism nor pure freewill indeterminism are taught in the Bible. Instead, we find clear statements of absolute divine sovereignty, often right alongside clear statements of human responsibility and meaningful freedom of choice. Andy we find strong encouragements not to go beyond what is written, and to leave the wonderful and mysterious matters to the Lord’s supreme wisdom. For those committed to Sola Scriptura and truly dependent on God’s Word as Revelation which is elevated far above our best human reasoning, I would posit the only proper approach will be a bold embrace of Biblical paradox and a humble willingness not to have definitive (i.e., Bible-level-authoritative) answers for a great many questions. Certainly explore and philosophize and theorize on those questions, and try to resolve the tensions created by those Biblical paradoxes, but return always to a prudent recognition that where God has not clearly spoken we can NEVER fully know. Trust Him and His Word more than mere human reason. This alone will keep us from the absurdities of absolute free-will theology and those of hyper-Calvinism. And it will give us a much more charitable mindset toward those who disagree, so we will stop insultingly referring to a fellow believer’s conception of God with a small “g” and instead accept him as a brother who is wrestling through challenging matters of theology just as we are. This is the big question: Do you believe the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible revelation from God, requiring human faith and divine illumination to be understood properly, and at a level far above any mere human reasoning in their epistemological impact and authority? Only by grossly elevating human thought and/or by devaluing divine revelation can one expect to have pure consistency on matters of determinism and freewill. We find very similar kinds of paradoxes throughout Christian theology, so why not here? Why should we suddenly become inconsistent by demanding a level of consistency we do not expect in other areas?
THEO:
The answer, if anyone can receive it, is to examine carefully and consistently through sound and prayerful exegesis what is taught in the Scriptures.
.
br.d
Where “prayerfully and consistently through sound prayerful exegesis” is defined as reading into scripture what each person wants it to say. :-]
.
Michael is correct when he points out “there are different grades of Calvinists”
Even though he doesn’t define what he means by “grades”
.
What he means by “grades” is that there are some Calvinists who are rational and who have a desire to be TRUE to what the doctrine stipulates and not compromise the doctrine.
.
But most Calvinists are not that “grade” of Calvinists – because there are aspects of what the doctrine stipulates which they don’t find palatable. So they have to find inventive strategies for evading what the doctrine stipulates.
.
Simply put – these are Calvinists who simply WANT WHAT THEY WANT and refuse to take NO for an answer
.
But they will eventually all claim they reached their positions (which contradict each other) through sound prayerful exegesis. :-]
.
blessings!
Oparadox,
I appreciate your tone and attempt to give all of us the benefit of the doubt we are Christians. I hope I do the same. If not, may all please forgive me.
Yet, there is always a but. Your call for exegesis to answer the question assumes you are interpreting Scripture correctly, whereas both the absolute determinist ( which you seem to equate with hyper-Calvinism) and freewill indeterminist are not.
It comes down to whose interpretation of Scripture and why? How can we do that without the sufficiency of propositions to state and convey truth, and the validity of the laws of identity and inference? And if there are antinomies we must accept, why should we accept yours and not another’s? How can we compare the two and decide without logic? And how can the God Who is Truth convey Himself through contradictory truths? How can we say the Bible is infallible if it contains antinomies? What’s the difference between an antinomy and a contradiction?
Lastly, those (probably like yourself, but don’t know for sure) who believe God loves and desires the salvation of the very ones He does not choose, never tell the unbeliever that when they preach the gospel to them. Why because they intuitively know that’s absurd and would make the sincere offer not so sincere.
So, though maintaining the contradiction as orthodoxy, they then don’t preach what is to considered by themselves the full counsel of God. The effect is the so-called reformed message of the gospel is presented almost the same as the non-reformed gospel message because they never tell the unbeliever God might not choose them even though He could (and wants to) without doing injustice to Himself.
Something things to consider. Peace
br.d
WOW this was wonderfully stated!
Bravo Michael!!!
.
Michael
The effect is the so-called reformed message of the gospel is presented almost the same as the non-reformed gospel message…
.
br.d
Wonderfully said – and very insightful!!!
This is where we both agree that Calvinist language becomes COSMETIC language
Just as a woman who wants a man’s interest – will apply cosmetics to her face.
.
Calvinists like MacArthur, and Piper (as you insight-fully point out) stand before a mixed audience.
.
A certain percentage of the congregation are going to be the “Hyper” types
These Calvinists will AMEN preaching which is 100% Divine Sovereignty (aka Determinism) affirming.
However these Calvinist represent a tiny portion of the congregation.
.
The vast majority of the congregation are going to be the “Moderate” types.
These Calvinists cannot stomach preaching which is 100% Divine Sovereignty (aka Determinism) affirming.
They inherently recognize the “AUTHOR OF EVIL” component within the doctrine
And they become face-to-face with it.
If this happens too often for them – they will find a different Calvinist church to attend.
.
MacArthur, and Piper completely understand this!
If a Calvinist preacher is CONSISTENT with the doctrine – he knows his congregation will dwindle down a handful of “Hyper” types
.
So as you point out – this is where Calvinist language becomes a COSMETIC language
.
There is language which has Deterministic inferences
There is language which is Libertarian inferences
.
Calvinist ministers will TAP-DANCE back and forth between these two language modes – in order to keep their congregation.
.
Let’s take THEO’s statement for example – where he states:
“if you can receive it – we are to carefully and prayerfully exegete scripture”
.
This is LIBERTARIAN language.
The statement is completely MAN-CENTERED.
THEO is not even aware when his statements are blatant DENIALS of his own doctrine.
.
blessings!
Michael,
Thank you for your reply and charitable approach (which is much more like that of Dr. Flowers than I usually find on this page, where the VERY MOTIVES of Calvinists are assumed and harshly judged over and over again by a moderator, with an air of intense certainty that cannot possibly be real since no one can possibly know another person’s actual heart, and motivations can be complex and multi-faceted; in this environment, your polite and collegial tone are much welcomed by me, even if we disagree very strongly on fundamental points of theodicy and soteriology).
Your litany of counter-points are well-stated and I have wrestled through some of those questions with High Calvinists and Clarkians over the years (much to my benefit, I would add, and hopefully to theirs as well). Iron sharpens iron!
A curiosity I have (and perhaps I should just read your publications for the answer) is this: Hiw do you respond to the classical theodicy of Augustine and others who state that evil is not a thing in itself in the same way that good is a thing, but evil is instead a privation or distortion of the good that God created? I have always found this compelling. Based on your comments here, it seems you may not be so impressed by the idea. Any quick, helpful thoughts on this? I realize it is a large can of worms, so feel free to send me to a book or publication if that is the best route. Thanks!
THEO
where the VERY MOTIVES of Calvinists are assumed and harshly judged over and over again by a moderator,
.
br.d
Silly!!!!
Its just a matter of understanding human nature.
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
.
blessings!
br.d
UNDERSTANDING ALTRUISTIC DISHONESTY:
.
Dr. Bella Depaulo Social Scientist (The Hows and Whys of Lies)
-quote:
Altruistic dishonesty occurs when a person is working to protect a ‘target’. A high percentage of people who rationalize the use of dishonest language, experience some sub-level degree of discomfort, but which is effectively outweighed by rationalizations. And they generally do not regard their lies as lies. And this is especially true with people who are working to protect a ‘target’.”
.
These are called “other-oriented” or “altruistic” dishonesties. Protecting the ‘target’ allows them to perceive themselves as honest rather than dishonest. For the sake of protecting the ‘target,’ a high percentage report they would have felt worse if they had been honest, because honesty would have revealed things about the “target” they do not want people to see.
.
.
Altruism is in fact an excellent way to understand Calvinism’s word-juggling cosmetic language.
.
A battered wife may choose to restrain herself from communicating anything that may paint her husband in a bad light – even if she knows what she is communicating is false rather than truth-telling.
She is simply protecting the ‘target.’
.
How much more would a Calvinist evade and obfuscate anything that would in any way reflect badly on his god.
.
He would feel worse if his language were truth-telling – because it would reveal things about the ‘target’ he doesn’t want people to see.
Oparadox,
Thank you. And the answer to your question starts with the concept of God’s wrath.
Because of God’s aseity and His wrath is eternal, the latter could not be dependent in any sense upon the will of the creature.
Otherwise, God would not be self-contained or immutable. So, if God is wrath as He is Love, what can be the object of His eternal wrath?
Whatever it is, it can’t be finite. In some sense it must be of Divine origin. But God is the Good and cannot be evil.
Every positive affirmation entails its own negation. Since God is love and peace in being three Persons codependently autotheos (God in their own right), then the eternal object of their wrath can none other be the corollary idea of each person wanting preeminence for themselves and hating the others and even the self for being co-Divine. This pride would only result in an eternal Sadomasochistic self-hell. God hates this idea and all that can possibly stand for it.
Thus, God determines what evil is from His own self-contained existence (Genesis 3:22) because He is the Good of the Truth. Since God determines the meaning of His own negation whereby it must make eternal and everlasting reparation of its necessary existence by having His wrath upon it, then evil is a power that must and will be destroyed. So it’s more than a privation.
And yet, eternal and everlasting wrath against His own negation is not sufficient to show His superiority over it. More is needed. It must be shown God is in repose over it in reconciling it unto Himself.
How then does God justly celebrate and honor Himself over and against the idea of His own negation? He does it in Christ, for and through Whom the world is created as the theatre whereby God demonstrates He is the Good of the Truth. And the election and reprobation of mankind serves this better than all the other creatures.
I can send you a pamplhet I wrote called Evil, Suffering, and Hell: Why? It explains this in more detail. But for the full-orbed theodicy you can get my book on Amazon called Commemorative Justice.
To request the pamphlet, email me at mmvolpe3@gmail.com
May God’s Face shine upon us all.
Michael
Because of God’s aseity and His wrath is eternal, the latter could not be dependent in any sense upon the will of the creature. Otherwise, God would not be self-contained or immutable
.
br.d
Yes
In Calvinism – this correlates to the confession which states – The decree (which determines whatsoever will come to pass within creation) is not based upon anything having to do with the creature or the condition thereof. It is solely within himself.
.
So the decree which determines every sinful evil impulse that will infallibly come to pass within man’s brain – is not based on anything having to do with the creature or the condition thereof. It is solely within himself.
.
A common NON-Calvinist conception of divine foreknowledge and human accountability – is that of a THEOS who looks down the corridor of time and OBSERVES what each man will be and what each man will do – and then holds each man accountable accordingly.
.
But that conception makes the creature the DETERMINER of what he will be and do
And the THEOS in such case – functions as a *RESPONDER* of what the creature Determines.
.
That conception of is anathema because it compromises divine sovereignty where the THEOS is the sole and exclusive DETERMINER of whatsoever comes to pass.
.
That is why Calvin insists – the creature is not FOUND – but MADE worthy of destruction.
.
Man is of course granted NO SAY in the matter of what he will infallibly be.
And nothing within creation – including man’s will – is ever “Free” to be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
.
It is of course – on the topic of theodicy – Calvinist’s become very uncomfortable with the doctrine
They are overcome by an overwhelming urgency to erase the THEOS from the picture
And manufacture FACADES of man being granted a degree of mental AUTONOMY.
.
We can see how this is unfortunate for the Calvinist
But it is to be expected given the burden the doctrine places on him.
.
blessings!
When it comes to theodicy, the real problem for Christianity is not so much evil, but hell.
Unfortunately both Calvinism and freewill theology cannot offer a justifiable answer to why there is even one person in hell.
According to both of their theologies, God did not have to create a world in which He had to express Himself at the expense of anyone.
And the same applies to all the evil and suffering the world has been engrossed in from the beginning. Why so much suffering on both sides of death?
So, since God is Truth, the Good, Love and absolutely sovereign, there’s got to be (and there is ) a better answer than mystery, man or God’s supposed freewill.
Michael
When it comes to theodicy, the real problem for Christianity is not so much evil, but hell.
.
br.d
No that is not the case at all.
.
It is – obviously a problem for the Calvinist
Because Calvin’s god FIRST CONCEIVES every sinful evil impulse that will come to pass within man’s brain.
He then *MAKES* those impulses infallibly (and thus irresistibly) come to pass within man’s brain
They are determined by antecedent factors outside of the brain’s control.
Thus man is granted NO CHOICE in the matter.
.
As Dr. William Lane Craig states – it is impossible to avoid a THEOS who is the AUTHOR OF EVIL within that system.
.
Michael
Unfortunately both Calvinism and freewill theology cannot offer a justifiable answer to why there is even one person in hell.
.
br.d
No that is not the case either.
.
Calvin clearly states the reason Calvin’s god creates man for damnation is -quote “For his good pleasure”
The reason can’t be based on or determined by the creature – because that would compromise divine sovereignty.
.
OUTSIDE of Calvinism however ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS exist for man
And man is granted CHOICE between those options.
.
It is well recognized Christian Scholarship – Calvinism’s answer to the problem of evil – falls short of that which is understood OUTSIDE of Calvinism because it makes the THEOS as the AUTHOR OF EVIL
.
blessings!
