Question for the Calvinist....

[Jin-Roh]

Exactly how far does "predestination" extend? Does it go beyond just someone's salvation, and into every facet of their lives thereafter? If so, is it possible for someone to understand exactly what they are predestined for after salvation?

I'm pretty sure the answer to the next question is "no", since I've never heard anything like that from any Calvinist, but the former question I'm still wondering about.

:huh:

[Gavin]

Exactly how far does "predestination" extend? Does it go beyond just someone's salvation, and into every facet of their lives thereafter? If so, is it possible for someone to understand exactly what they are predestined for after salvation?

I'm pretty sure the answer to the next question is "no", since I've never heard anything like that from any Calvinist, but the former question I'm still wondering about.


Hello Jin-Roh. That is an interesting name. What is it from?

I am a Calvinist. I would say, in reference to your question, that nothing is outside the sovereign will of God in our lives. I say, God predestines not only our justification, but also our sanctification.

If Arminians think that this view is deterministic and arbitrary, it apparently was not so for the biblical writers.

Psalm 139:16
"All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be."

David rejoices that all his days were "ordained" in advance to their taking place.

Romans 8:30
"And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."

Ephesians 1:11
"In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will

The apostle Paul sees God's justification and glorification of the elect as an expression of his sovereign plan in redemptive history.

I believe in both human responsibility in responding to God in true repentance and divine sovereignty over the decisions of those same humans. I believe in both of these because they are both clearly taught in the Scriptures.

If God's sovereignty and human responsibility seem philosophically incompatible, I submit we trust the Bible over philosophy.

[TheFiveSolas]

In the Bible predestination only refers to salvation so I think what you are asking is "how far does God's sovereignty extend?"

The Bible teaches that God is sovereign and therefore is in full control of ALL things. There is not even a single atom that is free from His providential control.

In fact, since God alone has the power within Himself of existence (aseity), it follows that ALL things (other than Himself) only exist AND are KEPT in existence by means of His divine power.

Hebrews 1:3 says, "The Son is the radiance of God's glory, the exact representation of His being, SUSTAINING (other translations have "upholding") ALL things by His powerful word."

So, how does this work with regards to human freedom? It would seem that human freedom is ruled out (precluded).

However, the Sovereignty and Omnipotence of God are what guarantee human freedom.

Because God is omnipotent He is able to foreordain even the free actions of men. In other words, God sovereignly chooses what our actions will be AND that when we choose a certain action, we do so freely without being forced or coerced by Him. When we choose, we do so out of OUR OWN desires, therefore we do so freely.

So, how far does God's sovereignty extend?

Acts 17:26 says, "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth, AND HE DETERMINED THE TIMES SET FOR THEM AND THE EXACT PLACES THEY SHOULD LIVE."

You wrote:

so, is it possible for someone to understand exactly what they are predestined for after salvation?


You already know the answer.

Deuteronomy 29:29 "The secret things belong to the Lord, but the things REVEALED belong to us and our children forever..."

So, we only know what God has revealed and where He has not revealed, those things belong to Him.

[Gavin]

I agree with what fivesolas wrote, and I also want to add this verse as a good example of a verse which emphasized both the divine sovereignty aspect as well as the human responsibility aspect of sanctification.

Philippians 2
12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

Verse twelve seems to emphasize that it is we who are in control of our santification when it tells us to "work it out" - but then verse 13 comes along and tells us that it is God who is the one working in us which makes us will and act according to his purpose. And these two verses are logically connected by the "for" (gar). Amazing!

[Blake Reas]

02-27-2003 @ 05:55 AM
Jin-Roh:

Exactly how far does "predestination" extend? Does it go beyond just someone's salvation, and into every facet of their lives thereafter? If so, is it possible for someone to understand exactly what they are predestined for after salvation?

I'm pretty sure the answer to the next question is "no", since I've never heard anything like that from any Calvinist, but the former question I'm still wondering about.

:huh:

I will tell you what I have read of Calvin, this is for everyone. He said not to dwell over the abyss of God's Sovereignty! Besides the normal accusation that Calvinism (Reformed Theology) is all about Predestination is false. It is a very big part but the biggest part is Covenant Theology. I just read an article on the Reformed Biblical theological method in EJT and they use it as a case against the OV position. I just gave it a quick read, I am going to go back over it in depth at some point and I will post a outline. If someone else has already read this article by Michael S. Horton feel free to beat me to it! You would probably do a better job than me anyway!

In Christ,
Blake Reas

[mattbballman19]

If God's sovereignty and human responsibility seem philosophically incompatible, I submit we trust the Bible over philosophy.

Of course, a true philosophy, which necessitates conclusions which accuratley reflect reality, will complement the Bible, if it is, in fact, inerrent/infallible (an accurate representation of the way things actually are).

matt

[Jin-Roh]

Hello Jin-Roh. That is an interesting name. What is it from?

Jin-Roh is Japanese for "Wolf". I got the name of a Japanese Animation with the same name. I kinda like wolves, and it sounds cool.

[Jin-Roh]

Of course, a true philosophy, which necessitates conclusions which accuratley reflect reality, will complement the Bible, if it is, in fact, inerrent/infallible (an accurate representation of the way things actually are).

I think I can only agree halfway with that statement. Yes, true Philosophy will line-up (I hesitate to say "complement") the Bible, becuase I believe the Bible to be true.

I think were we might differ is that I (like most Christians), hold the Bible, as God's inspired word, to be the objective standard of what "truth" is. You seem to be holding that what is discerned with your senses and logical conclusions deduced from such, correct?

[Jin-Roh]

By the way, Its nice to hear from Calvinists who don't act like I'm a heretic for questioning the T.U.L.I.P.

[mattbballman19]

Hey Jin,

I basically agree with you there. My point is that the Bible doesn't talk about things like the law of non-contradiction, the impossibility of an actual infinite and/or traversing such, proper basicality, counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, power entailment principles, temporal necessity, etc . . . But if a good case is given that these things are true, nothing from the Bible is taken away. Since the Bible is an accurate description of way things are (i.e. the truth), anything that happens to be true outside of the Bible's explanatory scope, will complement, not contradict. But if the Bible happens to disagree (if a verse can be extrapolated from the Bible, properly interpreted/applied to a relevant issue) then those philosophical concepts will have to be ammended. But, also, if it looks like a philosophical concept is right, we can either say that the Bible doesn't talk about it (it doesn't look as if the whole citadel of Christianity will collapse due to the discovery of this concept/idea) and that, since it is true, the Bible would, in essence, agree with it OR, if there is a Biblical case that can be brought against the concept/idea, then it seems that it would be accurate to say that the verses undergirding that case are not being properly interpreted. Because if they were, then you have ideas, which the verses are trying to communicate, that correspond to reality along with philosophical concepts (which are either logically deduced from scripture or reality) that correspond to reality.

matt

[Jin-Roh]

okay.
It looks like I misunderstood your post.

[Gavin]

Hi matt, :smile:

Of course, a true philosophy, which necessitates conclusions which accuratley reflect reality, will complement the Bible, if it is, in fact, inerrent/infallible (an accurate representation of the way things actually are).

matt
Of course. But within the reformed tradition (with notable exceptions, such as B.B. Warfield) there has generally been a high degree of suspicion concerning philosophy as an accurate way to "necessitate conclusions which accurately reflect reality", due to the fallenness of the human mind (Matthew 11:25, "at that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.") and the desire to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18ff.).

With these reformed convictions I happily concur. :teeth:

[Gavin]

Jin-Roh is Japanese for "Wolf". I got the name of a Japanese Animation with the same name. I kinda like wolves, and it sounds cool.
oh, that's cool :thumb:
By the way, Its nice to hear from Calvinists who don't act like I'm a heretic for questioning the T.U.L.I.P.
The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is not one of heretic implications. I warmly recognize and regard both Arminians and OVers as brothers (and sisters) in Christ.:rockon:

[psychopath]

You said:

"Because God is omnipotent He is able to foreordain even the free actions of men. In other words, God sovereignly chooses what our actions will be AND that when we choose a certain action, we do so freely without being forced or coerced by Him. When we choose, we do so out of OUR OWN desires, therefore we do so freely."

Do you agree that an act is free if and only if I could have acted otherwise?

In other words, if I do A, and do not have the ability to do not-A, my act is not free. I don't have two possibilities from which to choose.

You said "God sovereignly chooses what our actions will be." So if I, say, help an old lady cross the street, God chose for me to do this.

But I don't see how I could have acted otherwise in this situation. I could not have not helped the lady cross the street, because God sovereignly chose for me to do so. I am doing A, without the ability to do not-A; therefore, I don't see how my act is free. If God chooses our actions, I don't think we can logically have free will.

I'm probably just missing something. Looking forward to your response. :smile:

[GrayPilgrim]

02-28-2003 @ 02:15 AM
Blake Reas:



I will tell you what I have read of Calvin, this is for everyone. He said not to dwell over the abyss of God's Sovereignty! Besides the normal accusation that Calvinism (Reformed Theology) is all about Predestination is false. It is a very big part but the biggest part is Covenant Theology. I just read an article on the Reformed Biblical theological method in EJT and they use it as a case against the OV position. I just gave it a quick read, I am going to go back over it in depth at some point and I will post a outline. If someone else has already read this article by Michael S. Horton feel free to beat me to it! You would probably do a better job than me anyway!

In Christ,
Blake Reas


That is why I don't think of myself as a Calvinist, because I reject Covenant Theology. My soteriology and theology proper are Reformed but that is about it. [Gross Characterization]Remember Covenant Theology is one long apologetic for infant baptism[/Gross Characterization].

GP

[joelkaki]

But you would affirm the 5 points at least would you not?


Joel

[GrayPilgrim]

I affirm the 5-points, God's total sovereignty and the like.

What I don't agree with is:

Covenant Theology--the concept that Prior to the Fall Adam and Eve were under the Covenant of Works, and that since the Fall all mankind has been under hte Covenant of Grace and htat the enumerated covenants of the Bible were jsut further explications of that Covenant. That is one thing I disagree with.


So while most people would call me a Calvinist I prefer to say that I have a reformed soteriology--which is what the 5 points are about.


BTW as an aside remember it was Arminus and his followers who had 5 points first in the Remosntrants and the 5 Points of Calvinsim are merely the Response of the Synod of Dort to the Remosntrants, and not meant to be an exhaistive defintion of Reformed Soteriology.

GP

[joelkaki]

Very true. That is what I had thought. What position do you tak then, if not the covenantal one?


Joel

[Andrew]

I have real trouble accepting that a foreordained choice is a choice at all. If I were to go and kill someone, would it be God who caused me to make that choice?

[rhutchin]

Andrew
I have real trouble accepting that a foreordained choice is a choice at all. If I were to go and kill someone, would it be God who caused me to make that choice?

If you kill someone, either you were forced to do so against your will or you were just being yourself. If you were just being yourself, then no one forced you to do it. Consequently, it was your freedom to act that was ordained that then allowed you to be yourself and kill the person.

[Andrew]

rhutchin,

it was your freedom to act that was ordained that then allowed you to be yourself and kill the person.

I have no problem with that understanding. It's the 'God foreordains your 'choices'' crowd that I don't understand.

[Chappie]

I affirm the 5-points, God's total sovereignty and the like.

What I don't agree with is:

Covenant Theology--the concept that Prior to the Fall Adam and Eve were under the Covenant of Works, and that since the Fall all mankind has been under hte Covenant of Grace and htat the enumerated covenants of the Bible were jsut further explications of that Covenant. That is one thing I disagree with.


So while most people would call me a Calvinist I prefer to say that I have a reformed soteriology--which is what the 5 points are about.


BTW as an aside remember it was Arminus and his followers who had 5 points first in the Remosntrants and the 5 Points of Calvinsim are merely the Response of the Synod of Dort to the Remosntrants, and not meant to be an exhaistive defintion of Reformed Soteriology.

GP

Correct me if i'm wrong, but if memory serves me correctly; was not Arminus five points in essense simply a five point disagreement with what Calvin was already teaching?

You say that the T.U.L.I.P does not represent an exhaustive definition of Reformed Theology, perhaps you could illustrate for me one or two aspects that do not fall under the T.U.L.I.P.

At this point my understanding is that it does a pretty good job of covering all of Calvinism. However is am plagued by a sense that my conclusion is probably wrong. Willing to learn.....

[Chappie]

I have real trouble accepting that a foreordained choice is a choice at all. If I were to go and kill someone, would it be God who caused me to make that choice?

Foreordained choice is not choice, it is nonsense. Actions that are forced upon an individual can never be acts of volition.

If I see a person, he is going about the business of living his life and just being happy: I take out a 45 and shoot that person six times and he dies. Did he choose to be shot, or did he choose to die. NO, HE DID NOT. My choices were imposed upon him, and I therefore bear full responsibility for what happened to him.

A moment before I shot him, I foreordained that he would be shot. And his death was foreordained by the six bullets that I pumped into him. I was not acting in response to any volition on his part. He did not choose to get shot; he did not choose to die.

Foreordained choice is a violation of the reality that the bible depends on for us to understand it. If we can violate the rules of understanding in order to have it our way, we give leave to the next guy to do the same. Pretty soon, as far as the bible is concerned, we are back in the stone ages. Why? In order to give credibility to a doctrine that has none....

Foreordained choice is nonsense, and if a blind man cannot see it; he is still without excuse: He ought to be able to smell it. If he cannot smell it, he ought to be able to feel it.

Foreordained choice is out of this world, it is not a part of this reality. It cannot be expressed within the physical realities of this world. God made the rules. Live by them, or you will die by them. But you can never change them to give reality to something that has none..

[Chappie]

If you kill someone, either you were forced to do so against your will or you were just being yourself. If you were just being yourself, then no one forced you to do it. Consequently, it was your freedom to act that was ordained that then allowed you to be yourself and kill the person.

The question now becomes, if I would otherwise choose not to kill someone, {exercising my freedom of choice} say I chose to exercise my depravity in another manner. But back in eternity past, God, being in controol of everything, had already ordained that I kill someone; who is responsible for my actions.

If I am to be considered free to kill, then as part and parcel of that freedom; is my freedom not to kill. Logic and reason simply will not allow any other resolution... You cannot have one without the other, you either have both or neither.....

Is it so hard to understand that in choosing, we chose one and reject the other... For it to be choice, we have to be able to choose either one.

[Chappie]

2 Kings 18
32 until I come and take you away (1) to a land like your own land, a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive trees and honey, that you may live and not die." But do not listen to Hezekiah when he misleads you, saying, "The LORD will deliver us."

If Calvin had been alive and king, his name and theology could have very easily replaced Hezekiahs'

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
If you kill someone, either you were forced to do so against your will or you were just being yourself. If you were just being yourself, then no one forced you to do it. Consequently, it was your freedom to act that was ordained that then allowed you to be yourself and kill the person.

Chappie
The question now becomes, if I would otherwise choose not to kill someone, {exercising my freedom of choice} say I chose to exercise my depravity in another manner. But back in eternity past, God, being in control of everything, had already ordained that I kill someone; who is responsible for my actions.

If I am to be considered free to kill, then as part and parcel of that freedom; is my freedom not to kill. Logic and reason simply will not allow any other resolution... You cannot have one without the other, you either have both or neither.....

Is it so hard to understand that in choosing, we chose one and reject the other... For it to be choice, we have to be able to choose either one.


Did God ordained you to act freely of your own volition knowing that you would freely choose to kill the person or did God simply ordain you to kill the person. I think this is the question that the Molinists seek to answer with their counterfactual theory.

However, regardless of the “process” whereby a person comes to the point where he kills someone, he is judged for his participation in the end result. All that matters is that he killed the person (arguments as to whether it was ordained are superfluous). If a person thinks that the act was ordained and he is getting a raw deal, then God has provided a means for him to escape punishment. If Satan has blinded that person so that he cannot see to escape then there is no hope for him unless someone petitions God on his behalf.

[rhutchin]

2 Kings 18
32 until I come and take you away (1) to a land like your own land, a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive trees and honey, that you may live and not die." But do not listen to Hezekiah when he misleads you, saying, "The LORD will deliver us."

If Calvin had been alive and king, his name and theology could have very easily replaced Hezekiahs'


Such jealousy!! Who would have believed Chappie capable of such base emotions. To think, I was about to nominate you for the annual Dr. Spock award. Now you do this. Bummer.

[TheFiveSolas]

Chappie:
The question now becomes, if I would otherwise choose not to kill someone, {exercising my freedom of choice} say I chose to exercise my depravity in another manner. But back in eternity past, God, being in controol of everything, had already ordained that I kill someone; who is responsible for my actions.

If I am to be considered free to kill, then as part and parcel of that freedom; is my freedom not to kill. Logic and reason simply will not allow any other resolution... You cannot have one without the other, you either have both or neither.....

Is it so hard to understand that in choosing, we chose one and reject the other... For it to be choice, we have to be able to choose either one.

Chappie,
You still fail to deal with the Calvinist position on freedom and responsibility. Instead you have simply asserted and insisted on a libertarian view of freedom, without providing proof of its validity I should add. To the Calvinist an action is free and one in which the person is responsible IF they act out of their own desires without being forced or coerced. In addition, the Calvinist position is that God forordains even the free actions of men. Therefore, using your example, you are responsible for killing someone even if God has foreordained it. If God has foreordained that you freely, of your own desires instead of by means of force or coercion, kill someone then it necessarily and logically follows that you acted freely without being forced or coerced. This is why you are responsible for your actions, even those actions that God has foreordained.

[Chappie]

rhutchin,

it was your freedom to act that was ordained that then allowed you to be yourself and kill the person.