God did not have to create a world with a hell. So, why did He do it? That’s a problem for every man whether one is a Calvinist or not.
Michael
God did not have to create a world with a hell.
.
br.d
Thus it logically follows – he had a CHOICE between TWO CONTRARY options.
Option_A: Make world with hell
Option_B: Make a world without hell
.
These two options are CONTRARY to each other.
If he selects Option_A then he has DONE OTHERWISE then select Option_B
If he selects Option-B then he has DONE OTHERWISE than select Option_A
.
When ever Option he selects – is CONTRARY to the option he rejects
Thus in the process of making a choice between two CONTRARY options – he has made what is called a CONTRARY choice.
.
blessings
I think you misunderstand my argumentation. I stated that to show what both yours and the Calvinistic position entails (that God can create an infinite number of possible worlds), in order to further show that God cannot create other possible worlds than the one He did. Nor could He not create. This is consistent absolute determinism.
Soup or Salad, Michael?
I keep bringing that up, because you keep saying that you have no choice in the matter. But this example shows that you do.
I remember when I quit smoking. My “will” wants to smoke…right now. But I fight that will, and don’t. The same can go for “BEEF, IT’S WHAT’S FOR DINNER”…OR PIZZA. What you “will” may not be what’s available. Or, both are available, and you “will” for both, but can only have one. “Decisions, decisions”. Eenie, Meenie, Minie, Mo…which is it going to be?
And for Cavlinisist to CONCLUDE that man’s will is ALWAYS SINFUL…Uh, no, that’s not true at all. I know a lot of atheists that do GOOD…and they even remind us of all the good that they do, because they have most of the same morals as we all do. For all have sinned, but we all don’t always want to sin.
I think you are reading into things that are JUST NOT THERE in the Bible…such as…
Psalms 53:1-6
The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and their ways are vile;
there is no one who does good.
2
God looks down from heaven
on all mankind
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3
Everyone has turned away, all have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
4
Do all these evildoers know nothing?
They devour my people as though eating bread;
they never call on God.
5
But there they are, overwhelmed with dread,
where there was nothing to dread.
God scattered the bones of those who attacked you;
you put them to shame, for God despised them.
6
Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion!
When God restores his people,
let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad!
Please NOTE verse 4…”THEY DEVOUR MY PEOPLE”. So “they” is the subject of the conversation who DEVOURS God’s people.
We have anti-semites today! We have people who hate Jews…even in Christianity. I think they call them, ETHNIC JEWS, who reside in Israel, who can’t stand the Jews because they killed Jesus. In other words, it has a context that is being missed.
The problem that I see is that most Catholic defectors still have angst against the Jews for various reasons, but Calvinism lumps ALL OF HUMANITY together with the Jews of their blindness, as well as to lump all of humanity with the “evil doers” who wish to annihilate the Jewish nation.
Which also follows THERE IS NO ONE RIGHTEOUS NO NOT ONE, but you miss the following:
Luke 1:6
Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.
So you have this debate on free will. What is the reason that God created hell? Satan and his angels had to have SOMEWHERE to go after being kicked out of “ETERNITY”. And HERE THEY ARE.
So God creates man in the same realm of Satan…to give us FREE WILL CHOICE to follow God, or Satan. The Jews, God blinded for a SPIRITUAL purpose to SHOW HIS POWER, in what he WILL DO by CRUSHING Satan…played by the Pharoah.
Romans 9-11 is NOT ABOUT SIN, not about the word “destruction” equating to hell. In my view, the Pharoah got MERCY due to his being USED for destruction, just like the Jews will receive mercy, due to the same reason.
For example…we know:
Acts 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
But Calvinism shows that God does indeed show favoritism. In any case, I present you with…the Apostle Paul.
Did Paul seek Jesus, or did Jesus seek Paul?
Acts 21:39
But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
Paul is a Jew.
NOTE: It’s also important to mention that Paul is a Jew due to some who think that Jew means Judaen, or Judah! Paul is from the tribe of Benjamin, from Rome…so this debunks the Judean, and Judah theory.
Acts 22:3
I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
2 Corinthians 11:22
Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.
So, Paul states he is a Jew, a Hebrew, an Israelite, and the seed of Abraham.
Now, let’s go back to Deuteronomy 29:4, Moses speaking to the JEWS/HEBREWS/ISRAELITES and the seed of Abraham:
4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
1 Timothy 1:13
Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
What makes Paul so SPECIAL?
Romans 11:32
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Who is “THEM”? JEWS
Who is “all”? BLIND JEWS.
Gentiles is a completely different topic to cover. And I already showed you Acts 17:30, regarding Gentile Idol Worshipers!
Acts 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
IGNORANCE…please note 1 Timothy 1:13 above. IGNORANCE. They didn’t KNOW it was wrong. MERCY.
In every alternative before me both my intellect and will are involved. But this does not mean that whatever decision I make has not been determined by God.
As for exiting before my conception in the womb, though possible, I don’t see enough Scriptural support. Nor is the idea Needed for me to believe that this present world is not my home.
I understand the dogma of total depravity as no man’s motives or deeds (singularly or collectively) can be a ground for justification before God to forgive him of sins and grant eternal life. Thus, men can and do semblances of good, but avails for nothing concerning salvation. Thus, God has to impute Christ’s perfect righteousness to God’s law innocent suffering to me for justification.
Lastly, just because I believe God is now saving both Jew and Gentile by the elective imputation of Christ’s righteousness through faith makes me anti-Semitic.
Peace
Michael
God did not have to create a world with a hell.
.
br.d
If your position is that he does not have CONTRARY choice – then he does not have choice between CONTRARY options.
.
In such case – he did not have a choice between creating a world with hell or NOT creating a world with hell.
.
So if it is the case that he created a world with hell without CONTRARY CHOICE – then it follows – he did in fact *HAVE* to crate world that world simply because no CONTRARY option was available to him.
.
In such case – your statement that he did not have to create that world is logically FALSE
.
Blessings!
Michael
So, since God is Truth, the Good, Love and absolutely sovereign
.
br.d
That is a good description of the NON-Calvinist’s god
.
But Calvinism (per Augustine) incorporates DUALISM in which “Good” and “Evil” are CO-Equal, Co-Necessary, and CO-Complimentary.
.
Augustine
-quote
And because this orderly arrangement maintains the *HARMONY OF THE UNIVERSE* by this very *CONTRAST* it comes about that *EVIL THINGS MUST NEED BE* . In this way, the *BEAUTY* of all things is in a manner configured, as it were, from *ANTITHESIS* , that is, from opposites: this is pleasing to us even in discourse”. (ord 1.7.19)
.
Augustine derives this DUALISM from Gnosticism – which is a DUALISTIC system.
.
Jon Edwards confirms
-quote
….. the shining forth of god’s glory would be very imperfect both because the *PARTS* of divine glory would not shine forth as the *OTHER* do …….nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all. (Works of president Edwards)
.
So here we see the DUALISM again
We have PARTS of divine glory which are GOOD and PARTS of divine glory which are EVIL
They CO-Necessary and CO-Complimentary
.
Calvin’s god creates people for EVIL for his GOOD pleasure
Thus we have EVIL – for the sake of GOOD
Thus “GOOD-EVIL”
.
That explains the difference.
Blessings!
Michael
As for your question: is creation granted the “Freedom” to countervail an infallible decree?
The answer should be no
But it’s not so simple because there are different grades of Calvinism.
.
br.d
This goes to my point about following the pattern of the WOKE mindset
Here is a little dialog between a Trans_woman and Matt Walsh:
.
Trans_woman:
Some of us believe we were never a man
.
Matt Walsh:
But since you were born a biological man
So doesn’t it logically follow you were once a biological man?
.
Trans_woman:
its not that simple because there are different grades of Trans_women
From the perspective of an absolute determinist the answer is an unequivocal no.
But as I have shown Calvinists are not consistent because they nuance determinism in different ways. Therefore, they also indirectly equivocate. That’s why, as you say, they use cosmetic language.
So, your comment does not apply to my position. But you are correct concerning Calvinists. Not so much concerning Clark, Hoeksema or Calvin, but it does toward men like McArthur, Piper, Keller and to a less extent Sproul. Peace
br.d
Yes!
Well said!
I totally agree with you!
.
This is where – within the social structure of Calvinists as a divergent group – they have what they call the “Moderate” Calvinist vs the “Hyper” Calvinist.
.
I have often been in conversations with Calvinists and my approach to the doctrine is to be LOGICALLY CONSISTENT with it.
.
When that happens – it is never a surprise for that Calvinist to LABEL my position as “Hyper”
.
So we do recognize – there are Calvinists who are rational – and there are Calvinists who much more follow the WOKE mindset.
.
They WANT WHAT THEY WANT and refuse to take NO for an answer
They are happy to live in a world of self-contradicting talking-points
Because self-contradicting talking -points gives them what they want.
.
Thus they follow the pattern of the WOKE mindset.
Personally – I see many Calvinists captured in a form of mental ensnarement
God has given them over to an ensnared mind.
.
Blessings!
Do you actually live as if what you are proposing is true or is it just an irrelevant philosophical position when you discuss theology? Is prayer meaningful or just a mental exercise like yoga or meditation?Serious questions
Welcome Zoran! Here’s my take on prayer.
God’s answers to prayer help mold the still flexible future that exists in God’s mind!
Three great examples –
Isaiah 38:5 NKJV — “Go and tell Hezekiah, ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely 👉I will add👈 to your days fifteen years.”‘”
… adding is a change in the plan.
Matthew 24:20 NKJV — “And pray that your flight may not be 👉in winter👈 or on the Sabbath.
… the date of the fall of Jerusalem and the flight from it was able to be altered by prayer.
Exodus 32:11,12,14 NKJV — Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: “LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people….Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people.” So the LORD relented from the harm 👉which He said He would do👈 to His people.
…God changed His plan in answer to prayer.
James 5:16 NKJV — …The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.
br.d
Hello Zoran
.
You ask an insightful question!
It is actually not possible for a Calvinist to live coherently with his doctrine because of the radical nature of the doctrine.
.
This is similar with the belief in Solipsism.
The Solipsist system stipulates – the believer is the only human who exists
Everyone else is a figment of his imagination.
.
But you can imagine there will be consequences if he treats people accordingly.
.
Imagine a Solipsist treating his supervisor or his boss as a figment of his imagination.
Will his boss be offended or agitated by that?
Will his boss decide he would not be a good choice for promotions.
.
Imagine him treating his wife as a figment of his imagination during their intimate moments
Will she not be offended by that?
How will that effect their marraige?
.
Obviously – he is smart enough to know – his career and his marriage might be adversely affected
So in order to avoid consequences – he treats people *AS-IF* they are real.
.
The foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD)
Every impulse within the Calvinist brain – is determined by antecedent factors outside of the brain’s control.
.
You can see how no one could possibly live coherently with that doctrine.
Consequently – every Calvinist (just as the Solipsist) lives *AS-IF* his belief system is FALSE
.
blessings!
I concur with Br.d, this is a good question. Why pray if everything is determined? And why pray if we have freewill? God cannot change it for either the self or for others.
For me, I pray out of gratitude, dependence, for others, and to seek Him in order to conform to His will, which He is not obligated to reveal to me. So, I find myself throughout the day incessantly praying. But in the end I’m compelled to pray to Him and enjoy doing so. Hope this suffices. Peace.
Michael
Why pray if everything is determined? And why pray if we have freewill?
.
br.d
WHAT????
Obviously – in Calvinism – man is not granted a CHOICE in the matter of anything – simply because
1) No ALTERNATIVES exist for man to choose
2) Even if ALTERNATIVES did exist for man to choose – his brain is not granted any CONTROL over any impulse that will come to pass within it. So his brain is not granted CONTROL necessary to make a choice.
.
Accordingly – the only way an impulse to pray can come to pass within the Calvinist brain – is if that impulse was decreed.
.
And NO ALTERNATIVE is granted existence from that which it decreed.
thus NO ALTERNATIVE impulse is granted existence within the human brain.
.
.
In Calvinism – divine intervention does not exist – because no event is granted existence unless that event is decreed
And events are decreed to come to pass with infallible exactness which cannot be intervened.
.
OUTSIDE of Calvinism however none of that is the case.
– ALTERNATIVES exist for man to choose between
– Events are not FIXED in the past by an infallible script
– Humans are granted a degree of mental AUTONOMY
– Thus divine intervention is possible.
.
Blessings!
To the degree God has granted me true knowledge, I pray Thy will be done.
Thus, prayers are a constant devotion and submission to Him, even when He does not allow them to conform to what He wills.
Because of what He did for me in Christ, I trust all is right and good.
Michael,
You should have stopped while you were ahead…just sayin’! LOL.
“…even when He does not allow them to conform to what He wills…”
Calvinism double speak in play.
If God puts it in my heart to pray for something or someone and He answers, then He gets all the glory because He used me as a conduit through my prayers to let me and others know what His will is, which cannot change.
And regardless if He answers or not, I know He can change all things, even men’s wills. So, life becomes one of constant dependence and devotion. Amen
br.d
A very interesting Star Trek Next Generation episodes is “Ship in a bottle”
.
The ships computer has a Holodeck in which it can create SIMULATED worlds which are sophisticated enough to fool the human mind into perceiving them as real.
.
Calvin’s god – can be likened to a Holodeck computer.
He can create SIMULATIONS of divine prevention and divine intervention which are sophisticated enough to fool the Calvinist into perceiving them as real.
.
For example – for the Calvinist – Calvin’s god prevented Joseph’s brothers from killing Joseph
But Josephs brothers couldn’t possibly kill Joseph – because that was never in the program.
.
It was a computer generated SIMULATION of a 100% infallibly scripted event.
But the program is sophisticated enough to fool the Calvinist into perceiving it as a real
.
This is the way prayer works for the Calvinist also
Every impulse in his brain is pre-programmed
But the divine computer makes the program sophisticated enough to fool the Calvinist into perceiving it as a real :-]
Just because your meta-epistemology has a lot in common with that of deism you would still maintain there are significant differences. So the same with absolute theistic determinism and acosmism, which is the charge being made.
If God is Triune and the real, and they want to gift each other with a possible world in which they celebrate their love for being the Good of Truth in determining all things – like a dreamer to his dream whereby the latter is from their perspective virtually real (incorrigibly real in effect) as compared to the former who is the real by being the basis-
Who can say otherwise it’s wrong?
And who can say the virtually real is not effectually existing from what the dreamer decides is both factual or fiction? After all the dreamer can dream dreams, think in time, distinguish between substance and non-substance and of space. If we can do this in being finite, how much more so the Triune God for the love of His own glory in and for Christ?
This distinction between the real and virtually real explains better than the meta-epistemological dualism of indeterminate freewill thought and its maximally great God the following Scriptures:
“In Him we move, live, and have our being”
“Of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things”
“In Thy Light, we see light”
“You will say to me then, ‘why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
By His grace and good pleasure, I accept I’m fully circumscribed and determined by His will and reject the existential revolt of determining my own essence and destiny, which is by implication what freewill theology implies.
Like I said in an earlier post, freewill theology gave birth to existentialism. And that is why it has no force to stand up to nihilism. Why? Because both affirm the same presupposition- freewill.
And as I’ve shown also with both Calvinism and freewill theology, only absolute determinism can rationally explain evil, suffering, hell and salvation.
Try as you wish, but on your assumed general benevolence of God in order to affirm freewill indeterminacy to determine one’s own destiny, it was wrong for God to create a world with evil, suffering and hell. It’s no wonder many within freewill theology downplay the extensiveness and intensiveness of hell, or ignore it. Peace
Michael
Who can say otherwise it’s wrong?
.
br.d
Here is a TRUE/FALSE question for you.
.
Right and wrong are CONTRARY to each other.
.
TRUE or FALSE?
Michael
To the degree God has granted me true knowledge, I pray Thy will be done.
.
br.d
Well – that is another problem we haven’t yet discussed
.
Exhaustive divine Determinism (EDD) does not grant the human brain the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on the mater of anything.
.
The human brain’s process of discerning the TRUTH-VALUE of any proposition – requires that brain making a CHOICE between TRUE and FALSE on the matter of that proposition.
.
Such a choice doe not exist for the Calvinist – because it would constitute a CONTRARY choice.
A CHOICE between two CONTRARY options
And CONTRARY OPTIONS do not exist within creation for the Calvinist.
.
The doctrine stipulates – WHATSOEVER comes to pass – is FIXED before you are created by a decree
And that decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
.
Accordingly – WHATSOEVER “Perception” comes to pass within your brain – must be decreed.
.
1) if it is decreed your brain will perceive [X] as TRUE – then NO ALTERNATIVE perception is granted to your brain.
.
2) if it is decreed your brain will perceive [X] as FALSE – then NO ALTERNATIVE perception is granted to your brain.
.
In either case- your brain is not granted the ability to CHOOSE between TRUE and FALSE – because your brain isn’t even granted the ability to PERCEIVE OTHERWISE
.
This is an epistemic consequence of EDD
.
Gregory Koukl
-quote:
The problem with determinism, is that…..rationality would have no room to operate. Arguments would not matter, since no one would be able to base beliefs on adequate reasons. One could never judge between a good idea and a bad one. One would only hold beliefs because he has been predetermined to do so. Although it is theoretically possible that determinism is true…..no one could ever know it if it were. Everyone of our thoughts dispositions and opinions would have been decided for us by factors completely out of our control. Therefore in practice, arguments for determinism are self defeating.”
.
Dr. John Searle – (Rationality in Action – Philosophy of Mind and Language – Berkeley)
-quote
All human rational activity logically presupposes Libertarian Free Will.
This becomes obvious when one realizes that rationality is possible only where one has a *CHOICE* among various rational as well as irrational options.”
.
Take the example in Calvinism – where Calvin’s god creates CHAFF believers
.
John Calvin
-quote
The Lord….instills into their minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt *WITHOUT* the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
.
He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he….strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
.
What has been decreed in this case – is FALSE PERCEPTIONS will infallibly exist within the believers brain.
That decree does not allow the believer to *DISCERN* any FALSE PERCEPTION at pain of falsify the decree.
Thus the believer’s brain cannot discern a TRUE PERCEPTION from a FALSE PERCEPTION
Which means – he cannot *KNOWN* if anything he thinks is TRUE – because he cannot *KNOW* if his PERCEPTION on the matter is a FALSE PERCEPTION which his brain is not permitted to discern.
.
Blessings!
I don’t think my last post went through, so I’ll reiterate. If it did, please excuse me.
Neither God, Christ, the angels and even the saints in heaven do not have the power of contrary choice concerning evil yet know what good and evil is. And their virtues of love, faith and obedience have value. So freewill is not needed for predication or morality. So why freewill?
Lastly, why would God create a world with freewill beings and a hell when He could have created one with unfallen beings loving and knowing Him better than those supposedly having freewill?
Wouldn’t love demand He create the best possible world for all whereby He is fully loved and He loves all? If He couldn’t, why not?
On earth, we have Pecan Pie, Apple Pie, Berry Pie.
But in heaven, there is only Chocolate Cream Pie. How can I have Pecan pie, if there isn’t any?
Isaiah 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
I’ll never remember how good a pecan pie tasted. But that chocolate cream pie…HEAVENLY!
But it will be in the minds of those who will be burning in hell forever. How is God love when He did not need to create a world with a hell? Matter of fact, we can conclude from the same principle, He is wrong for creating a world with so much evil, suffering and hell.
Michael,
You are answering your own question! It’s the question of the ages! MAN CHOOSES where he/she will go. God said, CHOOSE LIFE, that he set before us both life and death.
Atheists, for example, they want nothing to do with God. So guess what? They get their wish fulfilled.
God did not choose death for them. They chose it themselves, because God gave us TWO choices, whether they believe it or not. Whether you believe it or not. All this nonsense that God sends people to hell for his own good pleasure is insane. What kind of God do you worship? No wonder we have evangelicals LEAVING Christianity a lot these days. They had to take your 36 week indoctrination of Romans 9, when it has nothing to do with humanity as a whole.
If you are referring as some have that we were born in eternity past, that’s a possibility. But I don’t see enough Scriptural warrant for that. I would say collectively the elect were conceived in Christ from all eternity, but born at the moment of conception. Either way, I’m interested to see where you are going with this. Thanks
The “elect” is such a subject of major confusion for you Catholic defectors! The elect are JEWS ONLY, saved, or unsaved. There is no such thing as a saved, or unsaved Gentile that is classified as “elect”.
That’s one…
But yes, there is a major hint of being created before being conceived…Genesis 2 is NOT a review of Genesis 1, for example.
Genesis 1 is about the creation of OUR spirits (Not just Adam, not just Adam and Eve). Chapter 2, however, is about the FORMATION of the DIRT BODY.
Note, in Genesis 1, animals were CREATED before man? In short, man was LAST. What’s the order of events in chapter 2? Man first, before the animals, THEN the animals, and after all that was over and done with, then finally Eve came on the scene.
So there is a difference between the order of events between chapters 1 and 2, as well as a difference between CREATION and FORMATION. Plant a SEED (SPIRIT) in dirt, and Adam became a living breathing THINKER.
Now, where am I going with this? This is NOT OUR HOME, it never was, it never will be. We are just passing through. This is OUR TESTING ground…it is a LIKENESS of the eternal, but has never been eternal in the first place.
Heaven was never created. THE HEAVENS were created. God’s throne was never created. It just always has been.
2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
This life was always meant to be TEMPORAL. Everything about it.
I got a serious question for you, Michael,
Do you believe that THIS EARTH was meant to be our PERMANENT home? Our bodies made of DIRT, formed to DIE ANYWAY? Adam never began with a spiritual body at all.
THIS is not our home. This is NOT from whence we came from. This is where we get a BODY that dies, but this is not where we originated.
When were you created? Notice I didn’t say, when were you born, or when were you conceived in the womb? No, I didn’t. I specifically asked, when were you CREATED.
Ponder that question.
Michael,
There is no such thing as CHOICE/choose IF THERE ISN’T AN ALTERNATIVE. Soup or Salad?
Michael
So freewill is not needed for predication or morality. So why freewill?
.
br.d
Michael – you need to understand the difference between making a claim vs providing logically sound reasoning.
.
You will notice in my posts – I don’ t just make claims up out of thin air – and then AUTO-MAGICALLY assume the claim is unquestionable truth just because I say so.
.
I provided logical evidence
And then provide quotes from academic sources – affirming that evidence
.
There is an epistemic consequence of Determinism
Which (if you can think logically) you should be able to connect the dots.
.
Perhaps your model of thinking – is to simply accept whatever imagination comes into your mind and AUTO-MAGICALLY assume it infallibly true?
.
BTW:
The Reformed view of Calvin’s god is that he has CONTRARY choice.
For example – at the foundation of the world – he had a choice concerning the month of your birth
He had 12 months as POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES to choose from
Each ALTERNATIVE month is CONTRARY to the other.
Thus in the process of making a choice concerning the month of your birth – he has made a CONTRARY choice.
.
Therefore the classic Reformed view is – at the foundation of the world – Calvin’s god determines what he wants to come to pass within creation – by making a selection out of POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES
.
But for every decision – he can only choose ONE OPTION.
So for every event – he must reject all available POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES in lieu of the ONE OPTION he wants to come to pass.
.
In regard to Adam eating the fruit – he has two ALTERNATIVES
1) Adam will [EAT]
2) Adam will [NOT EAT]
.
Those two ALTERNATIVES are CONTRARY to each other.
He cannot choose both
He cannot leave it UNDETERMINED
He must choose one option and reject the other.
.
That process of choice – is in fact a CONTRARY choice.
So the Reformed view is that Calvin’s god has CONTRARY choice.
But he does not grant CONTRARY choice to anything within creation.
.
If Calvin’s god does not have CONTRARY choice – then he cannot choose between TRUE and FALSE
Thus he cannot discern TRUE from FALSE – because doing so requires choosing between TRUE and FALSE
.
I did not make these things up out of thin air and then AUTO-MAGICALLY assume them to be true simply because I want them to be true.
.
Perhaps you are not a rational thinking person?
.
blessings
The difference between Calvinism and what I’m asserting is alternatives are not possible for God or man because neither have freewill. Whatever affirmation is made by the intellect and the will (because they always go together) of the soul is what is absolutely determined and certain. For God, His own nature and purpose decides that. For the creature, its God’s efficacious decree.
Alternatives or possible worlds only exist in the minds of both God and man in order to reveal and show the value of what God wills as the best and only possible world, because God cannot but exhaustively glorify Himself as the highest end through the greatest means in every jot and tittle. Otherwise, He would cease to exist and everything else with Him, which is impossible. Thus, with such a cause-and-effect relationship everything is rational and has value.
Choice as a legitimate term can be used in this context when considering the will affirms what it finds good along with the intellect. And it does so in light of the knowledge of other possibilities, which only exist to confirm what is actual is the real. Thus, predication and morality need not freewill. You can see this also in your position and Calvin’s concerning the freewill of God and Christ when it comes to evil. Neither one can be evil or do sin yet know what good and evil is and even love. Thus, freewill indeterminacy is not needed to have a knowledge of good or evil or for love and obedience and even faith to have value. We see this also in the unfallen angels, and to a lesser extent when a man is in love. These are examples of a will affirming what it desires and considers true over and against other possibilities being made without freewill indeterminacy.
All this is logically consistent in accordance with major premises. But it’s not sound for you because your major premise is freewill determinacy for both God and man. I argue the opposite. So, since logical necessity and soundness are not the same, how do we decide between two contradictory consistent systems of thought? – by which one explains reality the best, by showing it can’t be otherwise. And whatever that is, comports with Scripture. That is why I keep bringing up the realities of evil, sin and hell. Based on your assumption of a general benevolence of God to ground your belief in freewill indeterminacy to determine your own destiny, you cannot explain why a God of love, Who does not need the creature would create a world with even one person going to hell, especially when He did not have to. Freewill indeterminacy is insufficient to interpret reality.