I have no problem with that understanding. It's the 'God foreordains your 'choices'' crowd that I don't understand.

A superficial evaluation of this doctrine would lead one to believe that inspite of election, the person doing the killing acted of his own free-will. Yet a little deeper analysis of the matter will prove that conclusion wrong.

If Reformed theologys views on total depravity are true, man is without a choice unless God interveans and provides that choice. If God ordains ones freedom to act. That freedom cannot be limited to a proneness to kill. For if true freedom or freewill is to be accounted to a person, then it must be possible for a person that is prone to kill, not to kill. Only then is a person accountable to justice that is righteous, just, and holy....

I am often saddened at reforme theology's slipping left and slidding right; just so that they can present to the world a theology that is grossly unjust as just..

If God ordained it, then God did it. If man did it, then it was not ordained by God.

[rhutchin]

Chappie
A superficial evaluation of this doctrine would lead one to believe that inspite of election, the person doing the killing acted of his own free-will. Yet a little deeper analysis of the matter will prove that conclusion wrong.

If Reformed theologys views on total depravity are true, man is without a choice unless God interveans and provides that choice. If God ordains ones freedom to act. That freedom cannot be limited to a proneness to kill. For if true freedom or freewill is to be accounted to a person, then it must be possible for a person that is prone to kill, not to kill. Only then is a person accountable to justice that is righteous, just, and holy....

I am often saddened at reforme theology's slipping left and slidding right; just so that they can present to the world a theology that is grossly unjust as just..

If God ordained it, then God did it. If man did it, then it was not ordained by God.

This free-will philosophy is hard to nail down.

Does free will mean that a person is free to do that which he wills or does it mean that a person is free to do what he doesn't will?

Does free will mean that a person has knowledge of all possible outcomes or does it mean that dummies have free will?

Does free will mean that aperson is a robot and can choose impartially among several outcomes or does it mean that a person is human and prefers some outcomes to others?

I just cannot figure out this free-will philosophy.

[Chappie]

This free-will philosophy is hard to nail down.

Does free will mean that a person is free to do that which he wills or does it mean that a person is free to do what he doesn't will?

It means that a person is free to follow either one of two diferent persuasions.

Does free will mean that a person has knowledge of all possible outcomes or does it mean that dummies have free will?

Consequences follow freewill, one need not have authority over consequences in order to have freewill.

Does free will mean that aperson is a robot and can choose impartially among several outcomes or does it mean that a person is human and prefers some outcomes to others?

Outcomes are post freewill, and are usually set by God or some law of nature. Our freewill choices are subject to preexisting criteria. It is that criteria that provides the persuasion in getting us to choose in one direction or the other. We do not choose the consequences of our choices, they are pre set. If we desire consequence "A", then we choose in that direction. If we desire the consequences of "B", then we choose "B".

If we choose Christ, the consequences are preset by God. If we choose the things of this world, the consequences are preset by God. Our freewill is to choose between differing consequences. Our volition does not determine those consequences. It simply enables us to choose volitionally the consequence that we desire....

I just cannot figure out this free-will philosophy.

That is because you steadfastly insist on complication it. You refuse to seperate an act of freewill from the consequences of freewill. They are irretrievably tied together, but cannot be defined as one...

Free-will is simply ones ability to chose between two different persuasions. {say for instance, between good and evil} Both persuasions must be present and come a knocking before freewill can be exercised. One persuasion will not define it. Two persuasions, but the ability to choose only one does not cut it. Choice is always a choice between. If we cannot choose volitionally either persuasion over the other, then freewill does not exist.

[TheFiveSolas]

Chappie,

It appears you've avoided my clarification so I'll ask you a question.

Is a person's choice free if they decide to act according to their own desires without force or coercion from someone else?

[Chappie]

Chappie,

It appears you've avoided my clarification so I'll ask you a question.

Is a person's choice free if they decide to act according to their own desires without force or coercion from someone else?

That would be called acting according to instincts. Choice is always a choice between. If that person has competing instincts, then he can choose between them..

If his instincts point in only one direction, then choice is not necessary...

I have not avoided your question, please do not avoid my answer...

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
This free-will philosophy is hard to nail down.

Does free will mean that a person is free to do that which he wills or does it mean that a person is free to do what he doesn't will?

Chappie
It means that a person is free to follow either one of two different persuasions.

What if all his persuasions are perversions? A person wills to evil but does not will to good. Does he have free will?


rhutchin
Does free will mean that a person has knowledge of all possible outcomes or does it mean that dummies have free will?

Chappie
Consequences follow freewill, one need not have authority over consequences in order to have freewill.

Not exactly what I asked, but I like the answer anyway. So again, how dumb can a person be and still have free will (or how smart must a person be in order to exercise free will?)? If a person has neither authority over consequences nor control over desires, does he still have free will after his first choice?


rhutchin
Does free will mean that a person is a robot and can choose impartially among several outcomes or does it mean that a person is human and prefers some outcomes to others?

Chappies
Outcomes are post freewill, and are usually set by God or some law of nature. Our freewill choices are subject to preexisting criteria. It is that criteria that provides the persuasion in getting us to choose in one direction or the other. We do not choose the consequences of our choices, they are pre set. If we desire consequence "A", then we choose in that direction. If we desire the consequences of "B", then we choose "B".

If we choose Christ, the consequences are preset by God. If we choose the things of this world, the consequences are preset by God. Our freewill is to choose between differing consequences. Our volition does not determine those consequences. It simply enables us to choose volitionally the consequence that we desire....

Can prior consequences influences the persuasions that engulf us or limit the future choices available to persuasions? If yes, are we still free to choose?


rhutchin
I just cannot figure out this free-will philosophy.

Chappie
That is because you steadfastly insist on complicating it. You refuse to separate an act of freewill from the consequences of freewill. They are irretrievably tied together, but cannot be defined as one...

Free-will is simply ones ability to chose between two different persuasions. {say for instance, between good and evil} Both persuasions must be present and come a knocking before freewill can be exercised. One persuasion will not define it. Two persuasions, but the ability to choose only one does not cut it. Choice is always a choice between. If we cannot choose volitionally either persuasion over the other, then freewill does not exist.

What if one is torn between robbing a bank or raping a girl? What if the choice is between dying of cancer or dying from suicide? Is that what you mean by two different persuasions or must free will persuasions be yes/no decisions and exclusively apply only to one’s decision about Christ?

[TheFiveSolas]

That would be called acting according to instincts. Choice is always a choice between. If that person has competing instincts, then he can choose between them..

If his instincts point in only one direction, then choice is not necessary...

I have not avoided your question, please do not avoid my answer...

Your final sentence comes across as an indicator of animus. I understand that you were responding to my statement that it "appears that you had avoided the Calvinistic position" as I had outlined it twice in this thread. However, you had responded to two others and it certainly appeared you had ignored me. On the other hand, your last sentence above assumes, prior to any response by me, that I would avoid your answer.

In answering I should first point out that you've changed my original question regarding free-will into one of choice. Are you correct in asserting that only a person that has "competing instincts" (I assume what you mean is a choice between doing good and doing evil) has free-will? If so, then your view would necessarily lead one to conclude that God doesn't have free-will.

So, with regards to your answer I would ask, given your view outlined above, does God have free-will? I ask since God's nature (the term instinct doesn't seem to be correct when speaking of a being or person's desires) is perfectly holy, righteous, and good. Therefore, God's "instincts" always point in the same direction. He never makes a choice between doing good or doing evil. So, since God never chooses between those alternatives it would seem to follow, according to your view, that God doesn't have free-will, and therein lies the problem with your view. Your view misunderstands what free-will is. Your view of what constitutes free-will would, if true, deny free-will to our Creator Himself!

[dizzle]

That is an interesting point TFS.

[Chappie]

What if all his persuasions are perversions? A person wills to evil but does not will to good. Does he have free will?

A person can chose to do evil all his life, still it is possible to say that the person has free-will, only if it is possible for that person to choose Good. It has to be possible to choose good over evil as well as evil over good. Free-will, with all of its sidebar ramifications really boils down to the ability of a moral agent to choose good over evil or vice versa.

Within those two persuasions rests a multitude of decisions that we as moral beings make. If it is impossible to choose good because that person is controlled by an evil nature. Then his will is overpowered by his nature and his will is no longer free. And consequently he is relegated to an existence comparable to the animal kingdom; He is controlled by his instincts. And like the animal kingdom he cannot be accounted to be a morally accountable being.

Animals are controlled by their nature to the point that they do not act morally but instinctively. Therefore God does not hold them morally accountable. This is the same condition that you try to ascribe to man through your doctrine of total depravity. I have not heard of a Great White Throne of Judgment that holds animals accountable. Does God value men less than animals? This is where you reformers loose it; you claim to establish accountability through some mysterious unrevealed act of God. For the sake of this discussion, I will not say that this can not be true, but I will say emphatically that it is not a scriptural concept.

Not exactly what I asked, but I like the answer anyway. So again, how dumb can a person be and still have free will (or how smart must a person be in order to exercise free will?)? If a person has neither authority over consequences nor control over desires, does he still have free will after his first choice?

The answer to your first question depends on the consequences of his first choice. If a person chooses hell over heaven in this life, then the consequences of his choice are so pervasive that it eliminates the choice of heaven or hell in the after life.

You can learn much from the world that we live in about freewill and consequences. The underlying truth concerning choice in this world should tell you that when choose in an orange, it is not really the orange that we choose, it is really the consequences of the orange that we choose. We choose the taste, the vitamin C; we choose the orange because the consequences that are set by God concerning the orange appeal to us. If you cannot see that we choose consequences rather than this or that, and that no choice that we make gives us authority over consequences. Choices are ours in anticipation of certain consequences, or do you believe that a person desiring the consequences of an orange should choose an apple and have any reasonable expectation of obtaining the consequences of the orange.

Can prior consequences influences the persuasions that engulf us or limit the future choices available to persuasions? If yes, are we still free to choose?

Christ came to restore mans ability to have fellowship with him; he came to seek and to save that which was lost. I believe that all men were just as lost as the so called elect; this would qualify all men as having their “ability” to have fellowship restored. Some men will take hold of the prize, some will not. Still the opportunity is there for all men.

I will close by saying that reformed theology’s idea of total depravity is so extreme as to render the concept unscriptural. It is so extreme that it places men in the same category as animals. Controlled by their nature to the point that accountability is lost. Without ability, there can be no accountability. You say that men are so pervasively evil that they have lost all concepts of what is good and what is evil. I say that the bible vigorously contradicts this idea as this knowledge was given to sinful man as a part of his fallen nature.

What if one is torn between robbing a bank or raping a girl? What if the choice is between dying of cancer or dying from suicide? Is that what you mean by two different persuasions or must free will persuasions be yes/no decisions and exclusively apply only to one’s decision about Christ?

Why would a man choose to rob a bank, what criteria is he choosing, same question concerning raping the girl.

The real essense of freewill is life or death, good or evil, God or Satan. Choose ye this day whom you will serve. On the cross, Christ made it possible for us to choose. Perhaps we can choose the instruments of our death, in some cases perhaps not. But what does it matter in the annuls of eternity. Dead is dead. And we cannot change what dead is. It is what God says it is....

[rhutchin]

Chappie
Animals are controlled by their nature to the point that they do not act morally but instinctively. Therefore God does not hold them morally accountable. This is the same condition that you try to ascribe to man through your doctrine of total depravity. I have not heard of a Great White Throne of Judgment that holds animals accountable. Does God value men less than animals? This is where you reformers loose it; you claim to establish accountability through some mysterious unrevealed act of God. For the sake of this discussion, I will not say that this can not be true, but I will say emphatically that it is not a scriptural concept.

…reformed theology’s idea of total depravity is so extreme as to render the concept unscriptural…You say that men are so pervasively evil that they have lost all concepts of what is good and what is evil. I say that the bible vigorously contradicts this idea as this knowledge was given to sinful man as a part of his fallen nature.

There are verses that tell us that man has particular problems. For example:

The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.
No one seeks God.

Total Depravity cannot be extreme if it only means what these verses tell us. Your claim is that knowledge offsets what these verses say (I think). Maybe you could cite one or two scriptures to give me a flavor for how you reach this conclusion.

I am not sure what you mean regarding your statements about accountability. A person is accountable for his sin. If he sins, the penalty is death.

I am not aware that the Scriptures condition this accountability on any particular ability or knowledge. The actual participation in sin is sufficient to render the guilt of the individual. 2 Corinth tells us that Satan has blinded those headed for destruction. Destruction is the end result irrespective of the particular influence of Satan on the person being judged. One might argue that ability and knowledge are compromised in this case. However, those compromises do not absolve the guilt of the individual or negate the accountability for sin. Destruction still follows for no other reason than that the person actually did sin.

Your argument seems to be that a person who has sinned cannot be held accountable for that sin unless (something). I do not know what that “something” is. Can you provide a basic outline for your thinking using the Scriptures. Maybe, it is my Calvinistic biases, but I cannot conceive of your line of thought.

I have some questions on your statements about free will but will follow your discussion with TheFiveSolas for awhile to see how you address his comments.

[Chappie]

There are verses that tell us that man has particular problems. For example:

The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.
No one seeks God.

Please contrast for me the phrases "desperately wicked and totally wicked.

I have no problem with your comments that no man seeks God. Do you have a problem with mine when I say that "God seeks men"?

Total Depravity cannot be extreme if it only means what these verses tell us. Your claim is that knowledge offsets what these verses say (I think). Maybe you could cite one or two scriptures to give me a flavor for how you reach this conclusion.

The assertion that we are discussing is yours, not mine: Perhaps you could cite for me a passage that uses the phrase, "total depravity". Or perhaps one that unavoidably suggests total depravity. Keyword, "total"... Depravity is a scriptural concept that I do not deny.

I am not sure what you mean regarding your statements about accountability. A person is accountable for his sin. If he sins, the penalty is death.

Common sense, {that which is necessary if one is to correctly exegete the scriptures,} should tell you that one cannot volitionally or morally be held accountable for that which he does that is imposed upon him by a power that is infinitely greater than his own. He can be pronounced guilty; the available evidence is too great to arrive at any other conclusion. Guilty!!! Yes! But in order to be culpably {accountably} guilty he must have acted of his own free will.

Men are held morally and culpably guilty before God. Guilty means breaking the law: Volitionally, morally or culpably guilty means that a person did it of their own (volition) freewill. A person is guilty for his sins because he chose to break the law.

Please establish accountability for our sin nature which was imposed upon us by divine decree because of Adam. Please do not respond with some notion of "in Adam all die. I was not volitionally or morally present when Adam sinned. Neither was I consciously present. Still it can be said that my guilt is established in Adam. But I am not accountably guilty of anything that another person does… Guilty, yes! But dragged before a court of justice and deemed to be (willfully) culpably guilty which would result in my being punished. No. Nope. No way Jose….

This decree of God's was a just decree that could have/should have resulted in the destruction of all mankind. But God choose not to destroy man, but rather to provide man with a way to escape the consequences of this decree. So he provided man with a way to escape, and then held man accountable for his actions. Man is judged for the choices that he makes, even you acknowledge that. But then you say that man can only choose evil. If man cannot choose good, then he cannot choose evil. One or the other in that case is imposed upon him.

Your concept of election adjudicates that. You say that man has no responsibility in God choosing him because God imposed a new nature upon him. He is not accountable for being chosen, well if he is not accountable (responsible) for being chosen, neither is he responsible for not being chosen. Go ahead, give God the glory for those that he saves, but he must also shoulder the responsibility for those that burn. Remember, all is of God, the good and the evil...

I am not aware that the Scriptures condition this accountability on any particular ability or knowledge.

What you are saying is that a person is saved just by remaining ignorant. He need never know the lord nor call upon his name. Accountability is established in ability. And I know that even you know that.

The actual participation in sin is sufficient to render the guilt of the individual. 2 Corinth tells us that Satan has blinded those headed for destruction.

It is sufficient to render one guilty, but without freewill; accountability cannot be established. And without accountability, the Great White Throne of Judgment is nothing more than a Devine farce. A divine attempt to pass the buck.

Destruction is the end result irrespective of the particular influence of Satan on the person being judged. One might argue that ability and knowledge are compromised in this case. However, those compromises do not absolve the guilt of the individual or negate the accountability for sin. Destruction still follows for no other reason than that the person actually did sin.

You are so immersed in guilt that you cannot see that guilt does not establish accountability. I am guilty of being a man, but is that my fault or God's fault. The one that made me a man must bear full responsibility for me not being a woman. I am guilty, but God is accountable.

You speak of accountability for sin that cannot be negated. Still it is an accountability that you cannot, and never will be able to establish without freewill. Why should I buy into your premise of it is there just because you say so... And you say so based on no evidence of scripture, and based on no principles of reason or logic. You say so because if you did not; reformed theology would come tumbling down...

Your concept of total depravity reduces men to the same moral status as animals. Animals are not judged for their sins..

Your argument seems to be that a person who has sinned cannot be held accountable for that sin unless (something). I do not know what that “something” is. Can you provide a basic outline for your thinking using the Scriptures. Maybe, it is my Calvinistic biases, but I cannot conceive of your line of thought.

I have some questions on your statements about free will but will follow your discussion with TheFiveSolas for awhile to see how you address his comments.[/QUOTE]

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
There are verses that tell us that man has particular problems. For example:

The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.
No one seeks God.

Chappie
Please contrast for me the phrases "desperately wicked and totally wicked.

Perhaps you could cite for me a passage that uses the phrase, "total depravity". Or perhaps one that unavoidably suggests total depravity. Keyword, "total"... Depravity is a scriptural concept that I do not deny.

I have no problem with your comments that no man seeks God. Do you have a problem with mine when I say that "God seeks men"? (rhutchin: Of course not.)

We do not have to contrast the phrases "desperately wicked and totally wicked. I will concede that Jer 17:9 only establishes that man is depraved but not the extent of that depravity. It is the Scripture that says, “No one seeks God,” that establishes the totality of this depravity. We know that only God is good and that God is love. The man who does not seek God also does not seek good or love. As a consequence, we can say that every imagination of the thoughts of the heart of this person is only evil continually. We can describe this condition of man using the shorthand term, Total Depravity. The Scriptures do not use the term, Total Depravity, but its meaning is clear from the Scriptures.


rhutchin
I am not sure what you mean regarding your statements about accountability. A person is accountable for his sin. If he sins, the penalty is death.

Chappie
Common sense, {that which is necessary if one is to correctly exegete the scriptures,} should tell you that one cannot volitionally or morally be held accountable for that which he does that is imposed upon him by a power that is infinitely greater than his own. He can be pronounced guilty; the available evidence is too great to arrive at any other conclusion. Guilty!!! Yes! But in order to be culpably {accountably} guilty he must have acted of his own free will.

Men are held morally and culpably guilty before God. Guilty means breaking the law: Volitionally, morally or culpably guilty means that a person did it of their own (volition) freewill. A person is guilty for his sins because he chose to break the law.

Can you establish this position with the Scriptures or do you rely only on common sense for its support?


Chappie
Please establish accountability for our sin nature which was imposed upon us by divine decree because of Adam. Please do not respond with some notion of "in Adam all die. I was not volitionally or morally present when Adam sinned. Neither was I consciously present. Still it can be said that my guilt is established in Adam. But I am not accountably guilty of anything that another person does… Guilty, yes! But dragged before a court of justice and deemed to be (willfully) culpably guilty which would result in my being punished. No. Nope. No way Jose…

We know that Adam was in the presence of God when in the garden. When he sinned, he was expelled from the garden and from God’s presence. Adam’s children were then also born outside God’s presence. Adam’s sin also ensured his physical death and the physical death of all his children. That death ensures that Adam and his children will stand in the presence of God for it is now appointed to man once to die and then the judgment. So even though you were not present with Adam, you still suffer in these two respects. When you stand before God, you will be judged for your sin and we know that all have sinned. The law can be summed up in two commandments, Love God and Love thy neighbor. However, we know that man does not seek God so he does not love God. Since love is active and not passive (e.g., we know that we love God if we keep His commandments requiring one to, among other things, actively resist temptation), to be passive with respect to God is to sin. One expresses his lack of love for God by a passive desire for God from the womb (The Baptist being an example of one expressing an active love for God while still in the womb). In the end, all are required to love God and not doing so is sin, so your accountability to God is established.


Chappie
This decree of God's was a just decree that could have/should have resulted in the destruction of all mankind. But God choose not to destroy man, but rather to provide man with a way to escape the consequences of this decree. So he provided man with a way to escape, and then held man accountable for his actions. Man is judged for the choices that he makes, even you acknowledge that. But then you say that man can only choose evil. If man cannot choose good, then he cannot choose evil. One or the other in that case is imposed upon him.

Even if God had not provided a means of escape, man would still be condemned. A man may choose to love God or not love God. He may choose to seek God or not seek God. Man chooses not to seek God and is condemned. It does not matter that he had no desire for God, a desire that he could not overcome, and therefore no real ability to choose to love God. The man is still presented with the choice between good and evil. He willfully chooses evil as the free expression of all his desires.


Chappie
Your concept of election adjudicates that. You say that man has no responsibility in God choosing him because God imposed a new nature upon him. He is not accountable for being chosen, well if he is not accountable (responsible) for being chosen, neither is he responsible for not being chosen. Go ahead, give God the glory for those that he saves, but he must also shoulder the responsibility for those that burn. Remember, all is of God, the good and the evil...

Even if God chose to save no one, all would still be accountable to Him and fully responsible for his sin. Absent God providing a means of salvation, none could be saved. The availability of salvation does not make man responsible for his sin. He is responsible even if salvation was not a possibility. God would be responsible for man’s sin if he coerced man to sin. Man sins of his own free will and does so joyfully.


rhutchin
I am not aware that the Scriptures condition this accountability on any particular ability or knowledge.

Chappie
What you are saying is that a person is saved just by remaining ignorant. He need never know the lord nor call upon his name. Accountability is established in ability. And I know that even you know that.

Accountability is not established in ability. Accountability is established in the law that requires that a man love God or perish. To the perishing, there is no other name under heaven whereby he must be saved than that of Christ.

[Chappie]

We do not have to contrast the phrases "desperately wicked and totally wicked. I will concede that Jer 17:9 only establishes that man is depraved but not the extent of that depravity.

Here, let me help you. “Desperately wicked” suggests a condition of depravity that has resulted in desperation. Still, in a desperate situation, there remains a glimmer of hope. Totally wicked suggests a condition that is without hope. The scriptures do establish our condition as desperate. John Calvin did God one better; he took anyone foolish enough to believe him into a state of total depravity.

It is the Scripture that says, “No one seeks God,” that establishes the totality of this depravity.

“No one seeks God” no more establishes the extent of depravity any more than you or I do. It is what God says it is. And God does not make provisions for your extreme view. Ole’ Abe Lincoln has a word for you. “You can fool some of the people some of the, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

We know that only God is good and that God is love. The man who does not seek God also does not seek good or love.

If you truly believe that God is Good, why do you insist on attributing to him a hatred for the majority of mankind? Instead you call evil good and say that because God did it, evil must be good. For me, God is good means that his deeds will stand on their own merit. Describe election and its consequences without dropping God’s name in conjunction with it and no man alive will call it good. Evil is evil, no matter who does it…

Salvation is a consequence of God seeking men. Love does not seek its own; it always seeks the well-being of another. You have God using love to selfishly build his kingdom. Lucky for the elect, God needs a few warm bodies to worship him, without that he would just as soon burn em all… And you call that Love…..

As a consequence, we can say that every imagination of the thoughts of the heart of this person is only evil continually. We can describe this condition of man using the shorthand term, Total Depravity. The Scriptures do not use the term, Total Depravity, but its meaning is clear from the Scriptures.

God said neither add nor subtract, your shorthand is your {Calvin’s} shorthand; it is not God’s. Everybody got a better way to say what God said than how God said it..

Can you establish this position with the Scriptures or do you rely only on common sense for its support?

If you are saying that you can better exegete scripture without using common sense, then I can see where reformed theology got its start. I always rely on common sense, how about you?

We know that Adam was in the presence of God when in the garden. When he sinned, he was expelled from the garden and from God’s presence. Adam’s children were then also born outside God’s presence. Adam’s sin also ensured his physical death and the physical death of all his children. That death ensures that Adam and his children will stand in the presence of God for it is now appointed to man once to die and then the judgment.

All of a sudden you want to judge the man. Why? Without freewill he is simply the unchangeable product of his creation. He is what he was created to be. He has the power to change nothing. He is helpless and totally dependent on his creator for what he is. And you suggest that he is responsible for what God did.

Adam was created innocent, without even a hint of knowledge of what was good and what was evil. He was not perfect because we know that only God is perfect. He was created a free moral agent. God made it real simple for him. Do not eat from that tree in the center of the garden. The tree established Adam’s only means of freedom of expression, for he had but one circumstance through which he could disobey God. Adam was not forced to disobey, he chose to disobey. Much of what you conclude evades even a semblance of reason and logic. It does not even require intelligence, for intelligence would tell you that it is not of God. God did tell us to obey and trust him even when we did not understand. And even tho it is not fail safe we can come to no knowledge and understanding of him if we discard our ability to reason. Reformed theology believes that to think and to reason is a sin in and of itself..

So even though you were not present with Adam, you still suffer in these two respects. When you stand before God, you will be judged for your sin and we know that all have sinned. The law can be summed up in two commandments, Love God and Love thy neighbor. However, we know that man does not seek God so he does not love God. Since love is active and not passive (e.g., we know that we love God if we keep His commandments requiring one to, among other things, actively resist temptation), to be passive with respect to God is to sin. One expresses his lack of love for God by a passive desire for God from the womb (The Baptist being an example of one expressing an active love for God while still in the womb). In the end, all are required to love God and not doing so is sin, so your accountability to God is established.

The fact remains; there is no other way under heaven whereby accountability can be established without freewill. One fact will always remain, if it is impossible to accept God, it is impossible to reject him. When a moral agent is impeded by a power greater than his own ability to conform or resist, his will is not free and he is not accountable..

Even if God had not provided a means of escape, man would still be condemned.

Condemned, yes. Destroyed, yes. Judged culpably guilty and punished for that guilt… No way.

A man may choose to love God or not love God. He may choose to seek God or not seek God. Man chooses not to seek God and is condemned. It does not matter that he had no desire for God, a desire that he could not overcome, and therefore no real ability to choose to love God. The man is still presented with the choice between good and evil. He willfully chooses evil as the free expression of all his desires.

So much confusion and contradiction here. In spite of Calvin’s cult like influence in your life, you should be able to allow the evidence to speak and cause you to wonder… “He willfully chooses evil as the free expression of all his desires”. Now think! His desires were imposed upon him by a sin nature that was imposed upon him. No injustice there, but to willfully punish him for that nature knowing that he is without culpability in its imposition is Mike Tyson ludicrous

Even if God chose to save no one, all would still be accountable to Him and fully responsible for his sin. Absent God providing a means of salvation, none could be saved.

Absent God providing a means of condemnation, no one would be lost either. Let’s give God all the credit due him under reformed theology. God provides the means of salvation; he also provides the means of condemnation. We all know that is true, you just want to say that even though he provided the means of condemnation for all men. He only provided the means of salvation to some men.

The availability of salvation does not make man responsible for his sin. He is responsible even if salvation was not a possibility. God would be responsible for man’s sin if he coerced man to sin. Man sins of his own free will and does so joyfully.

Sin is no longer the issue that separates men from God. Mans sins were adjudicated on the cross. Accepting and embracing or rejecting God’s plan of salvation is now the issue that separates. As a regenerated one that is obedient to God, just how much joy have you wisely attributed to the disobedience of the non-elect.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
We do not have to contrast the phrases "desperately wicked and totally wicked. I will concede that Jer 17:9 only establishes that man is depraved but not the extent of that depravity.

Chappie
Here, let me help you. “Desperately wicked” suggests a condition of depravity that has resulted in desperation. Still, in a desperate situation, there remains a glimmer of hope. Totally wicked suggests a condition that is without hope. The scriptures do establish our condition as desperate. John Calvin did God one better; he took anyone foolish enough to believe him into a state of total depravity.

It is an interesting philosophy. However, if you want to make it good theology, you will need support from the Scriptures. The Scriptures in Ephesians speak against your position.

Ephesians 2:11-12
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh,…That at that time ye were without Christ…having no hope, and without God in the world:

Can you point us to Scripture that supports your philosophy that a person has hope despite his depravity.


rhutchin
It is the Scripture that says, “No one seeks God,” that establishes the totality of this depravity.

Chappie
“No one seeks God” no more establishes the extent of depravity any more than you or I do. It is what God says it is. And God does not make provisions for your extreme view. Ole’ Abe Lincoln has a word for you. “You can fool some of the people some of the, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Quoting Abe is nice but meaningless. Are you unable to get the Scriptures to support your philosophy? The way of the fool is right in his own eyes, but the Lord gives wisdom. Show me the Scriptures and I will believe you.


rhutchin
We know that only God is good and that God is love. The man who does not seek God also does not seek good or love.

Chappie
If you truly believe that God is Good, why do you insist on attributing to him a hatred for the majority of mankind? Instead you call evil good and say that because God did it, evil must be good. For me, God is good means that his deeds will stand on their own merit. Describe election and its consequences without dropping God’s name in conjunction with it and no man alive will call it good. Evil is evil, no matter who does it…

Do we not read in the Scriptures
Gen 6
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;…

2 Peter 3
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Is this what you mean when you refer to God hating men? Does the flood then prove that God is not good or is He good still? Are you saying that there is no merit to these deeds of God.


Chappie
Salvation is a consequence of God seeking men. Love does not seek its own; it always seeks the well-being of another. You have God using love to selfishly build his kingdom. Lucky for the elect, God needs a few warm bodies to worship him, without that he would just as soon burn em all… And you call that Love…..

You argue as the universalists do. Are you saying that God will save everyone? Can the love you espouse do any less?


rhutchin
As a consequence, we can say that every imagination of the thoughts of the heart of this person is only evil continually. We can describe this condition of man using the shorthand term, Total Depravity. The Scriptures do not use the term, Total Depravity, but its meaning is clear from the Scriptures.

Chappie
God said neither add nor subtract, your shorthand is your {Calvin’s} shorthand; it is not God’s. Everybody got a better way to say what God said than how God said it..

From what I have seen, you rarely let Scripture speak for itself but are constantly speaking for the Scriptures. Am I to conclude that your philosophies are derived from your imagination if you do not let the Scriptures speak those things that you would want people to believe?


rhutchin
Can you establish this position with the Scriptures or do you rely only on common sense for its support?

Chappie
If you are saying that you can better exegete scripture without using common sense, then I can see where reformed theology got its start. I always rely on common sense, how about you?

I always rely on the Scriptures. They speak plainly and directly on most matters (matters relating to the second coming being one exception). If a man does not know the Scriptures, he has no recourse but to rely on common sense.


rhutchin
We know that Adam was in the presence of God when in the garden. When he sinned, he was expelled from the garden and from God’s presence. Adam’s children were then also born outside God’s presence. Adam’s sin also ensured his physical death and the physical death of all his children. That death ensures that Adam and his children will stand in the presence of God for it is now appointed to man once to die and then the judgment.

Chappie
All of a sudden you want to judge the man. Why? Without freewill he is simply the unchangeable product of his creation. He is what he was created to be. He has the power to change nothing. He is helpless and totally dependent on his creator for what he is. And you suggest that he is responsible for what God did.

Are you saying that man will not be judged and that he is not accountable for his actions? Is man not responsible for what he does. Does he not do it willingly and joyfully and consistent with his desires? Does not God say to him, “Come and let us reason together…” and man refuses? Where is God at fault or man innocent?


Chappie
Adam was created innocent, without even a hint of knowledge of what was good and what was evil. He was not perfect because we know that only God is perfect. He was created a free moral agent. God made it real simple for him. Do not eat from that tree in the center of the garden. The tree established Adam’s only means of freedom of expression, for he had but one circumstance through which he could disobey God. Adam was not forced to disobey, he chose to disobey. Much of what you conclude evades even a semblance of reason and logic. It does not even require intelligence, for intelligence would tell you that it is not of God. God did tell us to obey and trust him even when we did not understand. And even tho it is not fail safe we can come to no knowledge and understanding of him if we discard our ability to reason. Reformed theology believes that to think and to reason is a sin in and of itself.

You did well until the last sentence. Fortunately, it does not matter what reformed theology believes. All that matters is what the Scriptures say.


Chappie
The fact remains; there is no other way under heaven whereby accountability can be established without freewill. One fact will always remain, if it is impossible to accept God, it is impossible to reject him. When a moral agent is impeded by a power greater than his own ability to conform or resist, his will is not free and he is not accountable.

That is an interesting philosophy, no doubt the product of common sense. Did not Paul and Barnabas say--

Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.
Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

Is that not choice?


rhutchin
Even if God had not provided a means of escape, man would still be condemned.

Chappie
Condemned, yes. Destroyed, yes. Judged culpably guilty and punished for that guilt… No way.

How are men not guilty? Do not they create gods of wood and metal to forgive them of their sins. Do not men devise extravagant methods to repent of their wrongs? In doing so, do they not acknowledge their sin and prove themselves guilty? Do not men create are kinds of philosophies in order to reject God and do that which they know is wrong? The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.


rhutchin
A man may choose to love God or not love God. He may choose to seek God or not seek God. Man chooses not to seek God and is condemned. It does not matter that he had no desire for God, a desire that he could not overcome, and therefore no real ability to choose to love God. The man is still presented with the choice between good and evil. He willfully chooses evil as the free expression of all his desires.

Chappie
So much confusion and contradiction here. In spite of Calvin’s cult like influence in your life, you should be able to allow the evidence to speak and cause you to wonder… “He willfully chooses evil as the free expression of all his desires”. Now think! His desires were imposed upon him by a sin nature that was imposed upon him. No injustice there, but to willfully punish him for that nature knowing that he is without culpability in its imposition is Mike Tyson ludicrous.

Paul instructs on this matter thusly--
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.


rhutchin
Even if God chose to save no one, all would still be accountable to Him and fully responsible for his sin. Absent God providing a means of salvation, none could be saved.

Chappie
Absent God providing a means of condemnation, no one would be lost either. Let’s give God all the credit due him under reformed theology. God provides the means of salvation; he also provides the means of condemnation. We all know that is true, you just want to say that even though he provided the means of condemnation for all men. He only provided the means of salvation to some men.

All have sinned. Only without sin there is no condemnation. Will not God do what is right?


rhutchin
The availability of salvation does not make man responsible for his sin. He is responsible even if salvation was not a possibility. God would be responsible for man’s sin if he coerced man to sin. Man sins of his own free will and does so joyfully.

Chappie
Sin is no longer the issue that separates men from God. Mans sins were adjudicated on the cross. Accepting and embracing or rejecting God’s plan of salvation is now the issue that separates. As a regenerated one that is obedient to God, just how much joy have you wisely attributed to the disobedience of the non-elect.

Christ is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. So let a man choose Christ if he will and let God choose man if he will.