Michael
The difference between Calvinism and what I’m asserting is alternatives are not possible for God or man because neither have freewill.
.
br.d
Thus it follows – where ALTERNATIVES do not exit for Calvin’s god – then ALTERNATIVES (since they don’t exist) are not available to him.
.
So if he wanted to determined the month of your birth – he does have ALTERNATIVES to choose from.
Which means he does not have a CHOICE in the matter.
.
Michael
Whatever AFFIRMATION is made by the intellect and the will (because they always go together) of the soul is what is absolutely determined and certain.
.
br.d
The word AFFIRMATION is defined as ” the act of affirming”
The act of affirming entails CONTRARY options
– Option_A: Affirming [X] = TRUE
– Option_B: Affirming [X] = FALSE
This act would require both TRUE and FALSE – be available for the intellect to affirm
Thus what you have here is simply CONTRARY CHOICE.
.
If the PERCEPTION within the intellect is PREDETERMINED (as you would like it to be)
Then the act of “Affirming” does not exist for the intellect.
What exists for the intellect in that case – is simply a PREDETERMINED PERCEPTION.
.
Michael
For God, His own nature and purpose *DECIDES* that.
.
br.d
You see – you have a decision here!!!
So what you have here is a NATURE which has a CHOICE
.
But NO ALTERNATIVES exist for that NATURE to choose.
Thus that NATURE does not have a CHOICE.
Thus your assertion that NATURE decides collapses in on itself – simply because NO CHOICE exists for it to decide.
.
Michael
Alternatives or possible worlds only exist in the minds of both God..
.
br.d
AH! This is an about face!
You do have ALTERNATIVES which exist after all!!!
So your previous assertion that ALTERNATIVES do not exist collapses into self-contradiction.
.
.
So we can proceed with your acknowledgement that ALTERNATIVES exist
And the decision maker (aka CHOICE-MAKER) in this case is the NATURE of a THEOS.
.
The fact that ALTERNATIVES exist within his mind does not negate the fact that they exist as ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES from which from which his NATURE can select – in the process of his decision making
.
Those ALTERNATIVES constitute CONTRARY OPTIONS.
Thus his NATURE has CHOICE between CONTRARY OPTIONS which exist in his mind as ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES.
.
Since those ALTERNATIVES constitute CONTRARY OPTIONS – it follows – he has CONTRARY OPTIONS to choose from.
.
Thus what you have given his NATURE – is called CONTRARY CHOICE.
.
Additionally- if his NATURE does not have CONTRARY CHOICE – then his NATURE does not have the ability to CHOOSE between TRUE and FALSE on any matter.
.
I don’t envy him – because he doesn’t have the ability to make a CHOICE between TRUE and FALSE on any matter. :-]
.
Blessings
God has a will and intellect but cannot be evil or sin. Yet, He decides for good everyday. So without having the power of contrary choice at least in this one instance,how can He know evil or His decisions have any value as a moral choice when He decides for what is good? So, if predication, moral value and decision making is possible whereby God cannot know or do otherwise concerning both good and evil, why cannot it not be the same in all His thoughts and actions? So the word choice can have meaning apart from freewill indeterminacy.
There have been at least two times you misunderstood my argument. One time you admitted it. The other seems to be when you thought I was affirming God has freewill, which I deny. Therefore, it puts me outside the Calvinist camp. Anyway, these two examples should make you reconsider how you argue. You’re an intelligent man and have passion for what you believe. A little more humility will go a long way. Something to consider to make your arguments stronger.
I part with these questions for you and others:
1. How can God know good and evil if He does not have the power of contrary choice to sin?
2. How is God’s foreknowledge not a form of election and compatible with a belief in His general benevolence?
3. If God is love and all powerful, does not need man, and could have created an infinite number of possible worlds without doing any injustice, why is there even one person in hell?
4. And if He is obligated to create a world with freewill beings who could merit hell, where’s the necessity?
5. Why should God and man not kill as many babies as possible in order to possibly prevent them from reaching the age of accountability and merit hell?
6. How can faith not be a work of merit if based on freewill indeterminacy?
7. Why is Christ necessary?
God’s peace
Trans-person:
I identify as a women – therefore I am a woman.
But as a women – I don’t have any of the attributes of a woman.
.
Michael:
My god decides for good (aka chooses between GOOD and EVIL) everyday.
But without having the power of contrary choice (aka choosing between GOOD and EVIL)
.
br.d
AH! the WOKE mindset!
Its at least entertaining! :-]
Including one of the men you quoted, I once heard Leighton Flowers and Kevin Thompson say that determinism is a possibility. And if so (which it is), then it’s not absurd as you portray it. Something to consider, even if you are in the right. Peace.
br.d
Michael – you should be smart enough to discern there are consequences when something is taken to the extreme.
.
There is a difference is between SOME and ALL
.
Here is where we introduce the classical “Square of opposition”
We distinguish between two propositions:
1) ALL men are mortal
2) SOME men are mortal
.
(1) above – is called a UNIVERSAL positive proposition
(2) above – is called a PARTICULAR positive proposition
.
Every Calvinist knows what UNIVERSALISM means
Every Calvinist knows what PARTICULAR means
.
These terms (UNIVERSAL and PARTICULAR) have their origin in the Square of Opposition.
.
In every human society world-wide the NORMAL conception of Determinism is that it is PARTICULAR
SOME things are Determined.
.
For example – when an aircraft engineer uses a computer program to design a wing
That computer program includes the laws of physics which are consistently repeatable
Things which never fail to be repeatable are recognized as deterministic
.
The most famous billiard player in the world – is someone who understand the laws of physics as they pertain to the interaction of the billiard balls on the billiard table. Those laws are deterministic.
.
Therefore – no NORMAL person within any society rejects PARTICULAR Determinism
What NORMAL people reject is UNIVERSAL (aka EXHAUSTIVE) Determinism.
They reject EXHAUSTIVE Determinism because it is Determinism take to an extreme – entailing consequences which are so RADICAL that no person can accept them and at the same time retain a sense of human normalcy.
.
Every Calvinist that I dialog with – struggles with the EXHAUSTIVE nature of the doctrine.
They don’t want to accept it!!!
They all recognize to some degree that it entails human functionality which is SUB-HUMAN.
And they are not comfortable perceiving themselves as ABNORMAL human beings
.
It is also completely consistent – that every Calvinist lives *AS-IF* the doctrine is FALSE.
1) They lives *AS-IF* ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS exist
2) They live *AS-IF* they have CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES
3) They live *AS-IF* their CHOICE is *UP TO* them.
.
Thus every Calvinist lives *AS-IF* the doctrine is FALSE.
.
Every Calvinist (including you) can claim CONTRARY Choice does not exist
But every Calvinist (including you) lives *AS-IF* it does.
.
If they did not live that way – they would have to acknowledge their brains are not granted the ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE on any matter.
.
That is why you exhibit the WOKE mindset – making claims – which are logically self-contradicting – while forcing your brain to ignore the self-contradictions.
.
blessings!
In response to your last post, what unconditional means is the creature does not determine God in His wrath or grace. But from the creature’s perspective towards God, election is conditioned by God’s sovereign will. The language is appropriate for the concept being conveyed.
In response to the one before this one: You have asserted that based on determinism one cannot predicate nor do moral acts have value. Yet, I’ve given you the ultimate example that is not true – God. He has no freewill indeterminacy regarding evil but knows what evil is and all His choices and acts to do have moral value though He cannot do otherwise than good. You can’t sufficiently explain this, nor the questions I’ve posed as to why there is evil, suffering and hell if God and man have free will. Neither can you answer (based on provisionism or any other freewill theory) why Christ is necessary.
lastly, you state I can only live an inauthentic life of a woke person because decisions require freewill indeterminacy. No. I’m a finite person with an inescapable knowledge of God, good and evil. Yet, I don’t know what decisions God will be determined through me until I make them, for good or ill. But since He chose me, and has given an alien positive assent towards Him I cannot nor desire otherwise, I live in gratitude and pray unto Him the Lord’s prayer and assert – “For all things come from You, and from Your hand we have given you” (2 Chronicles 29:14), even when He has determined for me to sin – “Why O Yahweh, do You cause us to stray from Thy ways and harden our hearts from fearing Thee? Return for the sake of Thy servants, the tribe of Thine heritage” (Isaiah 63:17). Yet I have more objective assurance than the Calvinists and freewill determinists that in spite of evil, sin, suffering and hell this is the best and only possible world because from the ultimate perspective everything triune God does is absolutely necessary (in contrast to consequential and hypothetical necessity) in order to celebrate and honor Himself in Christ.
Since this is your site, I defer to you in having the last say. Unless, you have something new and of value in response. Until we duel again, may God’s face continue to shine upon you and yours.
Michael
what unconditional means is the creature does not determine God in His wrath or grace.
.
br.d
Well – Calvinism (EDD) doesn’t make any difference there.
The idea that the creature would determine a THEOS simply EDD flipped backwards – which is just as logically incoherent as it is without flipping it backwards.
.
Michael
But from the creature’s perspective towards God, election is conditioned by God’s sovereign will.
.
br.d
This statement is nothing more than a reiteration of the Calvinist use of the word CONDITIONAL which is equivocal.
In Calvinism election is both CONDITIONAL and UNCONDITIONAL
1) Election (along with every sinful evil impulse that will come to pass within every human brain) is CONDITIONED upon an infallible decree – and is therefore CONDITIONAL
.
2) Election (along with every sinful evil impulse that will come to pass within every human brain) is NOCONDITIONED upon an infallible decree – and in that sense is said to be UNCONDITIONAL
.
The strategy behind Calvinism’s use of the word UNCONDITIONAL is simply a strategy designed to obfuscate the AUTHOR OF EVIL which his the predominant characteristic of Calvin’s god.
.
Michael:
You have asserted that based on determinism one cannot PREDICATE nor do moral acts have value.
.
br.d
No this is FALSE
Firstly – you are playing shell games with words – by trying to use the word PREDICATE – because the equivocal nature of that word allows you to obfuscate behind a smoke-screen of equivocation
.
And your assertion that you provided an “example” is another equivocation
You don’t provide examples
You simply declare WOKE claims – the logical equivalent of “I say I am a woman – therefore I am”
.
In your case – my god does not have the ability to choose TRUE from FALSE
But in such a way that he does have the make TRUE decisions
.
Your “so called” examples are not examples at all – they are simply WOKE declarations
.
Here are the facts on that matter:
1) In EDD every FALSE PERCEPTION which exists in your brain – exists by an infallible decree
2) Thus the determining factor of whether you will have a FALSE PERCEPTION or not – is the decree
3) As long as that decree is in effect – you brain will have that FALSE PERCEPTION
4) That decree cannot permit your brain to discern that FALSE PERCEPTION as FALSE
5) The decree makes it the case that your brain sees that FALSE PERCEPTION as TRUE
6) Making it the case that your brain is not permitted to differentiate a FALSE PERCEPTION from a TRUE PERCEPTION
7) Thus your brain has no way of knowing if any PERCEPTION it has – on any matter – is a FALSE PRECEPTION
For example – on EDD – every PERCEPTION which exists within a Jehovah’s Witness brain – exists by decree
And the JW’s brain is not permitted to discern his PERCEPTIONS are FALSE PERCEPTIONS
Its that simple.
.
Your strategy is simply playing shell-games with words in order to create a SEMANTIC FACADE of what you call “predicate”
.
Michael
The language is appropriate for the concept being conveyed.
.
br.d
This reveals it!
Calvinism – (and thus your position) is not LOGICAL
It is simply all about playing Language games
.
Emanuel Kant dealt with this in his day
-quote
Determinism/Compatibilism is a *WRETCHED SUBTERFUGE* with which some persons still let themselves be put off, and so think they have solved lives problems with *PETTY WORD JUGGLERY*
.
Your system – is simply a system of word jugglery which functions to create SEMANTIC FACADES of things you want to be real – which cannot possibly be real because they are logically self-refuting.
.
Thus the quote from Greg Kuokle
-quote
Although it is theoretically possible that determinism is true…..no one could ever know it if it were.
Everyone of our thoughts dispositions and opinions would have been decided for us by factors completely out of our brains control. Therefore in practice, arguments for determinism are self defeating.”
.
You live in a world of self-made delusion
The problem with this world – is that there is no desire for truth in it
The desire is simply the desire of the will – to get what it wants – no matter how irrational
And then try to make it APPEAR to be rational – by the strategy of sophistry.
.
Its called the WOKE mindset :-]
.
blessings!
br.d
I made a typing error here
.
Election (along with every sinful evil impulse that will come to pass within every human brain) is NOT CONDITIONED upon anything having to do with the creature or the condition thereof.
In that sense – it is said to be UNCONDITIONAL
Michael,
According to Calvinism, what’s this all about? Life? Is it all just a play that God wrote, and we are the actors in his play? God’s eating popcorn in the audience, for his good pleasure? If so, I sure hope we all get an academy award for our impeccable acting.
br.d
Yes!
A god who creates a puppet theater
Men and women are the puppets
The strings which control the puppets are decrees
The strings are invisible – yet infallible and thus irresistible
.
Calvinist James White – in a recent debate with Dr. Flowers – defines the process of human learning
In this debate – James defines the human brain a “Passive Receiver”
The teacher is god
.
The process James calls “teaching” is the CONTENT being moved into the human brain
And in this case the human brain does not have the function of CHOICE
The human brain functions as a “Passive Receiver”
.
James defines the process of the movement of the CONTENT into the human brain
He defines it as a -quote “Effectual Instrumental Mechanism”
.
So CONTENT is downloaded into the human brain through some kind of Effectual Instrumental Mechanism.
.
And after all of that – James rolls his eyes when someone says OH you are describing a ROBOT
What you have is a ROBOT theology
.
One NON-Calvinist who was watching this debate said – Calvinists have an “Idiosyncratic anthropology”
Man is likened to a machine
And man’s brain functions like a thumb-drive
.
So for James’ the process of human “learning” is simply the downloading of content into the brain which functions like a thumb-drive.
.
And Calvinists see that view of man – as superior!
What a joke!!!! 😀
Since the Calvinistic God has freewill and could have saved everyone without doing injustice to Himself, I can’t answer for such. But as for me, existence is similar to a theatre. Why? Because in being Triune and self-contained, God could not but grant Himself the most perfect gift – Jesus Christ. And for that reason everything serves that purpose, but nothing more than the election and damnation of men. I defer to His right and honor to do so, and find comfort I’m a part of this play as object of grace in order for the Trinity in love to gift each other in Christ. This can be the only ground for theodicy and to sufficiently give God His own due. Amen
Michael,
I respectfully think that your religion is WHACKED…a cult. I can deal with the Original Sin folks, even tho I don’t believe in it. I can even deal with the PREVENIENT grace folks, even tho I don’t believe in it. But your religion, I believe to be demonic. You have friends, and a home in the Southern Baptist Church…and without them…I think your religion would come to naught, as you don’t have much success in many other denomination on the planet.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Evil, sin, and hell need to be explained, which believing in freewill for both God and man cannot do. Therefore, if what I’m affirming does explain these (and it does whether one likes it or not), then it’s truth and not of devil, because he loves the lie.
As for being cultic. To the degree one believes in the contradiction grace based on merit, to that degree one is cultic because it’s more about man than God. The theology I present makes everything dependent upon God, especially salvation. So, if my definition of cult is true, then what I’m affirming is not cultic. Actually, all cults believe in free-will indeterminacy. I’ll let you draw the conclusion.
As I said to br.d, I defer to you to have the last say, unless in your response you say something new and of value even if I don’t agree with it. Otherwise, peace to you.
P.s. I’m not a Baptist. Never was. And I don’t think I’ll be finding any friends amongst the southern Baptists anytime soon.
Michael
Therefore, if what I’m affirming does explain these (and it does whether one likes it or not),
.
br.d
Understanding this – is all a matter of understanding how the WOKE MIND defines an “explanation”
.
Trans-person’s explanation:
I say I am a woman
Therefore I am a woman
That is the explanation whether one likes it or not.
.
.
What we actually have here is classically called a BLIND-CLAIM
.
For the WOKE MIND a BLIND-CLAIM functions as an “Explanation”
And that BLIND-CLAIM is all the “Explanation” the WOKE-MIND needs to make something true.
.
The WOKE MIND says it is true
Therefore it is true
Whether you like it or not.
.
That is how the WOKE MIND works :-]
Mucheal,
Evil, sin, and hell has been explained. You just aren’t listening.
God kicked out Satan and his angels from heaven and this earth is their temporary kingdom.
God placed man in the same realm.
God doesn’t want robots to worship him. He wants people, by their own free will to worship him.
Satan wants our soul. God wants our soul.
This life is a test for people. Life, or death. God placed both good and evil in front of us to make that free will choice.
Hell is the reward for those who don’t choose life.
The Jews… and the Pharoah… was used to tell the spiritual story about God, and his arch nemesis Satan… not about God choosing your salvation. You choose that. God doesn’t. Hence Deu 29:4/Romans 11:8, as opposed to Romans 15:21.
Without evil, there can’t be a choice. We’d then be robots.
Without hell, no justice.
Treat others as how you want to be treated. Ultimately, if you violate that, that’s sin. By loving your neighbor as yourself, you are not sinning. Therefore, you are not sinning against God, either.
How you treat your fellow man is what justifies you, or condems you.
Romans 2 tells us this, in verses 14-16, and that is for those who don’t know anything about God/Jesus.
But the Jews… they alone can’t come to Jesus until Jesus wants them to come to him. And that is the explanation of John 6… Jews, not gentiles. The law of Moses people who transition to the law of Christ. John 6 isn’t about you.
I’ll close with John 6 isn’t about you.
Ed Chapman
God could have created an infinite number of possible worlds but why this one with so much evil, sin and hell?
If someone argues so He can have freewills to love Him, then are we to say the angels who can’t sin don’t love Him or love Him less? And what about Jesus? He loves God but does not have freewill to sin nor has the ability not to love Him. And what about God Himself? He too can’t sin yet cannot but love Himself supremely.
Thus, freewill is not required to love God and know the difference between good and evil. So why freewilll?
If love demands what is best, why then would He give man freewill to merit damnation, when He could have easily made them like the angels who love Him and yet can’t fall?
And, even if we assume the need for freewill, why would God create knowing even one would end up in hell, let alone countless billions, when He did not have to create in order to be loved. In bring Triune He is love itself. According to 1 Corinthians it would have been more benevolent not to create because love does not seek its own at the cost of anyone.
So, freewill for God or man cannot explain evil, suffering or hell. But the Calvinist cannot either. Why? According to their theology Christ fully satisfied God’s justice and propitiated His wrath. So why is there even one person in hell? And God could have chosen everyone without doing injustice to Himself. Why hasn’t He? What compounds this absurdity is that most Calvinists believe God truly loves and desires the salvation of the very ones He does not choose. Wow!
So, I do believe in God. And I have to reconcile that with evil, suffering and hell because they are realities He created. Thus, the onus is on Him to explain Himself. And He does. It’s called Commemorative Justice. Peace
Michael,
Ughhh. I can’t believe the response you gave. The whole point is about mankind freewill, and you can’t have that unless there are two choices. Your religion is about robots that is preprogrammed to obey both evil and good with no choice in the matter. My religion is about mankind’s choice to choose. That’s how God planned it. He made us weak and dishonorable for a reason (1 Cor 15:42-46) so that sinners would choose Jesus (life), for Jesus said that he is the life. But we can choose death if we want to. God promised eternal life before the world began. How we get that is up to us. He provided the way, for Jesus said that he’s the way. It’s up to us to choose the way.
Your way…Preprogrammed robot.
Ed,
Think about it this way, regardless if one has freewill or not, the onus is on God to explain Himself why He created when He did not have to in light of so much evil. Even if God does not determine every jot and tittle, He’s still responsible.
So, either we just accept it and believe it’s good anyway, when knowing it’s not. We can refuse to believe and willingly go to hell in defiance feeling justified, or we can ask and expect a rational answer, knowing He’s going to do what He wants anyway. I choose to believe in this last option.
Anyway, I sense you do care for my soul, as I do for yours. Appreciate your zeal for what you believe in. God’s peace be upon you.
Michael,
The evil is necessary for free will formankind. I don’t understand how you don’t get that. Robot vs. Free will. If all we had was good, there would be no choice. If all that was on the menu was soup, you would not have a choice for salad. But the choice is for mortal mankind. What I see that you are attempting to say, is that God should have eradicated evil from the beginning. Then I would respond by reminding you that YOU were created long before you were born, so why didn’t God keep us in his realm, instead of putting us on this planet? And my answer would be the same. Free will to choose God, or few will to choose Satan.
Michael
We can refuse to believe and willingly go to hell in defiance feeling justified, or we can ask and expect a rational answer
.
br.d
Here we have a whole assembly of self-contradictions!!!
.
1) Every belief which comes to pass within your brain – is determined by antecedent factors (infallible decree) totally outside of your brain’s control
.
2) In such case – your brain is not granted a CHOICE or CONTROL over what belief will infallibly come to pass within it.
.
3) Yet somehow your brain is MAGICALLY able to make a CONTRARY CHOICE between two CONTRARY options [BELIEVE] and [NOT BELIEVE] – which your brain is not permitted to make.
.
And all of that – within Michael’s mind is “rational”
What a hoot!!! :-]
.
But wait!
Michael continues:
I choose to believe in this last option.
.
br.d
OH LORD!!!
Poor Michael!!!
.
God must have given Calvinism to mankind as a form of entertainment! 😀
Once again arguing by implication.
br.d
I need a YES or NO answer to this question
.
Does your god have ALTERNATIVE options (which exist in his mind) from which to choose from – as you have statede before?
.
YES or NO?
Michael
God could have created an infinite number of possible worlds but why this one with so much evil, sin and hell?
.
br.d
Ed – you do see what Michael is trying tell himself is totally self contradicting don’t you?
.
1) In order for Calvin’s god to create any infinite possible worlds – would logically entail Calvin’s god having a CHOICE between CONTRARY options.
.
2) If he creates WORLD_A he is creating a world which is CONTRARY to WORLD_B
.
3) In such case – he is exercising a CHOICE between two CONTRARY options
.
4) Choosing between CONTRARY options – equates to a CONTRARY CHOICE – which Michael will then claim does not exist.
.
So we have a THEOS who is making a CHOICE
But not in such a way that he is making a CHOICE :-]
br.d,
Yep, contradictions. Classic double speak.
br.d
YES!
.
The second problem Michael has – is the fact that according to his thinking – every perception which comes to pass within every human brain – is determined by infallible decrees.
.
THUS:
1) The perception which comes to pass within the Jehovah’s Witness brain is determined by infallible decree
.
2) The perception which comes to pass within the Atheist’s brain is determined by infallible decree
.
3) The perception which comes to pass within Michael’s brain is determined by infallible decree
.
4) The Jehovah’s Witness brain is not granted the ability to discern its perceptions are FALSE
.
5) The Atheist’s brain is likewise not granted the ability to discern its perceptions are FALSE
.
.
But somehow Michael’s brain is MAGICALLY different! :-]
You misunderstand. When I say God has an infinite number of possible worlds to choose from, I’m speaking in terms of those who presuppose God has freewill in order to show what that entails. It’s called arguing by implication.
As for my position, like I said, neither God nor the creature has freewill. What God does, He necessarily has to and cannot do otherwise because He is His own limit. And He loves that necessity. Why? because to be fully exhausted into Himself, everything He must do also must be done in the highest manner and through the greatest means. Jesus Christ is the by-product.
And this world serves that with all its evil, sin, hell and heaven. Thus, everything from the ultimate perspective is absolutely certain, rational and good. Evil will be either reconciled in Christ or make everlasting reparation unto God in hell. Amen
br.d
So yYour god does not have ALTERNATIVE options (which exist in his mind) from which to choose – as you have stated before?
God only has one option – what is best. And He loves that limitation. All other ideas of other possible worlds exist in the mind only in order to magnify that one option which is what is actual.
Michael
God only has one option….
.
br.d
AH!
So he doesn’t have a CHOICE in the matter of whether he will create a world with evil or NOT
Which is what you stated before.
.
Thus there is nothing for him to “Decide”
Which is also a contradiction of what you stated before
No. You misunderstood me. And it won’t be the first time.
God is compelled from within through His intellect and will to know and love Himself. He does not have the power of contrary choice to do otherwise. And in necessarily loving Himself, that love must be perfect. Thus, He can only will what is best and can do no other. Every other thought serves that in order for Him to be magnified – first to Himself, then only secondarily to all other rational creatures for good or ill.
Therefore, everything is absolutely determined for that purpose. To affirm is to deny, as to love is to hate. The denial of God which is the object of His hate only exist as corollaries and not correlatives of God being the Truth and the Good. He loves this necessity, and so do I. Amen
br.d
Michael – your god (as you have said) only has *ONE OPTION* available in the matter of what world he will create.
.
Please answer
YES or NO?
No. He only has one option which He loves and wills against any and all corollaries that exist in the mind only to serve and show the preeminence and fullness of that one option. Thus God wills but without a contrary choice to do otherwise. And He loves this necessity and celebrates Himself. And He has granted me to love and celebrate it also. This thought, unlike Calvinism, is consistent determinism and is the opposite of freewill indeterminacy.
br.d
Michael – your god (as you have said) only has *ONE OPTION* available in the matter of what world he will create.
.
Please answer
YES or NO?
.
Michael
No. He only has *ONE OPTION*
.
br.d
That is exactly what I understood the last time you stated so many times before
.