[Chappie]

It is an interesting philosophy. However, if you want to make it good theology, you will need support from the Scriptures. The Scriptures in Ephesians speak against your position.

Ephesians 2:11-12
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh,…That at that time ye were without Christ…having no hope, and without God in the world:

Can you point us to Scripture that supports your philosophy that a person has hope despite his depravity.

Shall we use the passage that you quoted out of context.. They will do just fine..
Ephesians 2
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

In times past, without hope, desperation.(verse 11) But now {Verse 13) made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Acts 2
25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Quoting Abe is nice but meaningless. Are you unable to get the Scriptures to support your philosophy? The way of the fool is right in his own eyes, but the Lord gives wisdom. Show me the Scriptures and I will believe you.

Ephesians 2:11-13, and Acts 2:26 as posted above. Now keep your word. Believe….

Do we not read in the Scriptures
Gen 6
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;…

2 Peter 3
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Is this what you mean when you refer to God hating men? Does the flood then prove that God is not good or is He good still? Are you saying that there is no merit to these deeds of God.

God hating men is your faith, not mine. What you have given is evidence of God hating sin, not men. God hates wickedness, God hates evil.

You argue as the Universalists do. Are you saying that God will save everyone? Can the love you espouse do any less?

I have never in my life said that God will save everyone. It is an exercise in extremism just like reformed theology is. You flip reformed theology over and you find universalism.

From what I have seen, you rarely let Scripture speak for itself but are constantly speaking for the Scriptures. Am I to conclude that your philosophies are derived from your imagination if you do not let the Scriptures speak those things that you would want people to believe?

OK John Calvin Jr. You speak and believe what guru John tells you to speak and believe. Therein lie your loyalties, they are concerned with what John said first, and scriptures second…

I always rely on the Scriptures. They speak plainly and directly on most matters (matters relating to the second coming being one exception).

So stated Jim Jones, David Koresh, The Mormons, Scientologists, That fella Moon and a host of other crackpots. Notice that I have carefully avoided calling “you” a crackpot.

If a man does not know the Scriptures, he has no recourse but to rely on common sense.

Yet only a fool will attempt to discern scripture without using common sense. Like hand and glove, they go together Bubba…

Are you saying that man will not be judged and that he is not accountable for his actions? Is man not responsible for what he does.

Nope, where did you ever get that idea? {Reformed thought no doubt.} What I do say is that there is no way under heaven, given by God to establish accountability other than through free-will. If you have another way, show it to me scripturally or even from a reasonable and/or logical perspective. YOU CANNOT.

Does he not do it willingly and joyfully and consistent with his desires?

I don’t know, I can only speak for myself. How about you? Do you do it willingly and joyfully? Or have you ceased from sin. Do you not yet realize that God has set a mirror in front of you, and every time you point the finger, it’s you standing in the mirror? You are no less a sinner than the man you so willfully point your finger at. Did you think that you have changed? You are still a sinner.

Does not God say to him, “Come and let us reason together…” and man refuses? Where is God at fault or man innocent?

One minute you say that God is sovereign and omnipotent. God is in “CONTROL” you claim from your position of self righteousness. But when it is convenient for you, you say; “and man refuses”. Make up your mind. One minute you claim one thing, the next minute you discredit what you just said.

You did well until the last sentence. Fortunately, it does not matter what reformed theology believes. All that matters is what the Scriptures say.[quote]

That is correct. Your problems arise because the scriptures do not say reformed theology..

[quote]That is an interesting philosophy, no doubt the product of common sense. Did not Paul and Barnabas say--
Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
Who in times past suffered {allowed} all nations to walk in their own ways.
Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

Your effort to discredit reason and common sense is short-sighted at best. Still, it is quite reformed.

How are men not guilty?

Men are Guilty, but it takes free-will to establish accountability.

Do not they create gods of wood and metal to forgive them of their sins. Do not men devise extravagant methods to repent of their wrongs?

Here comes da judge, forever pointing the finger are ya?
All men need God. If your selfish God has rejected them just so that you can see his mercy, should they not be free to seek God elsewhere. Why should they be considered evil and punished just because they try to address their need for God. Election stinks huh?

In doing so, do they not acknowledge their sin and prove themselves guilty? Do not men create are kinds of philosophies in order to reject God and do that which they know is wrong? The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Keep that finger wagging will ya? In doing so, do they not acknowledge their sin and prove themselves guilty? I don’t know, you da judge.

Do not men create are kinds of philosophies in order to reject God and do that which they know is wrong? You appear to have judged them already. Remember the mirror….

The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

One minute they cannot understand the things of God, the next minute they can. You cannot win playing three card molly if you do not know which cup the object is under. You have to know where you put it…

Paul instructs on this matter thusly--
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.

Kind of eliminates “TOTAL DEPRAVITY” huh? Kind of slaps around your bad understanding of that passage that says that the thoughts of men were evil continually that you were so proud of. The scripture still stands in its integrity, but your bad understanding is getting punched ((((( OUT ))))). Every time reformed theology gets into the ring with scripture: Scripture KNOCKS IT OUT!!!! In the first round, in the first minute, KABOOOOOOM! Reformed theology is again on the mat being counted “OUT”…..

“Their conscience also bearing witness“. What!!!!! A conscience. These continually evil doers have a conscience. A conscience is a product of a sense of morality, right and wrong. Reformed theology is all confused huh. They post scriptures in support that really contradict them.

All have sinned. Only without sin there is no condemnation. Will not God do what is right?

Yes, God will do what is right. That is why he will not touch, even with Satan’s hands, your reformed concept of election.

Christ is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. So let a man choose Christ if he will and let God choose man if he will.

I love that passage. I love it, I love it, I LOVE IT. I think that it was Paul that said that. Speaking from a position that acknowledges his salvation, he proclaims; “Christ is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

:b_jump: He’s got the whole world in his hands; he’s got the whole world in his hands. He’s Got the whole world, in his hand. :b_hop:

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
It is an interesting philosophy. However, if you want to make it good theology, you will need support from the Scriptures. The Scriptures in Ephesians speak against your position.

Ephesians 2:11-12
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh,…That at that time ye were without Christ…having no hope, and without God in the world:

Can you point us to Scripture that supports your philosophy that a person has hope despite his depravity.

Chappie
Shall we use the passage that you quoted out of context.. They will do just fine..
Ephesians 2
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

In times past, without hope, desperation.(verse 11) But now {Verse 13) made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Acts 2
25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Do we agree, then, that these passages only give hope to those who are saved and not to the lost? Certainly, we whom God has saved have every reason to have hope because our hope is in Christ. I had thought you meant that those who are lost had hope, a position for which no Scriptural support exists, certainly not these that you cite.


Chappie
“No one seeks God” no more establishes the extent of depravity any more than you or I do. It is what God says it is. And God does not make provisions for your extreme view. Ole’ Abe Lincoln has a word for you. “You can fool some of the people some of the, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

rhutchin
Quoting Abe is nice but meaningless. Are you unable to get the Scriptures to support your philosophy? The way of the fool is right in his own eyes, but the Lord gives wisdom. Show me the Scriptures and I will believe you.

Chappie
Ephesians 2:11-13, and Acts 2:26 as posted above. Now keep your word. Believe….

Total Depravity applies to the lost. Your citations apply to the saved. If all you mean is that the saved are not Totally Depraved, then you have no argument from me. I believe that. However, the real issue is whether the lost are Totally Depraved. Do you see any Scriptures to support a philosophy that the lost are anything but Totally Depraved?


Chappie
If you truly believe that God is Good, why do you insist on attributing to him a hatred for the majority of mankind? Instead you call evil good and say that because God did it, evil must be good. For me, God is good means that his deeds will stand on their own merit. Describe election and its consequences without dropping God’s name in conjunction with it and no man alive will call it good. Evil is evil, no matter who does it…

rhutchin
Do we not read in the Scriptures
Gen 6
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;…

2 Peter 3
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Is this what you mean when you refer to God hating men? Does the flood then prove that God is not good or is He good still? Are you saying that there is no merit to these deeds of God.

Chappie
God hating men is your faith, not mine. What you have given is evidence of God hating sin, not men. God hates wickedness, God hates evil.

We seem to agree that God can condemn men to hell for their sin, so what did you mean by your earlier comment about me “…attributing to [God] a hatred for the majority of mankind?” I guess that I did not understand your comment.


Chappie
Salvation is a consequence of God seeking men. Love does not seek its own; it always seeks the well-being of another. You have God using love to selfishly build his kingdom. Lucky for the elect, God needs a few warm bodies to worship him, without that he would just as soon burn em all… And you call that Love…..

rhutchin
You argue as the Universalists do. Are you saying that God will save everyone? Can the love you espouse do any less?

Chappie
I have never in my life said that God will save everyone. It is an exercise in extremism just like reformed theology is. You flip reformed theology over and you find universalism.

Confusion on my part again. We both agree that salvation is a consequence of God seeking men. We both agree that some people are saved and some lost forever. So, we agree that God saves a group of people (the elect) although we disagree on how this comes about. People still burn under your system and these are the same people who burn under my system. So how is it that you characterize my system as a loveless system and yours as not?


rhutchin
From what I have seen, you rarely let Scripture speak for itself but are constantly speaking for the Scriptures. Am I to conclude that your philosophies are derived from your imagination if you do not let the Scriptures speak those things that you would want people to believe?

Chappie
OK John Calvin Jr. You speak and believe what guru John tells you to speak and believe. Therein lie your loyalties, they are concerned with what John said first, and scriptures second…

It seems that we actually agree based on what you have said above. The manner in which you had phrased your responses had me thinking that you believed otherwise. Now, that I see your Scriptures (Eph 2, Acts 2) and that you were speaking only of the elect, I understand better your position.


rhutchin
Are you saying that man will not be judged and that he is not accountable for his actions? Is man not responsible for what he does.

Chappie
Nope, where did you ever get that idea? {Reformed thought no doubt.} What I do say is that there is no way under heaven, given by God to establish accountability other than through free-will. If you have another way, show it to me scripturally or even from a reasonable and/or logical perspective. YOU CANNOT.

Gal 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions
21 envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and similar things. I am warning you, as I had warned you before: Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!

We know that those who are Totally Depraved practice these things. Now, if by free will, you mean only that a person chooses to do the above, then we have no argument. If by free will, you mean that a person who is Totally Depraved can choose to do good, then we have a dispute.

Do you have scriptures that tell us that the lost have the ability to choose good?


rhutchin
Does not God say to him, “Come and let us reason together…” and man refuses? Where is God at fault or man innocent?

Chappie
One minute you say that God is sovereign and omnipotent. God is in “CONTROL” you claim from your position of self righteousness. But when it is convenient for you, you say; “and man refuses”. Make up your mind. One minute you claim one thing, the next minute you discredit what you just said.

Let me explain it. God says, “Come and let us reason together…” However, there is none that desires God, none that seeks God. The offer is ignored. All refuse to reason with God. They do it of their own free will. All are Totally Depraved and lost.


rhutchin
How are men not guilty?

Chappie
Men are Guilty, but it takes free-will to establish accountability.

If by free will you mean that man freely engages in his sin, then we agree and the Scriptures agree with us. If however, you mean that man can choose to do good, then we disagree and you will find no Scriptures to agree with you and all you have left is a philosophy built on nothing more than common sense.


[I]rhutchin
The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Chappie
One minute they cannot understand the things of God, the next minute they can. You cannot win playing three card molly if you do not know which cup the object is under. You have to know where you put it…

Let me explain this. The things of God are understandable and are clearly seen by the lost. However, no man seeks God, so the lost explain away such things by saying that they are the result of natural forces or some other nonsense built on common sense. In the end, men are without excuse.


rhutchin
Paul instructs on this matter thusly--
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.

Chappie
Kind of eliminates “TOTAL DEPRAVITY” huh? Kind of slaps around your bad understanding of that passage that says that the thoughts of men were evil continually that you were so proud of. The scripture still stands in its integrity, but your bad understanding is getting punched ((((( OUT ))))). Every time reformed theology gets into the ring with scripture: Scripture KNOCKS IT OUT!!!! In the first round, in the first minute, KABOOOOOOM! Reformed theology is again on the mat being counted “OUT”…..

“Their conscience also bearing witness“. What!!!!! A conscience. These continually evil doers have a conscience. A conscience is a product of a sense of morality, right and wrong. Reformed theology is all confused huh. They post scriptures in support that really contradict them.

Do you forget so quickly? No one seeks God and no one seeks good because only God is good. Even men of evil nature will devise laws not for the benefit of those around him but for his own protection. Man passes a law that says, “Thou shalt not steal” not because he does not want to steal but because he does not want people to steal from him. Is not your common sense able to make this clear to you?


[I]rhutchin
Christ is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. So let a man choose Christ if he will and let God choose man if He will.

Chappie
I love that passage. I love it, I love it, I LOVE IT. I think that it was Paul that said that. Speaking from a position that acknowledges his salvation, he proclaims; “Christ is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.


:b_jump: He’s got the whole world in his hands; he’s got the whole world in his hands. He’s Got the whole world, in his hand. :b_hop:

Actually, it is 1 John 2 (not that bad a guess, however).

Do you agree then that man may choose Christ if he will and that God may choose man if He will?

[Chappie]

Do we agree, then, that these passages only give hope to those who are saved and not to the lost? Certainly, we whom God has saved have every reason to have hope because our hope is in Christ. I had thought you meant that those who are lost had hope, a position for which no Scriptural support exists, certainly not these that you cite.
Here is the hope of those that are lost.
Luke 19:10
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
(Whole Chapter: Luke 19 In context: Luke 19:9-11)

Total Depravity applies to the lost. Your citations apply to the saved. If all you mean is that the saved are not Totally Depraved, then you have no argument from me. I believe that. However, the real issue is whether the lost are Totally Depraved. Do you see any Scriptures to support a philosophy that the lost are anything but Totally Depraved?

Yes, I do.. Romans 2
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Can you now scripturally support your theory of “TOTAL” depravity?

We seem to agree that God can condemn men to hell for their sin, so what did you mean by your earlier comment about me “…attributing to [God] a hatred for the majority of mankind?” I guess that I did not understand your comment.

That is a sentiment that has been expressed to me by reformers on numerous occasions. God only loves those that he elected before the world was. I do not buy into it…

Confusion on my part again. We both agree that salvation is a consequence of God seeking men. We both agree that some people are saved and some lost forever. So, we agree that God saves a group of people (the elect) although we disagree on how this comes about. People still burn under your system and these are the same people who burn under my system. So how is it that you characterize my system as a loveless system and yours as not?[quote]

We agree that there is an elect, but we disagree on how one becomes one of the elect. I do not see what you believe as loveless. What I see is that you have Love and Hate standing side by side as blood brothers. I say that God hates sin, not men. You say that God created men to burn, I say that hell is a consequence for those that do not accept God’s provisions for salvation. You say that God did not make any provisions for them. Their provisions were to burn so that you might see God’s mercy pored out upon you.

The bible tells us to be imitators of Christ. Still if I exercised election, you would call me Hitler. What Hitler did in Germany is the perfect earthly parable if one wanted to teach election. The similarities alone are enough to frighten me away from reformed theology.

[quote]It seems that we actually agree based on what you have said above. The manner in which you had phrased your responses had me thinking that you believed otherwise. Now, that I see your Scriptures (Eph 2, Acts 2) and that you were speaking only of the elect, I understand better your position.




Gal 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions
21 envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and similar things. I am warning you, as I had warned you before: Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!

Matthew 5
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Have you plucked your eyes out yet? Ever feel twinges of jealously, outbursts of anger, dissensions. You violate one command, you violated them all. Remember that mirror that God has placed in front of you. What you think that you see in others, is really in you.

We know that those who are Totally Depraved practice these things. Now, if by free will, you mean only that a person chooses to do the above, then we have no argument? If by free will, you mean that a person who is Totally Depraved can choose to do good, then we have a dispute.

We have a real dispute…. If a man cannot choose good, then he cannot choose evil. If a person’s nature overpowers his will, he no longer acts volitionally, but instinctively. Once a person is reduced to acting instinctively only, he is reduced to the animal kingdom. And just like animals he is not a free moral agent, and is no longer accountable for his actions. God acts as a counter balance to evil, he will not allow it to overpower your will and reduce you below the point of accountability.

Do you have scriptures that tell us that the lost have the ability to choose good?

Your elect were supposedly saved before the foundations of the world were lost. So we know that God is not seeking them. So when God says that he came to seek, now get this, and to save that which is lost; who is he seeking and why is he seeking them if he has already predestined them to hell.

Let me explain it. God says, “Come and let us reason together…” However, there is none that desires God, none that seeks God. The offer is ignored. All refuse to reason with God. They do it of their own free will. All are Totally Depraved and lost.

Poor God, he must just be bored. He issues a command that he knows that no one will obey. Does he do this in some failed attempt to justify his already having predestined them to hell? Isaiah 1
17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

Has God forgotten that he has already predestined them to be unwilling and disobedient? Even if it were possible for one of them to come to him, when they got there they would find God standing there grinning with a match in his hands.

Ever hear of those stings set up by policemen that send out invitations to the bad guys with promises of rewards or gifts if they will show up. They get there thinking that they have won a new car. Then they slap the cuffs on then and usher them off into everlasting punishment. Is that what Isaiah 1:17-19 represents. A divine sting operation. Shame on you God…

If by free will you mean that man freely engages in his sin, then we agree and the Scriptures agree with us. If however, you mean that man can choose to do good, then we disagree and you will find no Scriptures to agree with you and all you have left is a philosophy built on nothing more than common sense.