Therefore I did not misunderstand.
.
1) As you have stated – your god only has *ONE OPTION* available to himself concerning the world he will create
.
2) Thus – it follows – he does not have a CHOICE in the matter of whether he will create a world with evil or not
.
3) Because such a CHOICE would constitute a CHOICE between *MORE THAN ONE OPTION* which he does not have.
.
4) And you have affirmed that by repeatedly stating – your god dose not have CONTRARY CHOICE
.
5) Which means he does not have CHOICE between CONTRARY OPTIONS
.
CONCLUSION
Your god does not have CHOICE in the matter of whether he will create a world with evil or NOT.
.
As a mater of fact – your god does not have CHOICE in the matter of anything.
.
Now you can convince yourself that you can perform a *WORD-JUGGLING TAP-DANCE* in order to have CHOICE which does not exist – all you want to.
.
Ed is correct!
What you have is called DOUBLE-SPEAK
Very common with all Calvinists.
.
blessings!
Issue is we have different definitions of the term choice. For you it seems to be defined only by the indeterminate power of contrary choice. Correlative options to choose from.
As for me the term means preference and act. One can have a preference and act upon it without having the power of contrary choice to do otherwise. We experience that when in love, or have certain desires. We can’t but act upon them. With God it’s the same.
In knowing Himself as the Truth and the Good He prefers and acts upon it without having the power of contrary of choice to do otherwise. Nor would He want to. That’s why He cannot be or do evil, yet knows what evil is.
Therefore, based on that definition of choice God can’t nor would not want to do otherwise than to love and act upon Himself as the truth of the Good in the highest manner and through the best means possible. So there is only one option -what is actual.
You don’t like this system of thought. But if the terms are understood it’s not inconsistent. It would be if we shared the same definitions. Words can have different connotations.
Do you see Michael, not only have you used an uncommon definition of the term “choice”, but you have added, what you are needing to prove, into your definitions of “highest” and “best” the idea that “only one option” fulfills those terms, and locks in and limits defining reality to God predetermining everything to work out only one already set, eternal, immutable way.
But God’s own Word clearly counters those definitions. Yet, you are free to choose to remain loyal to a man-made philosophically driven theology, believing you have no freedom to believe otherwise. I just hope you’ll one day wake up from that hypnotic deception and take God plainly at His Word about reality and see that His “highest” and “best” includes creating free will choice so that faith and covenant love relationships with the persons He creates in His image can come into existence.
br.d
Michael – the difference between your position and mine is the fact that you wail always have to eventually *SNEAK-IN* some kind of CONTRARY CHOICE for yourself in order to make your position *APPEAR* logically coherent.
.
The process of doing that requires playing *SHELL-GAMES* with words.
.
This is what Immanuel Kant meant when he stated your strategy as a strategy of SUBTERFUGE
Solving the inherent problems which your position produces by the process of WORD-JUGGLING
.
The bottom line is this
1) You will assert your position as TRUE
2) While at the same time treat your position *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to evade its consequences.
.
That is why Ed recognized your statements as DOUBLE-SPEAK.
.
blessings
Michael
God only has one option – what is best.
.
br.d
BTW:
On Determinism – your brain is not granted CONTRARY CHOICE
So your brain is not granted CHOICE between the two CONTRARY options [best] vs [NOT best].
.
And since the human brain’s process of discerning [best] from [NOT best] requires making a CHOICE between those two options – which by definition would be a CONTRARY CHOICE which your brain does not have
.
It follows – your brain does not have the ability to discern [best] from [NOT best]
.
Gotta love it! 😀
Michael,
Really? How about all those times that God…clears throat…repented? That means that God CHANGED HIS MIND.
He had made a promise to Abraham, then told Moses that he would renig on that promise and make Moses a great nation.
But Moses scolded God, reminding him of his promise to Abraham, and that the whole world would mock God for destroying his people.
So, God repented, changed his mind. God is not constrained, because he could have destroyed his people and made Moses a nation. So God has free will.
Ed Chapman
God condescends and speaks on our level of ignorance and sin, only then to lift our minds to His absoluteness which cannot change and comprehends everything. Our God is an awesome God.
Michael,
Regarding Deu 29:4/Romans 11:8, there are two other references in relation.
The first, Romans 15:21 to contrast.
The other, John 9:39-41 for the Jewish remnant. You call it regeneration, I think.
Ed Chapman
Michael
You must now see that although God does, in His own secret and sovereign way, harden men’s hearts, no fault can possibly be imputed to Him,
.
br.d
This is one of the unique aspects of Calvinism.
It follows the pattern of how “Human Accountability” is conceived in Calvinism
.
Here is a parable to help understand it
.
A certain woman named Margaret was accused of reckless driving – striking and killing a small child in front of an elementary school in New Jersey.
.
A judge was getting ready to sentence Margaret to prison for Reckless Manslaughter
Margaret’s family hired a lawyer
The Lawyer presented the evidence to the judge to show that Margaret could not have committed the crime
.
Margaret was a Paraplegic – who was bed-ridden in a convalescence facility in Texas most of her life
She could not move any part of her body
She had never owned a car – and even if she did – it would be impossible for her to drive it
She have never been in New Jersey.
.
The judge however was exercising his sovereignty
In the exercise of his sovereignty he declared Margaret was guilty anyway
.
That is the way “Human Accountability” works in Calvinism
Calvin’s god decrees a sinful evil impulse to infallibly come to pass within your brain
And then in the exercise of his sovereignty he declares you are to be punished for the sinful evil ipmulse he made come to pass within your brain.
.
John Calvin explain
-quote
by the *ETERNAL GOOD PLEASURE* of god
though *THE REASON DOES NOT APPEAR*
they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. –
Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
.
So your statement about Calvin’s god finding “FAULT” with humans fits the pattern perfectly.
Divine determinism the way Calvin explained it is not correct, since that would prevent humans from exercising their free will and choice regarding salvation. Yet God permits the devil to blind people’s minds who are not presently saved, Second Corinthians 4:4, “In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel . . . should shine unto them.” Hebrews 1:14 tells us that the Lord sends His angels to help and minister to those “who shall be heirs of salvation”. These two scriptures tell us there are powerful spiritual forces that work to hinder nonbelievers and help believers on their spiritual walk with Christ. And the Lord knew from before the foundation of the world that some people would spend their entire lives with spiritual hinderances, i.e., circumstances rendering it more difficult to accept Christ while the hinderances remain in place, and the Lord sent those people to earth anyway, knowing from before the foundation of the world what their final destiny would be (Acts 15:18). Thus, the need to pray for those without Christ, and that more laborers be sent out to the harvest (Matthew 9:38). Thus, the mechanism appears to be when there is sufficient prayer for nonbelievers, the Lord sends His angels to remove the spiritual influences blocking the person from believing in and accepting Christ, and then the Lord sends His angels to minister to the new heir of salvation to help them on their spiritual walk with Christ. It appears that before the nonbeliever accepted Christ, the Lord in His mercy had to intervene in some supernatural way by sending angels to intervene in the person’s life. Could this be referred to as a non-Calvinist version of “prevenient grace”? (If so, it would certainly not prove or in any way rely upon Calvin’s teaching of divine determinism.) In this process, the believer would still fully retain their free will and choice regarding salvation. Just because the spiritual hinderances had been removed would not guarantee the person would choose Christ instead of materialism, etc. Just because the gospel shines unto the unbeliever does not necessarily mean they will choose the gospel and salvation, yet it will certainly make that choice more possible. If a nonbeliever’s mind were to remain blinded by the god of this world (II Cor. 4:4), would it be possible for that person to accept Christ without the blinding being removed first? What scriptures would support that argument in a manner that further elucidates II Corinthians 4:4? And if it would not be possible, could the Lord’s decision to intervene by sending His angels to remove the spiritual hinderances be defined as a non-Calvinist version of “prevenient grace”, given that removal of spiritual hinderances would not be dependent upon a person’s free will and choice being totally removed or nullified?
Hi Robert. You’ve shared some good thoughts. He’s my take on 2Cor 4:3-4.
It is interesting that ESV translation of 2Cor 4:4 has a Calvinistic slant. “In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” But like other proof texts, Calvinists take this verse out of context.
Just add the previous verse where the sentence begins to see what I mean – NKJV 2Cor 4:3-4 “But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.”
Paul is talking about his gospel being veiled, the gospel that they already heard in Corinth. I even think the NKJV should have translated the ἐν τοῖς in verse 3 as “by whom” and the ἐν οἷς in verse 4 as “by whom”. I believe both phrases point to the activity of those false teachers in Corinth that are countering Paul’s gospel and veiling it in the hearts and minds of those who have not believed yet. The reading would then clearly be “… it has been veiled by those who are perishing, by whom the god of this age has blinded the thoughts of the unbelieving (in Corinth) so that the enlightenment of the gospel of the glory of Christ does not shine on them…”
They “cannot” see the light of this gospel as long as they let Satan use these false teachers to undermine Paul’s gospel which they have already heard. But Paul has just said in the previous chapter that if they “turn to the Lord” to seek the truth the veil will be taken away (3:16). That turning is not passive… being turned by someone else to the Lord, but active… turning themselves to the Lord. Paul’s appeal in this epistle is to get the believers to see how harmful these false leaders are with their false gospel, veiling the true one.
br.d
Hello Robert
.
Yes – in Calvinism – many things are radically different than they are for NORMAL Christians.
.
Man’s will is NEVER “Free” to be other than what it was decreed to be – at any instance in time.
.
Man is granted NO SAY in the matter.
And since the decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees – it follows – man is granted NO CHOICE in the matter – simply because NO ALTERNATIVES exist for man to choose.
.
So in Calvinism – for example – Adam was not granted a choice between [EAT] and [NOT EAT] because the option to [NOT EAT] simply did not exist for Adam to choose.
.
Blessings!
br.d
Michael – here are a few quotes from an article on Determinism/Compatibilism from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Colorado .
.
You can google for this PDF document if you are interested – by searching for the text
“The Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP)”
University of Colorado
.
But in any case – here are the quotes
.
1. Compatibilism:
Contrary to what the hard determinists argue, many philosophers believe that determinism is *COMPATIBLE* with free will. So, if it turns out that all of our actions are determined, and we can *NEVER DO OTHERWISE* we are still free, nevertheless.
.
And then later in the article:
-quote
The fact remains that, if determinism is true, then *YOU COULDN’T HAVE DONE OTHERWISE*
.
This is again confirmed in the literature by Dr. Peter Van Inwagen
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant *EXACTLY ONE PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE FUTURE* . (Oxford Handbook on Free Will)
.
.
Thus in Calvinism – for every human event – and every human impulse – there is never granted more than *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN OPTION*
.
And man is granted NO CHOICE in the matter of what that option will be – and no ability to refrain.
.
.
The decree is what grants EXISTENCE to every event within creation
Consequently – if it is decreed that you will perform SIN_X at TIME-T
Then the event of you performing SIN_X at TIME-T is granted existence within creation.
But in such case – the ALTERNATIVE event is NOT granted existence within creation.
.
The very existence of any ALTERNATIVE event from that which is decreed – would falsify the decree
And the decree cannot be falsified – because it is infallible.
Therefore NO ALTERNATIVE from that which is decreed is granted existence within creation
.
Thus where it is decreed that you will perform SIN_X at TIME-T
NO ALTERNATIVE event is granted existence at TIME-T
.
You did not have a CHOICE in the matter simply because NO ALTERNATIVE exists for you to choose
.
blessings!
br.d
Michael – here are some quotes from scholars (mostly Calvinists) to help you get a more mature understanding of the subject of free-will and in Calvinism. These quotes should make it clear to you that *LIBERTARIAN* free-will does not exist in Calvinism.
.
It doesn’t appear that you will accept any information (no matter how rational) from anyone unless that person is a Calvinist. So here are the quotes.
.
Calvinist Randall K. Johnson
-quote
I present the christological arguments for *COMPATIBLISM* from three prominent theologians in the Reformed tradition: John Calvin, Francis Turretin, and Jonathan Edwards. I conclude with some reflections on the power of christological arguments for *COMPATIBLISM* (Christological Arguments for Compatibilism in Reformed Theology)
.
Calvinist – Dr. Paul Helms
The Westminster confession straightforwardly affirms *COMPATIBILISM* by asserting that god DETERMINES that the elect freely come to Christ. *LIBERTARIAN* free-will is thus ruled out.
.
Calvinist Dr. James N. Anderson
-quote
“It should be conceded at the outset, and without embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism and *COMPATIBILISM* concerning human free will.”
.
Calvinist Dr. Paul Kjoss Helseth
-quote
Scripture presumes that determinism and genuine human freedom are *COMPATIBLE* …..even though it does not explain the mechanics of how this is possible… (Four Views on Divine Providence)
.
John Calvin
-quote
Men may not even agitate anything in their deliberations but what he *INSPIRES* (A Defense of the secret providence of god – PDF version pg 190)
.