How can you suggest that a man freely engages in his sin when that is the only option available to him? Are you suggesting that he can do otherwise?

And being that scriptures are logical, how can you even suggest that they can be discerned without using common sense. Every discernment that we make concerning scripture, we arrive at it via common sense. You only want to throw it out when common sense does not jive with reformed theology.

When you accuse me of error because I use common sense. You affirm that reformed theology does not. Therefore, you can have it, I don’t want it, it’s too unscriptural for me…

Let me explain this. The things of God are understandable and are clearly seen by the lost. However, no man seeks God, so the lost explain away such things by saying that they are the result of natural forces or some other nonsense built on common sense. In the end, men are without excuse.

And you have replaced common sense with Johnny Boy Calvin. And you think that without common sense, you have found truth. Without the rhyme and reason of common sense, all that you have found is confusion…

“In the end, men are without excuse“, what do they need an excuse for? Before they were ever born, before they had done either good or evil, God had already predestined them to hell. I.e., your Jacob and Esau analogy. In the end it is your electoral God that needs an excuse. He caused everything, and has the sovereign right to do it. Nevertheless, sovereignty and all, he did it.

Do you forget so quickly? No one seeks God and no one seeks good because only God is good. Even men of evil nature will devise laws not for the benefit of those around him but for his own protection. Man passes a law that says, “Thou shalt not steal” not because he does not want to steal but because he does not want people to steal from him. Is not your common sense able to make this clear to you?

Common sense tells me that man did not make that law; you’ll find it in your bible. Men realized that it was a good law, and decided to utilize it. God gave it for our own protection, why should we not utilize it for that very same reason… An evil man would not pass such a law. All good things come from God. An evil person will pass laws that support evil. An evil person’s law would say, “thou shalt not steal unless you are me“.

Actually, it is 1 John 2 (not that bad a guess, however).

Do you agree then that man may choose Christ if he will and that God may choose man if He will?

Never said that men chose Christ in that context. It is in this context that I will affirm. A man can choose to accept Christ. He can choose to reject Christ. It is the persuasions that God places in his life that he can choose to accept or to reject… Precisely, that is what I affirm. You cannot detract from it; neither can you add to it and then attribute it to me….

[Andrew]

If God foreordains everything, can He feel a sense of frustration at anything we might do?

[rhutchin]

Chappie
Here is the hope of those that are lost.
Luke 19:10
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
(Whole Chapter: Luke 19 In context: Luke 19:9-11)

We agree on this. The hope of the lost is that Christ may seek them out and save them. Pity those whom Christ will not save.


rhutchin
Total Depravity applies to the lost. Your citations apply to the saved. If all you mean is that the saved are not Totally Depraved, then you have no argument from me. I believe that. However, the real issue is whether the lost are Totally Depraved. Do you see any Scriptures to support a philosophy that the lost are anything but Totally Depraved?

Chappie
Yes, I do.. Romans 2
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Can you now scripturally support your theory of “TOTAL” depravity?

I have provided Scriptural support for the concept of TOTAL Depravity. They are Jer 17:9 and Rom 3 (No one seeks God). If you have forgotten that earlier discussion, I will go back and explain it for you again. There are other Scriptures, too. How much do you need?

However, by your citation of Romans 2, is your argument that by keeping the law people are doing “good”? Does not Isaiah say, “All our works are as filthy rags.” How then can you say that keeping some laws some time makes people good?

The idea Paul is expressing here is that people inherently know that laws protect them. It is not that people do not want to steal from others; they do not want others to steal from them. Thus, people makes laws to protect themselves and in doing so, they show that the law is good. However, making good laws does not make a person good. Even common sense should tell you that. When a person breaks a law that he knows is good (even if for purely selfish reasons) he condemns himself because he does those things that he does not want done to himself.


rhutchin
We seem to agree that God can condemn men to hell for their sin, so what did you mean by your earlier comment about me “…attributing to [God] a hatred for the majority of mankind?” I guess that I did not understand your comment.

Chappie
That is a sentiment that has been expressed to me by reformers on numerous occasions. God only loves those that he elected before the world was. I do not buy into it…

Even under your system, people will end up in hell. Does God love those people? Don’t the universalists challenge your position saying that God cannot love a person that He casts into hell.


rhutchin
Confusion on my part again. We both agree that salvation is a consequence of God seeking men. We both agree that some people are saved and some lost forever. So, we agree that God saves a group of people (the elect) although we disagree on how this comes about. People still burn under your system and these are the same people who burn under my system. So how is it that you characterize my system as a loveless system and yours as not?

Chappie
We agree that there is an elect, but we disagree on how one becomes one of the elect. I do not see what you believe as loveless. What I see is that you have Love and Hate standing side by side as blood brothers. I say that God hates sin, not men. You say that God created men to burn, I say that hell is a consequence for those that do not accept God’s provisions for salvation. You say that God did not make any provisions for them. Their provisions were to burn so that you might see God’s mercy pored out upon you.

We both say that hell is a consequence for those that do not accept God’s provisions for salvation. Men are condemned for there sin. Christ is offered as the way to escape that condemnation. Those who refuse to go through that door are rightly judged for their sin. Those who refuse to accept Christ are the same under your system and mine. Regardless of what each of us believes, the reality is that God knows the fate of each person who is born. Even under your system, if a person burns, then he was created to burn.


Chappie
The bible tells us to be imitators of Christ. Still if I exercised election, you would call me Hitler. What Hitler did in Germany is the perfect earthly parable if one wanted to teach election. The similarities alone are enough to frighten me away from reformed theology.

Except, no person exercises election. Only God does. It is true that Hitler made himself God, but Hitler is not our example. Christ preached to both the elect and the non-elect. Christ healed both the elect and the non-elect. Christ exhorted both the elect and the non-elect to repent. We should imitate Christ and do the same. Your analogy to Hitler probably stems from your common sense and not from anything the Scriptures tell us about Christ.


Chappie
Nope, where did you ever get that idea? {Reformed thought no doubt.} What I do say is that there is no way under heaven, given by God to establish accountability other than through free-will. If you have another way, show it to me scripturally or even from a reasonable and/or logical perspective. YOU CANNOT.

rhutchin
Gal 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions
21 envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and similar things. I am warning you, as I had warned you before: Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!

Chappie
Matthew 5
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Have you plucked your eyes out yet? Ever feel twinges of jealously, outbursts of anger, dissensions. You violate one command, you violated them all. Remember that mirror that God has placed in front of you. What you think that you see in others, is really in you.

No. But I suspect that you have not either. I suspect that you, like me, are constantly petitioning God to forgive you of your sin and are continually asking for His spirit to direct your thoughts and to cleanse your mind of the evil that tempts it.

Regardless, man is accountable for his sin as Gal 5 says. There are no Scriptures that say that free-will is a prerequisite for holding man accountable.


rhutchin
We know that those who are Totally Depraved practice [the things in Gal 5]. Now, if by free will, you mean only that a person chooses to do the above, then we have no argument? If by free will, you mean that a person who is Totally Depraved can choose to do good, then we have a dispute.

Chappie
We have a real dispute…. If a man cannot choose good, then he cannot choose evil. If a person’s nature overpowers his will, he no longer acts volitionally, but instinctively. Once a person is reduced to acting instinctively only, he is reduced to the animal kingdom. And just like animals he is not a free moral agent, and is no longer accountable for his actions. God acts as a counter balance to evil, he will not allow it to overpower your will and reduce you below the point of accountability.

Is this the argument that common sense builds. Look at the foolishness of this.

1. People do not have to be able to choose good in order to choose evil. One can choose to steal as a way of life and never have a thought of not stealing. A good example are those who steal from God and never think twice about it.

2. If a person’s nature overpowers him, he does not act instinctively, he merely acts rationally to satisfy his desires. The baker makes bread not out of benevolence for his customers or instinct but from a rational desire to earn income.

3. You say that, “God acts as a counter balance to evil, he will not allow it to overpower your will and reduce you below the point of accountability.” Is this what you derive from common sense or can you get the Scriptures to say this?


rhutchin
Do you have scriptures that tell us that the lost have the ability to choose good?

Chappie
Your elect were supposedly saved before the foundations of the world were lost. So we know that God is not seeking them. So when God says that he came to seek, now get this, and to save that which is lost; who is he seeking and why is he seeking them if he has already predestined them to hell.

Good question. Do you have scriptures that tell us that the lost have the ability to choose good? Show me those, and I will explain whom God is seeking to save using those Scriptures and others.


rhutchin
Let me explain it. God says, “Come and let us reason together…” However, there is none that desires God, none that seeks God. The offer is ignored. All refuse to reason with God. They do it of their own free will. All are Totally Depraved and lost.

Chappie
Poor God, he must just be bored. He issues a command that he knows that no one will obey. Does he do this in some failed attempt to justify his already having predestined them to hell?
Isaiah 1
17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

Has God forgotten that he has already predestined them to be unwilling and disobedient? Even if it were possible for one of them to come to him, when they got there they would find God standing there grinning with a match in his hands.

Ever hear of those stings set up by policemen that send out invitations to the bad guys with promises of rewards or gifts if they will show up. They get there thinking that they have won a new car. Then they slap the cuffs on then and usher them off into everlasting punishment. Is that what Isaiah 1:17-19 represents. A divine sting operation. Shame on you God…

What God has predestined is that man should be free to choose whatever he wants. Are you now against free will? Should man not be free to choose to reject the plea of Isaiah 1. Under both your system and mine, those who burn are those who freely choose to burn. Is your God also running a sting operation?


rhutchin
If by free will you mean that man freely engages in his sin, then we agree and the Scriptures agree with us. If however, you mean that man can choose to do good, then we disagree and you will find no Scriptures to agree with you and all you have left is a philosophy built on nothing more than common sense.

Chappie
How can you suggest that a man freely engages in his sin when that is the only option available to him? Are you suggesting that he can do otherwise?

Man is certainly free to choose to do good. Yet, no person ever chooses to do good. Why is that? Even under your system, are not the “good” things people do nothing more than filthy rags. I agree that the option to do good exists. We both agree that no one ever exercises that option (unless you have a Scripture that conditions Isaiah 1).


rhutchin
Let me explain this. The things of God are understandable and are clearly seen by the lost. However, no man seeks God, so the lost explain away such things by saying that they are the result of natural forces or some other nonsense built on common sense. In the end, men are without excuse.

Chappie
“In the end, men are without excuse“, what do they need an excuse for? Before they were ever born, before they had done either good or evil, God had already predestined them to hell. i.e., your Jacob and Esau analogy. In the end it is your electoral God that needs an excuse. He caused everything, and has the sovereign right to do it. Nevertheless, sovereignty and all, he did it.

Even under your system, Esau is lost, so did God predestine Esau to hell? God did the same thing for Esau under both of our systems. He predestined to allow Esau to freely choose what he would do. Esau chose destruction. Does God need an excuse under your system for not doing more?


rhutchin
Do you forget so quickly? No one seeks God and no one seeks good because only God is good. Even men of evil nature will devise laws not for the benefit of those around him but for his own protection. Man passes a law that says, “Thou shalt not steal” not because he does not want to steal but because he does not want people to steal from him. Is not your common sense able to make this clear to you?

Chappie
Common sense tells me that man did not make that law; you’ll find it in your bible. Men realized that it was a good law, and decided to utilize it. God gave it for our own protection, why should we not utilize it for that very same reason… An evil man would not pass such a law. All good things come from God. An evil person will pass laws that support evil. An evil person’s law would say, “thou shalt not steal unless you are me“.

Even men who do not Bibles have laws against stealing. Evil men, out of common sense, create laws for selfish reasons to protect themselves. You are correct though. An evil person’s law would say, “thou shalt not steal from me but I can steal from you.“ Not all of that is written in the legal code however.


rhutchin
Actually, it is 1 John 2 (not that bad a guess, however).

Do you agree then that man may choose Christ if he will and that God may choose man if He will?

Chappie
Never said that men chose Christ in that context. It is in this context that I will affirm. A man can choose to accept Christ. He can choose to reject Christ. It is the persuasions that God places in his life that he can choose to accept or to reject… Precisely, that is what I affirm. You cannot detract from it; neither can you add to it and then attribute it to me….

Sounds like good philosophy. I suspect you did not build your system from the Scriptires.

I like the idea. If God puts enough persuasions in a person’s life he accepts Christ, if God withholds persuasions, a person rejects Christ. God determines who is saved and who is not. I like that.

[rhutchin]

If God foreordains everything, can He feel a sense of frustration at anything we might do?

I would not think so.

[Chappie]

We agree on this. The hope of the lost is that Christ may seek them out and save them. Pity those whom Christ will not save.

Hello Rhutchin:
That I do. But there are those that I pity even more. They are those that think that a righteous, just, and holy God would burn a major portion of humanity for his own good pleasure. And even worse, those that think that God would punish for eternity just so a misguided few might see his mercy. Therein lies my pity…

I have provided Scriptural support for the concept of TOTAL Depravity. They are Jer 17:9 and Rom 3 (No one seeks God). If you have forgotten that earlier discussion, I will go back and explain it for you again. There are other Scriptures, too. How much do you need?

There is nothing in scripture to support your concept of total depravity.
Jeremiah 17
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
If you would just take the time to look around you, you might have to think though: But if you would do it, you will find that some men are more wicked than others. If total Depravity were the case, all men would be equally wicked. I guess that within your concept of total depravity, it allows for varying degrees of Total. Now that would make perfect sense to anyone not brainwashed by reformed theology. Can you not see that reformed theology does not allow you to use the brain that GOD gave you; it does not allow you to think? A mind is a terrible thing to waste…

However, by your citation of Romans 2, is your argument that by keeping the law people are doing “good”? Does not Isaiah say, “All our works are as filthy rags.” How then can you say that keeping some laws some time makes people good?

That is not a conclusion of mine….

The idea Paul is expressing here is that people inherently know that laws protect them. It is not that people do not want to steal from others; they do not want others to steal from them. Thus, people makes laws to protect themselves and in doing so, they show that the law is good. However, making good laws does not make a person good. Even common sense should tell you that. When a person breaks a law that he knows is good (even if for purely selfish reasons) he condemns himself because he does those things that he does not want done to himself.

Like I so eloquently said before. That is not a law made by man. We plagiarized it. Check the Ten Commandments. Did god give us this law to keep us from stealing from him?

Even under your system, people will end up in hell. Does God love those people? Don’t the Universalists challenge your position saying that God cannot love a person that He casts into hell.

You will not be able to accuse me or place me into the Universalist camp without significant dishonesty in reading my posts. If you are willing to do that, then go right ahead.

We both say that hell is a consequence for those that do not accept God’s provisions for salvation. Men are condemned for there sin. Christ is offered as the way to escape that condemnation. Those who refuse to go through that door are rightly judged for their sin. Those who refuse to accept Christ are the same under your system and mine. Regardless of what each of us believes, the reality is that God knows the fate of each person who is born. Even under your system, if a person burns, then he was created to burn.[quote]

With one sentence I discredit your above assertion…
According to reformed theology, they can neither accept nor reject. Before they were even created, they were predestined to hell… If anyone be guilty, it is the one that predestined them. That would be John Calvin and reformed theology.

[quote]Except, no person exercises election. Only God does. It is true that Hitler made himself God, but Hitler is not our example. Christ preached to both the elect and the non-elect. Christ healed both the elect and the non-elect. Christ exhorted both the elect and the non-elect to repent. We should imitate Christ and do the same. Your analogy to Hitler probably stems from your common sense and not from anything the Scriptures tell us about Christ.

The fact that Hitler is not God, and the fact that evil that he perpetrated upon the human race makes such a perfect example for election is what should trouble you. I have given it much thought lately, and I beg anyone to provide a more perfect example of election than Hitler did. And this much I do know. Even the consequences match, burning the un-chosen. What is holy on this earth is holy in heaven. And what is evil on this earth is evil in heaven.

If Christ exhorted both the elect and the non elect to come to him, doesn’t that make him look kinda stupid doing so knowing that he had already predestined them to hell. Reminds me of me trying to raise up a dead man in my own power….

Regardless, man is accountable for his sin as Gal 5 says. There are no Scriptures that say that free-will is a prerequisite for holding man accountable.

I think that I will end this fiasco. People that do not use common sense are not subject to discernment or right understanding from any source…

Have a blessed day

[mrsnacks]

Chappie :I have deeply benefited from your exchange with Rhutchin. After years of struggling with this issue of free will ( and I still do ) your common sense argument makes plenty of rational sense. I have read and listened to Geisler, Sproul, James White , Bryson, and many others on both sides of the issue. Scripture has been quoted on both sides to support their view. It always has bothered though that how can God condemn and send someone to hell for doing ( rejecting Christ ) something he can't help but do in his nature ? If God has chosen His elect before the foundation of the world -- then the one that is not chosen is not able and will not come. If there is no free will -- then we are all robots.
Wouldn't it be like meeting a woman that wants nothing to do with you , but you are crazy in love with her . She loves someone else. So one night you get her all alone and hypnotize her into being in love with you and marrying you while dropping the other guy. So you get married to her and live happily ever after ? Is that love ? Does the woman truly love you ?
What amazes me is how can such learned men and women of scripture be so wrong ? Everyone on both sides of the issue seem sincere and seeking the truth. So why does this happen so often even in our own lives ?
I know that hell in the scriptures is a terrible place for unbelievers. Is the Word just talking from a Godly perspective ? Is it that horrible from the unbeliever's perspective ? For example I would find being in certain places very uncomfortable and sinful as a believer -- but an unbeliever might find it pleasant.
Anyway thank you both for turning on the light switch for me. I see a little more clearly now.

[rhutchin]

Hello Rhutchin:
That I do. But there are those that I pity even more. They are those that think that a righteous, just, and holy God would burn a major portion of humanity for his own good pleasure. And even worse, those that think that God would punish for eternity just so a misguided few might see his mercy. Therein lies my pity…

I never liked those Arminians either.



I think that I will end this fiasco. People that do not use common sense are not subject to discernment or right understanding from any source…

Have a blessed day

Common sense will lose out to the Scriptures every day. Human reasoning is so deficient. At least, we agree on that.

[mrsnacks]

Was that a reasonable statement ? :blush:

[rhutchin]

Was that a reasonable statement ? :blush:

It's common sense.

[Spiderman&Co.]

If there is no free will -- then we are all robots.
Wouldn't it be like meeting a woman that wants nothing to do with you , but you are crazy in love with her . She loves someone else. So one night you get her all alone and hypnotize her into being in love with you and marrying you while dropping the other guy. So you get married to her and live happily ever after ? Is that love ?
I realize this was addressed to Chappie as a personal letter of encouragement and endearment, but I thought it had a bit of a missrepresentation in it about Calvinism that I thought I might clear up....

Informed Calvinists do not believe that we are robots. An intelligent Calvinist holds that we do everything we do because we want to. That is, we make an actual choice to do what we want. (The theological word for this is compatibilism.)

Calvinists do not (and most importantly Scripture does not) teach that we have been "hypnotized" by God and are going about our daily affairs in a sort of unconscious sleep state. If this was Calvinism, then I would reject it, too!

I would recommend you read John Frame's new book on God (Doctrine of God: A Theology of Lordship) that was released in the last year or so. In his chapter on human responsibility he provides a very non-technical explination of this issue.

Here is the link to the book:
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/142119039?item_no=22634&netp_id=274107&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW

[rhutchin]

After years of struggling with this issue of free will ( and I still do ) your common sense argument makes plenty of rational sense. I have read and listened to Geisler, Sproul, James White , Bryson, and many others on both sides of the issue. Scripture has been quoted on both sides to support their view.

What you should have noticed is that each group will often quote different Scriptures and ignore those put forth by the other side. What you need to do is take both sets of Scriptures and put them together. You start out by knowing that they are all true.

For example, we have the following verses--

2 Kings 8
25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.

2 Kings 9
29 And in the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab began Ahaziah to reign over Judah.

It appears that the verses contradict each other. However, our knowledge that they are both true statements allows us to reconcile them.

The same must be done with those Scriptures that speak of Salvation. They must all be acknowledged to be true and then we work to reconcile them.



It always has bothered though that how can God condemn and send someone to hell for doing ( rejecting Christ ) something he can't help but do in his nature ? If God has chosen His elect before the foundation of the world -- then the one that is not chosen is not able and will not come.

In 2 Corinth, we are told that Satan has blinded those that are headed for destruction. Have you incorporated that verse into your thinking?



If there is no free will -- then we are all robots. Wouldn't it be like meeting a woman that wants nothing to do with you , but you are crazy in love with her . She loves someone else. So one night you get her all alone and hypnotize her into being in love with you and marrying you while dropping the other guy. So you get married to her and live happily ever after ? Is that love ? Does the woman truly love you ?

What if, in your example, you did not have to hypnotize the woman. What if all you had to do was reveal yourself to her and let her decide what she wanted to do? Would that make her a robot?

[mrsnacks]

What you need to do is take both sets of Scriptures and put them together. You start out by knowing that they are all true.

---------------------------------------------------
WHAT YOU ARE IMPLYING IS THAT IF I DO THAT -- I'LL COME OUT AGREEING WITH YOUR POSITION. SORRY BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT .


In 2 Corinth, we are told that Satan has blinded those that are headed for destruction. Have you incorporated that verse into your thinking?

OF COURSE I HAVE. LOGIC TELLS ME THAN SATAN SHOULD BE BLAMED AND HELD RESPONSIBLE THEN AND NOT THE UNBELIEVER ( THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT ). IT ALSO APPEARS THAT SATAN HAS BLINDED A LOT OF BELIEVERS TOO - DO YOU AGREE ? SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS IS A RESULT OF THE CHOICE NOT TO BELIEVE. DIDN'T EVEN JESUS SAY ' IF YOU WERE BLIND , YOU WOULD NOT BE GUILTY OF SIN ( JOHN 9 : 41 ).


What if, in your example, you did not have to hypnotize the woman. What if all you had to do was reveal yourself to her and let her decide what she wanted to do? Would that make her a robot?


YOU SAID " LET HER DECIDE WHAT SHE WANTED TO DO ." THIS GOES AGAINST THE POSITION YOU HOLD . YOUR POSITION IS THAT MAN DOESN'T HAVE FREE WILL. HE IS NOT ABLE TO DECIDE . THERFORE HE IS NOT ABLE TO CHOOSE GOD BUT HE IS PROGRAMMED NOT TO . HE IS NOT ABLE TO CHOOSE GOOD . IF HE CAN'T CHOOSE AND HIS NATURE ONLY CHOOSES EVIL THAN HE SHOULDN'T BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR REJECTING HIM.

I BELIEVE SCRIPTURE AND GOOD REASON IS CLEAR IN SHOWING THAT MAN AS DEPRAVED AS HE IS HAS FREE CHOICE. PAUL SAYS THAT THE UNBELIEVER HAS CLEARLY SEEN AND UNDERSTANDS THE TRUTH BUT HE SUPPRESSES THE TRUTH. ROMANS 1 : 18 . GOD SAYS THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE . HAVE YOU INCORPORATED THAT VERSE IN YOUR THINKING ? HOW ABOUT THIS ONE :

"O JERUSULEM , JERUSALEM HOW OFTEN HAVE I LONGED TO GATHER YOUR CHILDREN TOGETHER AS A HEN GATHERS HER CHICKS UNDER HER WINGS , BUT YOU WERE NOT WILLING. "

I REPEAT " YOU WERE NOT WILLING ." SOUNDS LIKE MAN HAS THE WILL TO CHOOSE OR REJECT GOD TO ME .
JESUS ALSO SAYS " WHOEVER IS THIRSTY -LET HIM COME. "

BELIEF IS EVERY MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY. GOD HOLDS US RESPONSIBLE FOR BELIEVING OR NOT BELIEVING .

AUGUSTINE ONCE SAID THAT WE ARE BORN WITH THE PROPENSITY TO SIN AND THE NECESSITY TO DIE. THE POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS THAT HE DID NOT SAY A NECESSITY TO SIN .

[rhutchin]

What if, in your example, you did not have to hypnotize the woman. What if all you had to do was reveal yourself to her and let her decide what she wanted to do? Would that make her a robot?

Mr. Snacks
You said " let her decide what she wanted to do." This goes against the position you hold. Your position is that man doesn't have free will. He is not able to decide. Therefore he is not able to choose God but he is programmed not to. He is not able to choose good. If he can't choose and his nature only chooses evil than he shouldn't be held accountable for rejecting him.

rhutchin
My position (and the Calvinist position) is that a person always freely chooses to do that which he desires to do. Those who sin do so of their own free will. Those who submit to God do so of their own free will.

The Calvinist position is that people are judged on the basis of their sin and not whether they accept or reject Christ. The challenge for you is to show that the Scriptures say otherwise. Can you show, from the Scriptures that a person is not accountable for their sin under the circumstances that you suggest above?



I believe scripture and good reason is clear in showing that man as depraved as he is has free choice. Paul says that the unbeliever has clearly seen and understands the truth but he suppresses the truth. Romans 1 : 18 . God says they are without excuse . Have you incorporated that verse in your thinking?

We have--
Rom 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness,
19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened.
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles

Rom 3
10. …There is no one righteous, not even one,
11 there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, not even one.

Do you see any conflict between the two passages from Romans?

Romans 1 expresses what man does. Romans 3 tells us why man does what Romans 1 describes. Do you see it otherwise?



How about this one :

"O Jerusulem , Jerusalem how often have I longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings , but you were not willing. "

I repeat " you were not willing ." sounds like man has the will to choose or reject god to me . Jesus also says " whoever is thirsty -let him come. "

Belief is every man's responsibility. God holds us responsible for believing or not believing .

Augustine once said that we are born with the propensity to sin and the necessity to die. The point I want to make is that he did not say a necessity to sin .

Your verses are true. Romans 3, explains why the people “were not willing." Will you accept Romans 3 as the explanation for why people freely choose not to come to Christ?

[mrsnacks]

The Calvinist position is that people are judged on the basis of their sin and not whether they accept or reject Christ. The challenge for you is to show that the Scriptures say otherwise. Can you show, from the Scriptures that a person is not accountable for their sin under the circumstances that you suggest above?
-----------------------------------------------------

JOHN 5: 24 SAYS " I TELL YOU THE TRUTH , WHOEVER HEARS MY WORD AND BELIEVES HIM WHO SENT ME HAS ETERNAL LIFE AND WILL NOT BE CONDEMNED ; HE HAS CROSSED OVER FROM DEATH TO LIFE. "

I HAVE TO SAY THIS IS GOING NOWHERE . I READ BRIEFLY YOUR EXCHANGE WITH CHAPPIE BY THE WAY. HE MADE SOME EXCELLENT POINTS IN WHICH YOU DIDN'T RESPOND TO. . BUT LIKE MANY DISCUSSIONS , THE ISSUE CONCERNING YOU WAS THAT YOU WANTED TO BE RIGHT. THAT WAS THE ISSUE I THOUGHT IN YOUR EXCHANGE WITH CHAPPIE. IT'S JUST MY OPINION.

THE POINT I WANTED TO EXPRESS WAS SIMPLY THAT MAN HAS FREE WILL. THAT'S ALL ! HE IS ABLE TO CHOOSE CHRIST OR REJECT HIM.

BACK TO THE WIFE ILLUSTRATION. I WOULD WANT A WOMAN THAT TRULY CHOSE ME. SHE COULD'VE CHOSEN SOME ONE ELSE BUT DIDN'T . NOT ONE THAT WAS PROGRAMMED TO CHOOSE ME BY HYPNOTISM . THAT'S YOUR GOD AS I UNDERSTAND IT WHERE THERE IS NO FREE WILL. YOUR WOMAN IS ONE THAT CAN'T HELP BUT REJECT AND NOT BE ABLE TO COME TO YOU. SHE IS NOT ABLE TO EVEN CHOOSE YOU UNLESS YOU ZAP HER WITH A SPELL OR HYPNOTISM OF SOME SORT. CAN YOU BE HAPPY WITH THAT ?

ANOTHER VERSE COMES TO MIND IS IN JOHN . IT SAYS ' EVERYONE THAT LOOKS TO THE SON AND BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.
IT IS CLEAR IN SCRIPTURE THAT MAN IS ABLE TO BELIEVE , BUT MANY CHOOSE NOT TO.

I REMEMBER MANY YEARS AGO LOOKING INTO THE SKY SAYING -SOMEONE HAD TO MAKE THIS UNIVERSE .THERE IS A GOD. I MADE A CHOICE TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT HIM . AND I MADE A CHOICE, RESPONDING OF COURSE TO GOD'S GRACE AND OFFER . TO CHOOSE CHRIST ,ACCEPT AND BELIEVE IN HIM . THAT WAS MY CHOICE. TO RESPOND TO HIS GIFT OF SALVATION , OR NOT.

IT'S GETTING VERY LATE . I GOT TO GO . SEE YA.

[scaramouch]

The Calvinist position is that people are judged on the basis of their sin and not whether they accept or reject Christ. The challenge for you is to show that the Scriptures say otherwise. Can you show, from the Scriptures that a person is not accountable for their sin under the circumstances that you suggest above?
-----------------------------------------------------

JOHN 5: 24 SAYS " I TELL YOU THE TRUTH , WHOEVER HEARS MY WORD AND BELIEVES HIM WHO SENT ME HAS ETERNAL LIFE AND WILL NOT BE CONDEMNED ; HE HAS CROSSED OVER FROM DEATH TO LIFE. "

I HAVE TO SAY THIS IS GOING NOWHERE . I READ BRIEFLY YOUR EXCHANGE WITH CHAPPIE BY THE WAY. HE MADE SOME EXCELLENT POINTS IN WHICH YOU DIDN'T RESPOND TO. . BUT LIKE MANY DISCUSSIONS , THE ISSUE CONCERNING YOU WAS THAT YOU WANTED TO BE RIGHT. THAT WAS THE ISSUE I THOUGHT IN YOUR EXCHANGE WITH CHAPPIE. IT'S JUST MY OPINION.

THE POINT I WANTED TO EXPRESS WAS SIMPLY THAT MAN HAS FREE WILL. THAT'S ALL ! HE IS ABLE TO CHOOSE CHRIST OR REJECT HIM.

BACK TO THE WIFE ILLUSTRATION. I WOULD WANT A WOMAN THAT TRULY CHOSE ME. SHE COULD'VE CHOSEN SOME ONE ELSE BUT DIDN'T . NOT ONE THAT WAS PROGRAMMED TO CHOOSE ME BY HYPNOTISM . THAT'S YOUR GOD AS I UNDERSTAND IT WHERE THERE IS NO FREE WILL. YOUR WOMAN IS ONE THAT CAN'T HELP BUT REJECT AND NOT BE ABLE TO COME TO YOU. SHE IS NOT ABLE TO EVEN CHOOSE YOU UNLESS YOU ZAP HER WITH A SPELL OR HYPNOTISM OF SOME SORT. CAN YOU BE HAPPY WITH THAT ?

ANOTHER VERSE COMES TO MIND IS IN JOHN . IT SAYS ' EVERYONE THAT LOOKS TO THE SON AND BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.
IT IS CLEAR IN SCRIPTURE THAT MAN IS ABLE TO BELIEVE , BUT MANY CHOOSE NOT TO.

I REMEMBER MANY YEARS AGO LOOKING INTO THE SKY SAYING -SOMEONE HAD TO MAKE THIS UNIVERSE .THERE IS A GOD. I MADE A CHOICE TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT HIM . AND I MADE A CHOICE, RESPONDING OF COURSE TO GOD'S GRACE AND OFFER . TO CHOOSE CHRIST ,ACCEPT AND BELIEVE IN HIM . THAT WAS MY CHOICE. TO RESPOND TO HIS GIFT OF SALVATION , OR NOT.

IT'S GETTING VERY LATE . I GOT TO GO . SEE YA.

Mr. Snacks,

In your defense of 'Free Will' I believe that you will have to do better than simply say, "THE POINT I WANTED TO EXPRESS WAS SIMPLY THAT MAN HAS FREE WILL. THAT'S ALL ! HE IS ABLE TO CHOOSE CHRIST OR REJECT HIM." People can says all sorts of things about what they believe the Bible says, but demonstrating it is all together different.

Producing a verse that shows that a choice is presented to an individual, and they in fact make a choice, does not demostrate 'free will'. We have no way of knowing 'why' they made the decision that they did. We don't know the make up of their heart or mind in the matter and we especially don't know to what extent sin intered into, or muddled, their thinking. To say that a person simply decides to do something, with no internal or external influences, is not dealing with the text, or with the make up of people in general.

In Act 16:14, Luke says, "And the Lord opened her heart to respond". We don't know the state of her heart or mind. We do know that God opened her heart so that she could respond to the Gospel. The text does not state her personal desires. We can assume that if God did not open her heart that she likely would have ignored Paul's words and gone on about her business. Her will is never addressed.

There are many, many verses in the Bible that address the condition of the heart. A spititual autopsy would reveal that humanity is very sin sick indeed and quite incapable of responding to the words of the Gospel. That is why the Scriptures are clear, God saves sinners, they do not save themselves. It is not a 'free will' decision. The Father must draw (John 6) because they don't willing come on their own.

To establish 'free will' will require a rather involved demonstration from the text. You might be interested to know, that no one has ever done this, because it cannot be done. The data is not there. Saying and demonstrating are two very different things indeed.

[Chappie]

Mr. Snacks
You said " let her decide what she wanted to do." This goes against the position you hold. Your position is that man doesn't have free will. He is not able to decide. Therefore he is not able to choose God but he is programmed not to. He is not able to choose good. If he can't choose and his nature only chooses evil than he shouldn't be held accountable for rejecting him.

rhutchin
My position (and the Calvinist position) is that a person always freely chooses to do that which he desires to do. Those who sin do so of their own free will. Those who submit to God do so of their own free will.

One (unfortunately) is free to formulate or choose any position that appeals to then, but does it matter that your position is untenable.

Before you chose God, your real position is that God had to choose you. If he had not chosen you, it would have been impossible (ah la total depravity) for you to choose him. Now you say that men are free to choose or reject Christ according to their own volition. If you could not choose Christ unless he chose you, what now makes it possible for those that you left behind to do what was impossible for you to do?

You see, God made it possible for you; he did not make it possible for them. We know what made it possible for you to do the impossible, {election} now we want to know what makes it possible for them to do the impossible. God made it so possible for you that you could no longer resist doing the impossible.

The Calvinist position is that people are judged on the basis of their sin and not whether they accept or reject Christ. The challenge for you is to show that the Scriptures say otherwise. Can you show, from the Scriptures that a person is not accountable for their sin under the circumstances that you suggest above?

Again, it is not wise to just pick a position out of the hat and try to present it as truth. Truth, by its very nature must conform to reality. Is you’re a position a tenable one, or does reality destroy its integrity.

Your position on election destroys the integrity of your comments that “people, of which you are one, are judged on the basis of their sins. Election and reality narrows you conclusions down to “some people” Only in relation to the non-elect are men judged according to their sins. You claim that your sins are forgiven: That means that you are not judged by your sins, if you were you would share their fate. You are judged according to election, they are judged according to their sins.