Dr. Peter Van Inwagen
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly *ONE PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE FUTURE* (Oxford Handbook on Free Will)
Michael M. Volpe,
You said that sin is not defined, and is not synonymous with sin…
1 John 3:4
Sin is the transgression of the law
Romans 3:20
the law is the knowledge of sin
Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Mark 7:20-23
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
******23 All these EVIL things come from within, and defile the man.
Others might say that Evil was a motorcycle rider that did dangerous jumps! LOL
Ed Chapman
Manicheanism, Neo-Platonism, Catholicism, and Gnosticism all strongly affirm freewill, as did Augustine while he was a follower of the first three. And Augustine never viewed evil as necessary in any ultimate sense. To him it is a privation which God allowed but could have created the world without it. This is not much different from the explanation of the origin and essence of evil given by freewill believing Christians throughout history. Considering his background, Augustine should have continued in his belief in freewill. But something other than the influence of these four schools of thought made him change in his battles with Pelagius.
Calvin was a Catholic freewill believing humanist who had a sudden conversion. Immediately he wanted to seclude himself to live a life of study. But the Reformer John Farel exhorted him with the threats of God’s wrath to serve as a pastor. Geneva was an immoral city that first kicked Calvin out but only to invite him back because of their uncontrollable behavior. As he walked the streets, the people would spit on him. Yet, he quietly received it and continued to teach the citizens about dogma and righteousness. To this day Geneva, Great Britian, and United States are still living off the capital of his efforts. Calvin’s life was one of quiet discipline and not vain glory seeking.
Along with Luther, all the major first and second-generation Reformers were previously freewill believers that came to affirm predestination and the imputed active and passive obedience of Christ through a given faith for both the forgiveness of sin and eternal life. And, both Anslem and Wycliff the morning star, who both made the Reformation possible, were Augustinians.
It was not freewill theology that was the grounds for the Reformation. This is proven by the fact Catholicism, Arminianism and the like affirm freewill but reject predestination, and the imputation of Christ’s obedience (at least his active obedience) through a given faith. So, from an historical perspective of what is considered orthodox Protestantism, it is freewill theology and not Calvinism that can be considered heresy. We need to be more considerate in our criticism even we are right. God’s peace.
Michael
Manicheanism, Neo-Platonism, Catholicism, and Gnosticism all strongly affirm freewill, as did Augustine while he was a follower of the first three.
.
br.d
This statement is highly misleading
.
Catholicism – historically affirmed what scholars today call “Libertarian” freewill.
.
NeoPlatonism was is a version of Platonic philosophy which entails Determinism.
Libertarian Free-will does not exist in Determinism
.
Calvinism – today is classified as EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvin’s doctrine of decrees.
.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
Calvin’s god *MUST* grant “Freedom” for that which he decrees
If he does not grant “Freedom” for that which he decrees – then he is a house divided against himself.
.
So – if it is decreed that Calvinist_A will perform SIN_X at TIME-T
Then Calvinist_A must be granted “Freedom” to perform SIN_X at TIME-T
.
However – an infallible decree does not grant “Freedom” to creation to BE/DO OTHER than that which is decreed
.
In such case – Calvinist_A is NOT granted “Freedom” to NOT perform SIN_X at TIME-T
Because doing so would countervail the decree
And creation is NOT granted the “Freedom” to countervail an infallible decree.
.
So the “Free-will” you have in Calvinism is better understood as “NON-FREE Free-Will”
Your will is *ONLY* “Free” to BE what what it was decreed to infallibly be.
.
On your point concerning Arminianism.
Yes – it is the case that the Arminian – (as all non-Calvinists) do not embrace EDD
Therefore – the Arminian (as all non-Calvinists) affirm Libertarian Freedom
.
But it is not accurate to say the Arminian (Non-Calvinist) does not affirm predestination.
The Arminian (Non-Calvinist) simply does not interpret “Predestination” as EDD the way the Calvinist does.
.
blessings!
br.d
I agree with your assessment about Calvin’s divine determinism and that it differs from his theological heirs who have tried to water it down.
Neo-Platonism believed in determinism concerning the material universe and even fate. But fate did not control the will from within or makes it will what it does. It only controls from outside it or better yet, against it.
As for Catholicism, regardless how they nuance it, in the end the will is free to choose and is not determined by God. And that goes the same for all freewill forms.
br.d
Hi Michael,
.
The foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvin’s doctrine of decrees.
.
John Calvin
-quote
John Calvin explains
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
Thus in Calvinism – the state of nature – including the state of every man’s nature – at every nano-second in time – is 100% meticulously predestined. And at any nano-second in time cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to be.
.
And since Determinism is EXHAUSTIVE (without exception) in Calvinism – it follows – every movement of every atomic particle is PRE-DETERMINED at the foundation of the world.
.
Dr. William Lane Craig
-quote
Calvinism embraces Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
This is the view that God causally determines everything without exception which happens within creation.
In this view, God brings all things to pass by strongly actualizing (causally determining) all states of affairs.
Calvinism also affirms a *COMPATIBILISTIC* view of human freedom.
.
Standord Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote
Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is *COMPATIBLE* with determinism.
.
.
Thus – on Calvinism – the human will is “Free” *ONLY* where it is *COMPATIBLE* with Determinism
Which in Calvinism means the human will is *ONLY* “Free” to Be and DO that which is decreed.
.
Creation is NOT “Free” to countervail an infallible decree
Therefore in Calvinism – the human will is *NOT FREE* to be or do that which is *NOT COMPATIBLE* with that which is decreed.
.
Now it is critical to understand the following:
An infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
Therefore ALTERNATIVES from that which is decreed do not exist within creation.
.
An example would be Adam in the garden
Calvin’s god decreed that Adam would [EAT]
That decree is infallible – which makes the event of Adam [EATING] an infallible event
In such case – Adam is granted “Freedom” to [EAT] because doing so is *COMPATIBLE* with that which has been determined
.
But Adam is NOT “Free” to [NOT EAT]
Because creation is NOT “Free” to countervail an infallible decree
And because [NOT EAT] is *NOT COMPATIBLE* with that which is decreed and thus *NOT COMPATIBLE* with Determinism.
.
Concerning human choice:
One question you need to answer – is are you granted a CHOICE for an option which does not exist for you to choose?
.
If it is infallibly decreed that [IMPULSE X] will infallibly come to pass within your brain at TIME-T
Then it follows – [IMPULSE NOT X] is NOT granted existence within your brain a TIME-T
So how is it possible for you to CHOOSE [IMPULSE NOT X] when it does not exist for you to choose?
Michael M. Volpe,
So, you are praising John Calvin, as some meek and lowly Christian that just wanted to live in peace, to be quiet and study by candle light?
You did say, “through a given faith.”.
Before I began studying Calvinism, and the RELATED, which was Catholic originally, I had never heard of “through a given faith”, as if God has to push a button in order for someone to believe…except, of course, to the blind Jews, for it is well documented in scripture how blind that they are, and it’s not due to anything that they did, or did not do, so I don’t believe in “judicial blindness”.
I don’t see where faith is GIVEN to anyone for any reason. Hebrews 11:1 doesn’t even define faith that way. When I first heard a Calvinist say that faith is a work, I fell off my rocker laughing hysterically!
So, to me, what it boils down to is first, debunking Original Sin, which is really easy to do, then the doctrines (plural) grace falls flat, and TULIP disintegrates into thin air.
Ed Chapman
Calvin was a righteous man who had more steel in his soul for God than most Christians. I doubt you or I can compare to the grace given to him. Yet, he had his flaws like all of us. He moved the world for Christ. We must give credit where it’s due.
Faith is given that’s why though it has moral worth by its very act, is still not considered a work – “who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” John 1:1
Whether the dogma of original sin is biblical, it is not so easy to dispel. Many who have gone before us, upon whose shoulders we stand, believed in it for strong reasons. We must be humble in our estimations, even if correct. Peace
br.d
These are all very bold claims.
They all remind me of the wizard of oz when he declared himself the all powerful one!
Smoke and mirrors! :-]
Interesting! That sounds like what Catholics say about their popes, too.
br.d
Yes! 😀
And the followers of Sun Myung Moon make the exact same boast about their hero.
And the Mormons make the exact same boast of Joseph Smith
And the believers a Waco Texas make the exact same boast of David Koresh
.
The pattern is very familiar! 😀
“who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” John 1:1”
Jesus was born of a virgin… Joseph was out of the loop.
Our faith originated with ourselves. We are saved by grace through our own faith.
What do we believe, and why?
We believe in the promise of eternal life, and that Jesus is the way to that promise.
Dissect Hebrews 11:1.
Faith is knowing that we will get what we are waiting for.
Romans 8:24
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
“Faith is knowing that we will get what we are waiting for”.
This kind of faith – referenced in Hebrews 11 is PISTIS – better translated ‘faithfulness’. It speaks, not of saving faith but of believers hearing from God, believing what he says, even if there is no visible evidence of a positive outcome, and acting in obedience, often over prolonged periods of time
When PISTIS is used to describe the faith that is the first step, after repentance, towards a saving relationship with God it is better translated ‘commitment’ or ‘allegiance’. It describes not only believing but acting on that belief in entrusting one’s very soul – its future, its destiny, its whole being – into the hands of Jesus as Saviour/King/God, to obey and be loyal to him. Belief is insufficient, receipt of saving grace is not free and unconditional – it requires a response of surrender and a commitment to loyalty, biblically expressed in the deliberate and freely undertaken act of baptism. In this respect our justification is inseparable from sanctification, it is the first moment of the dedication of ourselves that continues in the sanctified, separated, faithful life until our glorification at Jesus’ return.
Hello Zoran and welcome.
br.d
Hey Zoran,
You had me at hello, until you said the following:
“Belief is insufficient, receipt of saving grace is not free and unconditional – it requires a response of surrender and a commitment to loyalty, biblically expressed in the deliberate and freely undertaken act of baptism. In this respect our justification is inseparable from sanctification, it is the first moment of the dedication of ourselves that continues in the sanctified, separated, faithful life until our glorification at Jesus’ return.”
Romans 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Galatians 3:6
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
James 2:23
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Abraham was saved apart from all that gobbly gook you mentioned. However, God “TESTED (TRIED)” Abraham’s faith, to see if he really had faith…or not.
Side Bar:
To our Calvinist friends, why would God need to TEST Abraham’s faith, if faith is GIVEN?
Back to our regularly scheduled program:
God told Abraham to sacrifice his son. Most people seem to think that Abraham was going to do it out of OBEDIENCE, or, out of LOYALTY to God. But that’s not what I read at all.
Hebrews 11:17-19
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
James 2:21
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Now, some don’t like James, because he talks about WORKS, and they are against WORKS, and they tell a story that James is speaking to the 12 TRIBES OF ISRAEL and James that was CONFUSED, thinking that a Jew must still OBSERVE THE LAW.
NOT! (sorry for the caps, I’m not shouting…just emphasis)…
Abraham had no problem sacrificing Isaac, NOT BECAUSE OF OBEDIENCE/LOYALTY TO GOD, but because Abraham BELIEVED God’s PROMISE that his seed would continue through Isaac, therefore, he believed that God would have no choice but to resurrect Isaac from the dead, in order to make good on his PROMISE.
THAT’S FAITH. Again, Hebrews 11:17
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac…
In short, Abraham “LIVED” what he believed…WORKS.
So, you bring up the word BAPTISM.
Acts 19:2-5
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
It’s obvious John was a PRE-CURSER to Jesus, and that the baptism of Jesus is SPIRITUAL, not PHYSICAL, as John’s was.
Nonetheless, Cornenious received the Holy Ghost PRIOR (VERSE 2 ABOVE) to water. So, what did the water do, except to get him wet to cool him off after a hot day.
And isn’t it interesting the following:
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 8:16
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Acts 19:5
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Apparently, the Apostles couldn’t follow SIMPLE INSTRUCTIONS:
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
No one baptized in the name of the Father, or the Holy Ghost.
By the way, what’s the name of the Holy Ghost, anyway?
Ed Chapman
br.d
When I am in a grocery store – I have ever come across a mother with a very vocal child
Typically it is a boy and he wants something – and he’s not going to take no for an answer
His presupposition is: I WANT WHAT I WANT WHEN I WANT IT!
.
Many years ago – I started engaging with Calvinists and occasionally discovered the same predisposition.
They have their own customized version of Calvinism
Their customized version is basically what THEY WANT IT TO BE
And the fact that their version of Calvinism is loaded with self-contradictions doesn’t phase them.
.
All self-contradictions are ignored because they WANT WHAT THEY WANT WHEN THEY WANT IT! :-]
.
blessings
br.d
br.d
Another point to consider in this – is the fact that words and terms in Calvinism do not have the same meanings they do OUTSIDE of Calvinism.
.
The term “Permission” for example – is derived from the Latin “permettere” – which means “To let Go”, “To let loose”
.
Calvin fiercely rejected this meaning for the word “Permission”
Calvin took the COMMON meaning for the term “Permission” and qualified it – calling it “MERE” Permission and then rejecting it.