Now we (having listened to many Calvinist over the years) know that it is a mystery as to why God choose you and for gave your sins, but it is a compulsory two fold mystery. If why he chooses is a mystery, they who he chose is also shrouded in that same mystery.

Reformed theology performs well until it is slapped in the face with reality. Reality is its poison. And there is no antidote save annihilation…

[Theolog]

Exactly how far does "predestination" extend? Does it go beyond just someone's salvation, and into every facet of their lives thereafter? If so, is it possible for someone to understand exactly what they are predestined for after salvation?

:huh:


Question 1. Everything in all eternity
Question 2. See answer 1
Question 3. God is someone and yes he understands. It will take an act of God for us to understand even when we get there.

[Chappie]

Mr. Snacks,

In your defense of 'Free Will' I believe that you will have to do better than simply say, "THE POINT I WANTED TO EXPRESS WAS SIMPLY THAT MAN HAS FREE WILL. THAT'S ALL ! HE IS ABLE TO CHOOSE CHRIST OR REJECT HIM." People can says all sorts of things about what they believe the Bible says, but demonstrating it is all together different.

Producing a verse that shows that a choice is presented to an individual, and they in fact make a choice, does not demostrate 'free will'. We have no way of knowing 'why' they made the decision that they did. We don't know the make up of their heart or mind in the matter and we especially don't know to what extent sin intered into, or muddled, their thinking. To say that a person simply decides to do something, with no internal or external influences, is not dealing with the text, or with the make up of people in general.

If we can see that a horse is a horse, do we need to know why he is a horse in order to know that a horse is a horse. I say yes... What do you say.

What or why a person chooses does not negate the fact that he chose. Choose ye this day whom you will serve. God commands us to choose, and just as all things that are possible are possible because of him, if he commands us to choose, he will make it possible. God does this, not man. God makes it possible for man to choose...

In Act 16:14, Luke says, "And the Lord opened her heart to respond". We don't know the state of her heart or mind. We do know that God opened her heart so that she could respond to the Gospel. The text does not state her personal desires. We can assume that if God did not open her heart that she likely would have ignored Paul's words and gone on about her business. Her will is never addressed.

There are many, many verses in the Bible that address the condition of the heart. A spititual autopsy would reveal that humanity is very sin sick indeed and quite incapable of responding to the words of the Gospel. That is why the Scriptures are clear, God saves sinners, they do not save themselves. It is not a 'free will' decision. The Father must draw (John 6) because they don't willing come on their own.

It is the drawing of the Father that makes it possible for them to come. Simply do not change draw to drag, and the will of man in coming is evident.

To establish 'free will' will require a rather involved demonstration from the text. You might be interested to know, that no one has ever done this, because it cannot be done. The data is not there. Saying and demonstrating are two very different things indeed.

Same conclusions concerning Total depravity, Unconditional election, and Limited Attonement. It has never been scripturally established and never will be except in eyes that cannot see..

[Chappie]

Question 1. Everything in all eternity
Question 2. See answer 1
Question 3. God is someone and yes he understands. It will take an act of God for us to understand even when we get there.

Sounds like you do not understand....

[rhutchin]

The Calvinist position is that people are judged on the basis of their sin and not whether they accept or reject Christ. The challenge for you is to show that the Scriptures say otherwise. Can you show, from the Scriptures that a person is not accountable for their sin under the circumstances that you suggest above?

Mr. Snacks--
JOHN 5: 24 SAYS " I TELL YOU THE TRUTH , WHOEVER HEARS MY WORD AND BELIEVES HIM WHO SENT ME HAS ETERNAL LIFE AND WILL NOT BE CONDEMNED ; HE HAS CROSSED OVER FROM DEATH TO LIFE. "

rhutchin--
It appears that you believe that it is a person's acceptance or rejection of Christ that determines whether he goes to hell. That is not true. A person goes to hell because of his sin. A person can escape hell by accepting Christ. That is what John 5:24 is telling us. If you accept Christ, you will be saved. One is not lost because one rejects Christ; one is lost because of their sin and the only decision is whether to accept Christ.


THE POINT I WANTED TO EXPRESS WAS SIMPLY THAT MAN HAS FREE WILL. THAT'S ALL ! HE IS ABLE TO CHOOSE CHRIST OR REJECT HIM.

Calvinists also believe that man has free will. However, if man is to be able to accept Christ, he must be able to overcome Romans 3:10-11. What verse tells you how a person gains the ability to accept Christ?



BACK TO THE WIFE ILLUSTRATION. I WOULD WANT A WOMAN THAT TRULY CHOSE ME. SHE COULD'VE CHOSEN SOME ONE ELSE BUT DIDN'T . NOT ONE THAT WAS PROGRAMMED TO CHOOSE ME BY HYPNOTISM . THAT'S YOUR GOD AS I UNDERSTAND IT WHERE THERE IS NO FREE WILL. YOUR WOMAN IS ONE THAT CAN'T HELP BUT REJECT AND NOT BE ABLE TO COME TO YOU. SHE IS NOT ABLE TO EVEN CHOOSE YOU UNLESS YOU ZAP HER WITH A SPELL OR HYPNOTISM OF SOME SORT. CAN YOU BE HAPPY WITH THAT ?

Then you completely misunderstand my position (and Calvinism). Look at it this way. Suppose you are walking down the block and you see a house on fire. You see the woman you love inside asleep on the sofa. She is asleep, unaware of what is happening, and unable to save herself. You run into the house, waken your love, and tell her what is happening. She immediately takes action to save herself. You did not program her nor hypnotize her. She freely chose to save herself.



ANOTHER VERSE COMES TO MIND IS IN JOHN . IT SAYS ' EVERYONE THAT LOOKS TO THE SON AND BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.
IT IS CLEAR IN SCRIPTURE THAT MAN IS ABLE TO BELIEVE , BUT MANY CHOOSE NOT TO.

Here, you are assuming the conclusion you want. This verse neither says nor implies anything about ability. It merely states the truth. Romans 3 is also still true with the result that the truth falls on deaf ears. Remember, Paul wrote Romans after this. Paul knew this and he still says that no one seeks God. Consequently, Paul must tell us how a person changes from a person who does not seek God to one who does seek God. Do you know where Paul explains how this happens?



I REMEMBER MANY YEARS AGO LOOKING INTO THE SKY SAYING -SOMEONE HAD TO MAKE THIS UNIVERSE .THERE IS A GOD. I MADE A CHOICE TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT HIM . AND I MADE A CHOICE, RESPONDING OF COURSE TO GOD'S GRACE AND OFFER . TO CHOOSE CHRIST ,ACCEPT AND BELIEVE IN HIM. THAT WAS MY CHOICE. TO RESPOND TO HIS GIFT OF SALVATION , OR NOT.

So tell me. How caused you to desire God where 20 billion other people do the exact same thing you did and are still indifferent toward God? Maybe you are just smarter than everyone else.

[rhutchin]

What or why a person chooses does not negate the fact that he chose. Choose ye this day whom you will serve. God commands us to choose, and just as all things that are possible are possible because of him, if he commands us to choose, he will make it possible. God does this, not man. God makes it possible for man to choose...


God commands us to keep the 10 commandments. Does he give us the ability to do so? In a sense yes (after all we have brains and the logical thing to do would be to choose Christ), but why is it that not a single person (other than Christ) has ever obeyed the 10 commandments? God says that Satan blinds those headed for destruction. So, a person may have a theoretical ability to choose but in practice, he does not (Cannot?) exercise that ability to save himself because of Satan. The effect of Satan's influence on man is described in Romans 3.

[scaramouch]

If we can see that a horse is a horse, do we need to know why he is a horse in order to know that a horse is a horse. I say yes... What do you say.

What or why a person chooses does not negate the fact that he chose. Choose ye this day whom you will serve. God commands us to choose, and just as all things that are possible are possible because of him, if he commands us to choose, he will make it possible. God does this, not man. God makes it possible for man to choose...


It is the drawing of the Father that makes it possible for them to come. Simply do not change draw to drag, and the will of man in coming is evident.


Same conclusions concerning Total depravity, Unconditional election, and Limited Attonement. It has never been scripturally established and never will be except in eyes that cannot see..
Chappie,

You have quite missed the point. You are 'saying', thus you are not demonstrating. "What or why a person chooses does not negate the fact that he chose." This is a meaningless statement. For "Free Will" to be free it needs to be shown that the will is acting without any coercion from inside or outside forces. Or you must show what that coercion is. There is no "Free Will" in the Bible to be demonstrated. Was the Gerasene Demoniac 'free' to make his own decisions, or was he compelled by an unseen force? All of his choices where quite hindered at the time.

When you say, "God makes it possible for man to choose..." then you are implying that the person is not doing it on his own. They are not excersising their 'will' to make a decision. It is the Biblical position that God has to change the heart before anything can happen. This is not an act of will on the part of the person.

Your statement, "It is the drawing of the Father that makes it possible for them to come. Simply do not change draw to drag, and the will of man in coming is evident." is not quite right. If you will check out the Greek word there in John you will find that the word illustrates what a person does when they pull a bucket of water out of a well. They pull it towards them because it is the bent of the bucket to stay in the well. God pulls us towards Himself and then He opens our hearts (i.e.Acts 16:14) (regeneration) to believe. No 'free will' involved whatsoever.


In short, your last statement, "Same conclusions concerning Total depravity, Unconditional election, and Limited Attonement. It has never been scripturally established and never will be except in eyes that cannot see.." Puts you in the camp of, it's true because "We Say So." Your use of the 'never' implies that you have already made up your mind and that you are unwilling to 'see' the truth of the Word of God. Sounds like the proverbial shoe in on the other foot. You constantly challenge Calvinists to open their minds to 'see' your position, but you yourself are unwilling to walk a mile in their shoes. I held your exact position for a number of years. I spent years listening to the tenets of Calvinism, comparing Scripture to Scripture to see if it was what the Bible taught. Have you given Calvinism the same chance, or have you so closed your mind that you are unwilling to view it any other way?

Differing views have to be sifted and compared one to one. If one of the systems is found to be irrational (illogical), then it must be disguarded, because God is logical in all that He does. His Word gives us hundreds of bits of data that have to be sorted out and compared. We must confront each and every position, or theological system of belief and compare it with what the Bible says. There is no other way of arriving at the truth.

[mrsnacks]

Rhutchin says : So tell me. How caused you to desire God where 20 billion other people do the exact same thing you did and are still indifferent toward God? Maybe you are just smarter than everyone else.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Maybe so. It's not a question of being smarter. I remember being in philosophy classes. The class would begin with 30 or students. By the end of 2 weeks , the number dwindled down to at least half that. Philosophy deals with the big questions. Some people or I should most from my experience could care less. I loved the classes.

Look at the church for example. Most christians (even in the church I attend) have no deeper love or concern for christian philosophy, deeper theology, apologetics, church history , and etc. Boy ,but tell them there's a prophecy conference on the end times - they are there. They would rather read "The Left Behind " series then a book by Dallas Willard, Koukl, JP Moreland, Geisler, Bobgans, Bahnsen, or whoever. Over half the christians I run into have never heard of these guys. But they sure know Benny Hinn, Tim LaHaye, Lindsey, or could rattle off psychobabble authors.
----------------------------------------

Rhutchin--
It appears that you believe that it is a person's acceptance or rejection of Christ that determines whether he goes to hell. That is not true.
----------------------------------

If I remember correctly- that's how the gospel was presented to me by Campus Crusade and that ( four spiritual laws ) was the foundation of their evangelism . I stayed at Campus Crusade one summer after my conversion. Anyway at the end of their booklet , there was an invitation to accept Christ. If one did not accept / believe in Christ - you couldn't be saved. I couldn't tell you how many churches I have been in where there was an altar call . You know the story. The thief on the cross believed on Jesus and entered into paradise with Him. You come to Christ - He is able to forgive you .
-----------------------

Rhutchin says:
Then you completely misunderstand my position (and Calvinism). Look at it this way. Suppose you are walking down the block and you see a house on fire. You see the woman you love inside asleep on the sofa. She is asleep, unaware of what is happening, and unable to save herself. You run into the house, waken your love, and tell her what is happening. She immediately takes action to save herself. You did not program her nor hypnotize her. She freely chose to save herself.
-------------------------------------

Calvinists have presented their position to me. i once held to an near extreme form of calvinism. Calvinists misunderstand what they are saying too. Calvinists say that man is dead in sins and is unable to choose Christ.There is no one good. No one that seeks God and etc. He is unable to respond to Christ unless he is born again first. God is the one doing it all. He takes off the blinders and causes the man to see. This I partially agree with. What i mean is that I totally agree with the scriptures , but not your interpretation of them. Where I depart is when your position is expressed that man has a free will or free choice. How can he ? There is where your position is contradictory. Jonathan Edwards even was quoted saying that free will is a myth. Luther even says in his debate with Erasmus that " free will belongs to God only." How can you say "free will "? Augustine even says it should not be called free will , but a "slave will ." Free will that cannot will good is not free my friend. Does election deny free will ? If God already has already made my decision for me -- THEN I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY CHOICE IN THE MATTER DO I ?
I think you don't understand your view. Calvinism has always stated that when a person chooses or comes to God -it is because he or she has been chosen and converted by God's grace alone. So God imposed Himself on the unbeliever. That's what I see as a form of hypnotism. Instead of God saying - " will you love me " He says YOU WILL LOVE ME - I COMMAND YOU TO
( ZAP).

In your story illustrating the hard calvinist position should be better told like this :

There are 5 people asleep chained to their beds and unable to save themselves from the fire even if they were awakened . You ( ie; God) comes in with the keys and let 2 people go and escape. He tells the others to come and choose life . They are not able my friend unless you unlock their chains. But you refuse to. When pressed for an explanation of your actions. You explained that you told them to come and escape , but they didn't . The interviewer says did you unchain them - your response no , I unchained the others and told them to come and they did. Was that a loving act i ask you . Doesn't common sense ( God is a rational being and he has created us as rational beings ), tell you that something is wrong somewhere? Hello !

I am not saying God is obligated to save everyone. What I am saying is that God unlocks their chains and says follow me. Then it is their choice to do so are not. They can follow Him out the door to safety , or they can make the choice not to. But they are able to make the choice and respond to His Call. Your position if I understand correctly has a God holding the keys saying follow me but they can't . But your God refuses to unchain them so they can make the choice. He did it to the other two, but not for them That's cruel to me.

[Chappie]

Chappie,

You have quite missed the point. You are 'saying', thus you are not demonstrating. "What or why a person chooses does not negate the fact that he chose." This is a meaningless statement. For "Free Will" to be free it needs to be shown that the will is acting without any coercion from inside or outside forces. Or you must show what that coercion is. There is no "Free Will" in the Bible to be demonstrated. Was the Gerasene Demoniac 'free' to make his own decisions, or was he compelled by an unseen force? All of his choices where quite hindered at the time.

Scaramouch:
Hello and welcome my new found friend. But with all due respect, I must tell you that your conclusion about free-will is absolutely erroneous.

Free-will cannot exist without outside persuasion/coercion. For freewill to exist, it must be manifested through persuasion/coercion. You cannot have one without the other. Still neither persuasion nor coercion must not/can not exert a power so strong that it renders the will inert. The will without the persuasion/coercion is only half the equation.

How did God establish free-will? He put an enticing tree in the middle of the Garden and then told Adam not to eat from it. The tree said, come, eat; enjoy the benefits and pleasure of my fruit. God said, no you don't. Once these persuasions coming from opposite ends of the spectrum began to enact their influence/persuasion/coercion in Adams life; for the first time in his existence, he had to make a choice.

Only God could force Adam to eat against his will. He did not. Adam, as a free moral agent had to choose which persuasion/coercion he wanted to yield to. The fact that he did not obey God shows that he had the power necessary to disobey. The fact that he could have refused Satan’s invitation proves that he had the power to obey God. Why do you think God said, “Adam!!!!! What have you done? Does not God’s words and tone of voice demonstrate to you that God did not want Adam to have apple pie that day…

Free-will, the ability of a free moral agent to choose between competing persuasions/coercions without a persuasion being exerted over him that negates his ability to select/choose in either direction....

When you say, "God makes it possible for man to choose..." then you are implying that the person is not doing it on his own. They are not exercising their 'will' to make a decision. It is the Biblical position that God has to change the heart before anything can happen. This is not an act of will on the part of the person.

If you want to get to the other side of a fence that is too high/too deep/and to wide for you to get around, but say I have a ladder; and I place it against the fence making it possible for you to climb. I made it possible, but you still have to choose to climb the ladder....

You have to exercise your will to decide that you still want to get to the other side, and you have to decide whether you want to use the provisions that I have provided. My provision was a ladder; you have to decide to use it. God's provisions was Christ, now you decide..

The Calvinist position is that God must first change the heart. That is not true. The biblical position is that God must first influence the heart. Draw, not drag. This concept is derived from an extreme view of depravity. As depravity, it is scriptural… As total depravity, it is unscriptural... Reformers added the “total”..

Your statement, "It is the drawing of the Father that makes it possible for them to come. Simply do not change draw to drag, and the will of man in coming is evident." is not quite right. If you will check out the Greek word there in John you will find that the word illustrates what a person does when they pull a bucket of water out of a well. They pull it towards them because it is the bent of the bucket to stay in the well. God pulls us towards Himself and then He opens our hearts (i.e.Acts 16:14) (regeneration) to believe. No 'free will' involved whatsoever.

I have checked out the Greek, the Russian, and the Italian. Those fellas that translated the bible into English also checked out the Greek. They chose the English word "Draw" to represent the Greek word. The word can represent both drag and draw. Why did they choose draw, when it would have been easier to use drag?