.
So in Calvinism – the terms “Permission” and “Allow” do not have the same meanings they do OUTSIDE of Calvinism.
.
John Calvin
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term Permission, *THE MEANING WHICH HE ATTACHES TO IT* will best appear from a single passage (De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of god is the supreme and primary *CAUSE* of all things….(Institutes 1, 16, 8)
.
So in Calvinism – the terms “Permission” and “Allow” equate to CAUSE.
.
1) What Calvin’s god CAUSES by decree – he permits/allows
2) What Calvin’s god DOES NOT CAUSE by decree – he does NOT permit/allow
.
In Calvinism – divine sovereignty equates to divine control.
So any compromise to divine control – equates to a compromise in divine sovereignty
.
Calvin’s god determines every impulse that will come to pass within the human brain by an infallible decree
And that decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
Thus – NO ALTERNATIVE impulse is granted within the human brain – from that which is decreed.
.
blessings!
br.d
HOW THINGS ARE BOTH “CONDITIONAL” and “UNCONDITIONAL” IN CALVINISM
.
Calvinists have what they call “UNCONDITIONAL” election.
.
However – when one looks under the hood – what one finds is Election in Calvinism is both “CONDITIONAL” and “UNCONDITIONAL”.
.
– EVERYTHING in Calvinism – is CONDITIONED upon an infallible decree.
– This makes it the case that Election is CONDITIONAL
– However – the decree is NOT CONDITIONED upon anything having to do with the creature or the condition thereof
– The decree is -quote “Solely within himself”
– The decree is -quote “According to his good pleasure”
– The decree is -quote “The exercise of his divine sovereignty”
.
So when we start to see how this works – we start to understand the SEMANTICS of Calvinism
.
But it is critical to remember – the Decree determines more than Election
The decree determines EVERYTHING
.
So in Calvinism:
– The NON-ELECT (just as everything else) are CONDITIONED upon the infallible decree
– And the decree which determines the NON-ELECT is NOT-CONDITIONED upon the creature or the condition thereof
– It is “Solely within himself – According to his good pleasure, in the exercise of his divine sovereignty”
.
– All sins and all evils (just as everything else) are CONDITIONED upon the infallible decree
– And the decree which determines all sins and all evils is NOT-CONDITIONED upon the creature or the condition thereof
– It is “Solely within himself – According to his good pleasure, in the exercise of his divine sovereignty”
Is there some way I can contact De Flowers or anyone else working with him to ask specific questions about theological matters?
Hello Tacitus,
Brian is here at SOT101 – and he is pretty close with Dr. Flowers
Why don’t you try asking your questions here to see if they get answered
.
There are a few people here who are not directly associated with Dr. Flowers – and who may express their personal opinions apart from Dr. Flowers position on the matter.
.
But I can let you know when that is the case.
.
blessings
br.d
Hi, BRDMOD.
Okay. I wasn’t sure if this comment section was still active. Thank you. I shall ask my question here.
How is regeneration defined biblically and does this definition not imply that our wills are bound and that we have to be gifted with faith for us to be born again?
In John 3:4-5, Jesus mentions a baptism of water and a baptism of the Spirit. Does the “baptism of water” refer to Ezekiel 36:25-27, in which God replaces the heart of stone with a new heart. Could this be an indication of a freedom of the human will that’s solely done by God? How can we accept His appeals of repentance, through the Gospel, if we are not given new hearts first?
How is the baptism of water different from the baptism of the Spirit?
Pardon the incoherence of this message.
br.d
Hello Tacitus
.
I’m sure you are already aware of this – but when we bring up the subject of how something is defined Biblicaly – we always have to deal with the reality of our humanity.
.
In Luke 10 – Jesus asks the Lawyer who tempted him two questions:
1) What does the text say?
2) How do you read it?
.
The Lawyer answers Jesus’ first question by quoting the text verbatim.
But you will notice – the lawyer evades answering Jesus’s 2nd question.
.
Eventually – the lawyer will ask “Who is my neighbor”
The lawyer has an IDIOSYNCRATIC definition for the word “neighbor”
So the lawyer has his own “Biblical” definition for the word “neighbor” which is designed to affirm his ideology.
He reads his ideology into the text in order to make the text affirm his ideology.
.
The underlying foundational core of Calvinism – and that which unique to Calvinism and separates it from its alternatives is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees.
.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
So EDD is the ideology which the Calvinist is going to read into the text of scripture.
And just like the Lawyer – the Calvinist will define words within the text – according to his ideology which is EDD
.
For example – take Roman’s 8:28 “God WORKS all things together for the good”
The word “WORKS” in this text is going to be defined as “DETERMINES”
The doctrine of decrees stipulates – Calvin’s god “DETERMINES” whatsoever comes to pass.
Thus the Calvinist is going to define the word “WORKS” to affirm EDD.
.
So this goes to your question about whether someone has to have the -quote “GIFT OF FAITH” in order to believe.
You can see – the doctrine of decrees is the ideology behind this conception.
.
In order for the IMPULSE of faith to come to pass within a human brain – that impulse has to be decreed.
So the Calvinist gets his conception of how FAITH comes to pass within a human – through the lens of EDD.
.
Calvin’s god thus – gifts people with two kinds of faith.
1) He gifts believers who are elect – with TRUE faith
2) He gifts believers which he creates to be CHAFF believers – with the gift of FALSE faith.
.
.
What is critical to understand within the Calvinist system – is the fact that CHOICE is not granted to humans in the matter of anything.
.
An infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
Therefore if the impulse of FAITH is decreed to come to pass within your brain – that decree is infallible
It does not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
.
So you are not granted any CHOICE in the matter of what impulses are infallibly decreed to exist within your brain.
.
In Calvinism – if you are created as a CHAFF believer then
1) A FALSE FAITH has been decreed to infallibly exist within your brain
2) Your brain is not granted the ability to discern the faith that was decreed – is a FALSE FAITH
3) You will live your life – experiencing a constant stream of FALSE PERCEPTIONS of salvation
4) You will eventually wake up in the lake of fire – and then realize you were created as a CHAFF believer – divinely deceived – having been given a FALSE FAITH.
.
Those are just a few of the consequences which come with reading scripture through the lens of Calvinism’s IDEOLOGY.
.
Calvinists themselves – have very serious internal struggles with the consequences of their own belief system.
This forces the Calvinist into all sorts of TAP-DANCE routines designed to evade those consequences.
.
So you will eventually find DOUBLE-SPEAK is an inherent characteristic of Calvinist language.
.
When you discover the amount of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS inherent in Calvinism – you need to ask yourself if that is a HOLY SPIRIT inspired belief system.
.
Let me know what you think so far.
.
Blessings!
br.d
Hi, Br.D.
I understand that Calvinism is determinism, but how do you ascertain the meaning of and differences between the “baptism of water” and the “baptism of the Spirit” in John 3:5?
br.d
Ah! Well – that is going to differ based on whether or not one’s theology requires those two things to essentially be one and the same.
.
For the person whose theology dictates Cessationism (gifts of the Holy Spirit do not exist for today) that person would be inclined to see those baptisms as essentially the same thing – or if they are not the same thing – they happen concurrently.
.
Some people hold water baptism as an absolute necessity for salvation.
.
For the believer who adopts that position – they would say – a person who repents and believes upon the Lord Jesus as their savior on their death-bed – but who is unable to be baptized in water – is not saved.
.
Believers who believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still in effect today – those believers would see water Baptism and Baptism in the Spirit as two different things. They would say – the baptism in the Spirit does not necessarily have to happen at the same time the believer is saved – but can occur later.
.
And I think you will find some of the people who post here – hold to different positions on that.
.
It really depends on what you hold as a personal conviction.
.
Sorry I couldn’t be more definitive than that.
But it is really true – the views on that subject are quite varied.
.
Blessings!
What’s your view on this and where can I read up on other views?
br.d
Well – personally – my view on the Baptism in the Holy Spirit – is that it can come at time of conversion.
For example – when Peter is ministering to Cornelius in Acts 10 – where it says “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message”
.
The background I grew up in – identifies this as an example of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
The after that event – the text reads “Peter ordered they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”
.
The background I grew up in – identifies this as baptism in water.
.
On your question about materials – lets ask Brian if he can point you in a direction.
Brian is a teacher of the Greek in an official capacity – and he would probably know about materials on the subject.
.
So let me see if Brian can answer that question for you.
.
blessing!
Hi Tacitus. Any good theology should give you all the views on baptism as taught in the NT. Sacramental and Reformed theologies will of course also try to prove a link exists between water baptism and birth by the Spirit, either equating the two at the same moment or linking the one as a sign of promise for the other in children already members of God’s elect.
Dispensational and Pentecostal theologies will separate the two, putting the new birth by the Spirit through personal faith before the training of that given in water baptism. Pentacostal theology also adds a separate work of the Spirit is available after regeneration and water baptism.
Here are some of my thoughts as a dispensationalist.
Baptism in the name – is water baptism because a name is an outward identification (Matt 28:19, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, cf. 1Pet 3:21, and it is answer of an already good conscience).
Baptism into Christ or His body or His death – is Spirit baptism because those things are unseen spiritual unions (Rom 6:3, 1Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27).
Paul emphasizes Spirit baptism as the one necessary baptism and de-emphasizes water baptism as not part of the gospel.
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 NKJV — For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.
1 Corinthians 1:17 NKJV — For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
Paul led many to salvation, the new birth (Spirit baptism), in Corinth through the gospel, not through water baptism.
1 Corinthians 4:15 NKJV – 15 For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [you do] not [have] many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
–
Hi, Brian. Thank you for the response and the overview of views on Baptism.
What’s your view or the dispensational view on regeneration and freedom from the bondage of the will?
The reason I ask this is because of Calvinists I met who say that the “baptism of water” in John 3:4 refers to the “sprinkling of water” and the spiritual cleansing in Ezekiel 36:25. According to how they interpret John 3:4 and Titus 3:5, the “washing of regeneration” includes the will being set free so that we may be saved. Is this valid?
Thank you, Tacitus, for the question. The will is a slave to the sin nature/flesh from birth, but that does not mean inability to respond to the enlightenment which God gives everyone sufficiently at least a few times to enable them to freely seek Him and His mercy. (John 1:9, Rom 2:4, Job 33:14-30, Acts 17:26-27)
Water baptism does not cause a freedom of the will nor does it cause regeneration. I am going to give you alot to read right now, but I hope it will be of some help.
Total Inability is Unscriptural
Deuteronomy 30:14 ESV — But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, 👉so that you can do it.👈
Ability in the unregenerate heart to understand, and to do God’s will to repent and believe, is clearly Scriptural.
Unregenerate shallow or thorny hearts are able to believe the truth of the Word in a positive way before making a rooted, full commitment in God for His mercy.
Satan even knows the hard unregenerate heart is able to believe and be saved if the Word stays there!
Luke 8:12 NKJV — “Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.”
You can read my critique of Calvin, Gill, and MacArthur and my exegesis on the 5 favorite verses Calvinists think teach total inability in the unregenerate heart. John 3:3, John 6:44, Rom 3:11, Rom 8:7-8, 1Cor 2:14, Luke 8:12.
https://vbc.academia.edu/BrianWagner/Exegetical-Dialogs
As for Titus 3:5 NKJV — not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
The genitive (“of) should be kept the same for both phrases and the subjective genitive makes the most sense for the phrase – “renewing of/by the Holy Spirit”.
So it is a “washing of/by regeneration” which is through faith. Peter talks about this purifying through faith when recalling the new birth by the Spirit in Cornelius.
Acts 15:7-9 NKJV — And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.”
br.d
Hello Tacitus
I know your question was directed towards Brian – and I hope you don’t mind if I interject a point concerning Calvinists and your question.
.
Remember – the Calvinist reading of scripture is always designed to affirm Exhaustive Determinism (EDD)
.
And it is critical to understand the underlying construct behind the Calvinist conception of “Freedom” of the human will.
.
Creaturely freedom in Calvinism works this way:
1) For any [X] decreed come to pass – that [X] must be granted “Freedom” to come to pass.
.
2) If Calvin’s god does not grant “Freedom” for what he decrees then he is a house divided against himself.
.
3) Nothing happens within creation that is not decreed.
.
4) So in order for the impulse within your brain or your will to desire salvation – that impulse must be decreed.
.
5) That impulse within your brain or within your will – must then be granted “Freedom” to come to pass.
.
That is what “Freedom” of the “Will” means in Calvinism.
.
.
THUS:
Creation is NOT FREE to countervail an infallible decree
Creation is Free to be and do *ONLY* that which is decreed
.
If it is decreed that Calvinist_A will perform SIN_X at TIME_T
Calvinist_A must be granted “Freedom” to perform SIN_X at TIME_T
.
But Calvinist_A is NOT granted “Freedom” to NOT perform SIN_X at TIME-T
Because creation is NEVER FREE to be or do OTHER than that which is decreed
.
blessings
br.d