Either you should retranslate/revaluate the whole bible and correct all their mistakes or you should leave it alone. A change here and a change there to suit Reformed Theology is totally {same as totally as in totally depraved} unacceptable to me. From John Calvin to the staunchest Calvinist today, I cannot find authority to change a little here and a little there...

In short, your last statement, "Same conclusions concerning Total depravity, Unconditional election, and Limited Atonement. It has never been scripturally established and never will be except in eyes that cannot see.." Puts you in the camp of, it's true because "We Say So.

That it does my friend. You have inadvertently spoken truth. But I find me to be in in good company. The place is full of Calvinists, Protestants, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc, etc... We all claim that what we say is true because we say so. Now you will say that your truth comes from scripture. We all say that too. In the final analysis this battle will be won using reason, and logic in harmony with the nurturing of The Holy Spirit. Oh!! You got that, we do too...

[quote]"Your use of the 'never' implies that you have already made up your mind and that you are unwilling to 'see' the truth of the Word of God. Sounds like the proverbial shoe in on the other foot.

The old shoe in on the other food. Where did that rascal come from? Shall we more accurately conclude that unless you bring me another bible, based upon different manuscripts; that have proven authority over what we have, My mind is made up, I will not believe. Perhaps even different tactics in proving scripture that can stand the test of scripture might convince me to look at change. But as long as you are doing to scripture, what I see you doing to scripture, count me out..

You constantly challenge Calvinists to open their minds to 'see' your position, but you yourself are unwilling to walk a mile in their shoes.

Not my position, I do not have one that I masterminded. I just read the bible and let the chips fall where they may. I am not scripturally willing to walk in anybody’s shoes save Christ’s. Calvin’s shoes are just like mine, they have holes in them. You walk in his shoes. I took a look at his shoes, then I read the bible, and instantly I knew that his shoes would not fit. Knowing that, why would I want to walk in them..

I held your exact position for a number of years. I spent years listening to the tenets of Calvinism, comparing Scripture to Scripture to see if it was what the Bible taught. Have you given Calvinism the same chance, or have you so closed your mind that you are unwilling to view it any other way?

Then you departed from the faith. The bible calls that apostasy.

My training as a minister came under Calvinism. I never bought into it, from the beginning I just thought, "these people cannot read the bible“. Forgive me, but from the beginning I decided to simply coexist and give them more time to study. Now, as you can see, that was a mistake on my part.

Same challenge to you as to all other Calvinist, post me one scripture that you interpret in light of scripture, instead of in light of the T.U.L.I.P., and I will consider jumping ship.

You didn't expect to get me with just pretty words did ya? :eek:

[scaramouch]

In short, your last statement, "Same conclusions concerning Total depravity, Unconditional election, and Limited Atonement. It has never been scripturally established and never will be except in eyes that cannot see.." Puts you in the camp of, it's true because "We Say So.

That it does my friend. You have inadvertently spoken truth. But I find me to be in in good company. The place is full of Calvinists, Protestants, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc, etc... We all claim that what we say is true because we say so. Now you will say that your truth comes from scripture. We all say that too. In the final analysis this battle will be won using reason, and logic in harmony with the nurturing of The Holy Spirit. Oh!! You got that, we do too...



The old shoe in on the other food. Where did that rascal come from? Shall we more accurately conclude that unless you bring me another bible, based upon different manuscripts; that have proven authority over what we have, My mind is made up, I will not believe. Perhaps even different tactics in proving scripture that can stand the test of scripture might convince me to look at change. But as long as you are doing to scripture, what I see you doing to scripture, count me out..



Not my position, I do not have one that I masterminded. I just read the bible and let the chips fall where they may. I am not scripturally willing to walk in anybody’s shoes save Christ’s. Calvin’s shoes are just like mine, they have holes in them. You walk in his shoes. I took a look at his shoes, then I read the bible, and instantly I knew that his shoes would not fit. Knowing that, why would I want to walk in them..



Then you departed from the faith. The bible calls that apostasy.

My training as a minister came under Calvinism. I never bought into it, from the beginning I just thought, "these people cannot read the bible“. Forgive me, but from the beginning I decided to simply coexist and give them more time to study. Now, as you can see, that was a mistake on my part.

Same challenge to you as to all other Calvinist, post me one scripture that you interpret in light of scripture, instead of in light of the T.U.L.I.P., and I will consider jumping ship.

You didn't expect to get me with just pretty words did ya? :eek:
Chappie,

Greetings in the Name of our Lord. Thank you for responding. Let me take these in order.

Chappie said, "Free-will cannot exist without outside persuasion/coercion. For freewill to exist, it must be manifested through persuasion/coercion. You cannot have one without the other. Still neither persuasion nor coercion must not/can not exert a power so strong that it renders the will inert. The will without the persuasion/coercion is only half the equation."

Once again I hear you 'saying' that this is what the Bible teaches, but this is not a 'demonstration' of what it says, it is merely you telling me what you think it says. The terms and conditions are foreign to the text itself. I see no verses expounded explaining 'persuasion/coercion'. The model you present does not do justice to the text.

Chappies said, "How did God establish free-will? He put an enticing tree in the middle of the Garden and then told Adam not to eat from it. The tree said, come, eat; enjoy the benefits and pleasure of my fruit. God said, no you don't. Once these persuasions coming from opposite ends of the spectrum began to enact their influence/persuasion/coercion in Adams life; for the first time in his existence, he had to make a choice."

Gosh Chappie were you really there? This senerio sounds so real! (Hogwash...but real.) I have a lot of Bibles but none of them starts in Genesis One with the title "God establishes Free Will". You are reading that into the text. You are placing influences on Adam that the text never does. When you say,"for the first time in his existence, he had to make a choice" you are saying that up to that time in his life he never chose between an apple and a pear for dinner. He never chose to walk to the right of the Tree of Life instead of the left. This does not seem to explain the text very well.

Chappie said, "Only God could force Adam to eat against his will. He did not. Adam, as a free moral agent had to choose which persuasion/coercion he wanted to yield to. The fact that he did not obey God shows that he had the power necessary to disobey. The fact that he could have refused Satan’s invitation proves that he had the power to obey God. Why do you think God said, “Adam!!!!! What have you done? Does not God’s words and tone of voice demonstrate to you that God did not want Adam to have apple pie that day…"

A question here...are you saying that God does not force people to do things against their will? (Just a point of clarificaiton)

Once again you have imported words and terms into the text. The Bible never overlays this type of understanding to the text. In short you have God going, "Oh boo hoo, Adam went and did as I asked him not too...that will just mess up everything I planned...no I'm going to have to resort to plan "B". God's tone of voice does not demonstrate anything. It belittles God to think that He just put Adam in the garden and rolled the dice to see which direction he would go.

Chappie said, "The Calvinist position is that God must first change the heart. That is not true. The biblical position is that God must first influence the heart. Draw, not drag. This concept is derived from an extreme view of depravity. As depravity, it is scriptural… As total depravity, it is unscriptural... Reformers added the “total”..

The word 'total' as used by Reformers simply means that mankind is depraved in all it's parts. Not that every part is as 'totally' depraved as it could be. I think you have misunderstood the term.

Can you show me in Scripture the difference between 'change' or 'influence'. In either case God must open the heart as in Acts 16:14. God opened, he did not influence.

Chappie said, "Either you should retranslate/revaluate the whole bible and correct all their mistakes or you should leave it alone. A change here and a change there to suit Reformed Theology is totally {same as totally as in totally depraved} unacceptable to me. From John Calvin to the staunchest Calvinist today, I cannot find authority to change a little here and a little there..."

The choice of words it always up the translators or the committee of translators. Most study Bibles give optional words in the margins. They don't change anything. I have done nothing different. Go look up the 47 different words that apply to the Greek word "Logos", as used in John 1, and you tell me why they chose the word 'word' instead of the other 46. (I will refer you to Liddell and Scott's "Greek/English Lexicon")

Chappie said, "Not my position, I do not have one that I masterminded. I just read the bible and let the chips fall where they may. I am not scripturally willing to walk in anybody’s shoes save Christ’s. Calvin’s shoes are just like mine, they have holes in them. You walk in his shoes. I took a look at his shoes, then I read the bible, and instantly I knew that his shoes would not fit. Knowing that, why would I want to walk in them.."

Chappie, Chappie, Chappie...did you really mean to say, "I just read the bible and let the chips fall where they may."? Can you please explain to me 'how' you do this? No one, and I repeat, no one, can, or should do this. You bring your interpretive baggage to the text just like everyone else. If you were born in the United States and were educated here in the last 50 years, you have baggage. If you were born in Rome, Berlin or London, and were educated over there, you have baggage. No one just reads the text and 'lets' the chips fall where they may." (Although that would explain some of your answers...just kidding!)

One of the greatest challenges we have is to try and read the Bible and leave all our baggage behind so that we can see it and hear it from a first century perspective. Thus the libraries full of books about languages and word studies.

This is exacty why people believe in 'free will'. They read thier Bible disconnected from the Spirit who will guide us into all truth. Free Will is a fabrication foisted upon the text of Scripture. The Bible does not teach it.

If you read your newspaper this way you would be calling up the editor and chewing him out because he mentioned on page one that the 'sun would rise at 6:35am'. You would be blasting him because he is so dull as to not understand that the earth revolves around the sun. Using Grammar and logic are manditory when reading the Bible, not 'letting the chips fall where they may."

Bad, bad, bad....did I mention bad?

[mrsnacks]

Once again you have imported words and terms into the text. The Bible never overlays this type of understanding to the text. In short you have God going, "Oh boo hoo, Adam went and did as I asked him not too...that will just mess up everything I planned...no I'm going to have to resort to plan "B". God's tone of voice does not demonstrate anything. It belittles God to think that He just put Adam in the garden and rolled the dice to see which direction he would go.
------------------------------------------------------------
My response : I'll let Chappie fight his own battles. But couldn't help but notice that you accuse Chappie of importing words and terms to the biblical text . Then you in turn apply the same to Chappie's statements thus misinterpreting , misunderstanding, and misrepresenting what he has said. I guess those who live in glass houses can't see the writing on the wall.
----------------------------
The word 'total' as used by Reformers simply means that mankind is depraved in all it's parts. Not that every part is as 'totally' depraved as it could be. I think you have misunderstood the term.
------------------------------

My response :Correction. The term " total depravity " means that the person is spiritually dead according to the reformed circles I had come from . The unbeliever's nature is so totally depraved in all areas that he/ she sin is an unavoidable necessity. The ability to choose God is not present therefore he cannot respond or choose God, even though I am sure in all the Blbles you have there are many verses where God is saying to choose Him. That doesn't make any sense .Spiritual death in God's word means that the unbeliever is totally separated from God , not obliterated by Him as Geisler has put it. From my understanding is that you interpret it to me that man hasn't the ability to hear and respond to God . I disagree. It's a complete separation of the person from God. Romans 1; 20 I have quoted in previous post. The unbeliever is able to perceive the truths from God.

[scaramouch]

Once again you have imported words and terms into the text. The Bible never overlays this type of understanding to the text. In short you have God going, "Oh boo hoo, Adam went and did as I asked him not too...that will just mess up everything I planned...no I'm going to have to resort to plan "B". God's tone of voice does not demonstrate anything. It belittles God to think that He just put Adam in the garden and rolled the dice to see which direction he would go.
------------------------------------------------------------
My response : I'll let Chappie fight his own battles. But couldn't help but notice that you accuse Chappie of importing words and terms to the biblical text . Then you in turn apply the same to Chappie's statements thus misinterpreting , misunderstanding, and misrepresenting what he has said. I guess those who live in glass houses can't see the writing on the wall.
----------------------------
The word 'total' as used by Reformers simply means that mankind is depraved in all it's parts. Not that every part is as 'totally' depraved as it could be. I think you have misunderstood the term.
------------------------------

My response :Correction. The term " total depravity " means that the person is spiritually dead according to the reformed circles I had come from . The unbeliever's nature is so totally depraved in all areas that he/ she sin is an unavoidable necessity. The ability to choose God is not present therefore he cannot respond or choose God, even though I am sure in all the Blbles you have there are many verses where God is saying to choose Him. That doesn't make any sense .Spiritual death in God's word means that the unbeliever is totally separated from God , not obliterated by Him as Geisler has put it. From my understanding is that you interpret it to me that man hasn't the ability to hear and respond to God . I disagree. It's a complete separation of the person from God. Romans 1; 20 I have quoted in previous post. The unbeliever is able to perceive the truths from God.

Snacks ole boy you have missed the point. I was putting words in Chappies mouth to illustrate a point. I was not implying that these were God's thoughts or words deduced from the text. Chappie was trying to extraxt free will from the 'garden' scenerio, and I was pointing out that it cannot be done in the way he was do it. If we are suppose to read the Word and deduce from it the truth therein, Chappie was going about it the wrong way.


Snack wrote, "The term " total depravity " means that the person is spiritually dead according to the reformed circles I had come from . The unbeliever's nature is so totally depraved in all areas that he/ she sin is an unavoidable necessity. The ability to choose God is not present therefore he cannot respond or choose God, even though I am sure in all the Blbles you have there are many verses where God is saying to choose Him. That doesn't make any sense."

Kind-a-sort-of-almost. Two points for trying though! The word 'total' used in the writings of the reformer meant 'spiritual death' as you have pointed out. That is what the Bible clearly says. And yes a person is depraved in 'all areas' of their being, that is correct as well. The is what results in an inability to correctly interpret God's words and meanings in the text of Scripture. Even an unbeliever can read the Bible and deduce correct doctrine, but that does not mean that they believe it.

You use the word 'choose'. Choice is not a demonstration of free will. If I walk up to a man on the street and ask him if the robber that I am chasing ran down that alley (yes or no) he could look me in the eye and choose the word 'no'. As I take a step further, I notice that the robber has a gun pointed at his head. Now I know that his choice of 'no' was likely forced and I will have to reevaluate his choice of 'no'. Choices are not made in a vacuum.

Again, Acts 16:14 says God opened her heart to respond. This implies that she did not (or could not) do it on her own. And there is no text that says God opens all the hearts of every living or dead human. He only opens some of them. Acts 13:48, "And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." Lydia, in Acts 16, was one of those. She choose because God opened her heart.

Do you see these verses in a different way?

[rhutchin]

It appears that you believe that it is a person's acceptance or rejection of Christ that determines whether he goes to hell. That is not true.

Mr. Sancks
If I remember correctly- that's how the gospel was presented to me by Campus Crusade and that ( four spiritual laws ) was the foundation of their evangelism . I stayed at Campus Crusade one summer after my conversion. Anyway at the end of their booklet , there was an invitation to accept Christ. If one did not accept / believe in Christ - you couldn't be saved. I couldn't tell you how many churches I have been in where there was an altar call . You know the story. The thief on the cross believed on Jesus and entered into paradise with Him. You come to Christ - He is able to forgive you .

[b[rhutchin[/b]
Exactly right. Everyone is already lost. They are condemned by their sin. The choice/decision facing the lost (all people) is whether they will seek to escape condemnation. To do that one must choose/accept Christ (They must seek God.). Romans 3 says that No one seeks God. To be saved, one must seek God but no one seeks God. How, then, can a person be saved?



…Calvinists say that man is dead in sins and is unable to choose Christ. There is no one good. No one that seeks God and etc. He is unable to respond to Christ unless he is born again first. God is the one doing it all. He takes off the blinders and causes the man to see. This I partially agree with. What I mean is that I totally agree with the scriptures , but not your interpretation of them.

Do you disagree with the Calvinist interpretation of all Scriptures or just some? For example, do you agree or disagree with Romans 3 when it says that, “No one seeks God.”? You either must disagree with Romans 3 or you must think that there is a verse that changes that situation. Can you explain one (1) key verse where you disagree with my (the Calvinist) interpretation of that verse?



Where I depart is when your position is expressed that man has a free will or free choice. How can he? There is where your position is contradictory. Jonathan Edwards even was quoted saying that free will is a myth. Luther even says in his debate with Erasmus that " free will belongs to God only." How can you say "free will "? Augustine even says it should not be called free will , but a "slave will ." Free will that cannot will good is not free my friend. Does election deny free will ? If God already has already made my decision for me -- THEN I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY CHOICE IN THE MATTER DO I ?

The issue is the definition of the term, “free.” The Calvinist says that the definition of “free” as meaning “free from coercion” is a myth. We are slaves to sin and slaves to our sin nature. Thus, the Calvinist says that no one is really “free.” However, under those conditions, one is still free to choose. Sorta like the person will $100 has fewer choices that a person with $100M but he is still free to choose how to spend his money.

How do you define “Free” and what is the key verse that leads you to that definition?



I think you don't understand your view. Calvinism has always stated that when a person chooses or comes to God -it is because he or she has been chosen and converted by God's grace alone. So God imposed Himself on the unbeliever. That's what I see as a form of hypnotism. Instead of God saying - " will you love me " He says YOU WILL LOVE ME - I COMMAND YOU TO
( ZAP).

If God does not impose Himself on people, how can a person be saved. Do you ignore Romans 3 entirely. Show us a verse that tells us how people move beyond Romans 3.




In your story illustrating the hard calvinist position should be better told like this :

There are 5 people asleep chained to their beds and unable to save themselves from the fire even if they were awakened . You ( ie; God) comes in with the keys and let 2 people go and escape. He tells the others to come and choose life . They are not able my friend unless you unlock their chains. But you refuse to. When pressed for an explanation of your actions. You explained that you told them to come and escape , but they didn't . The interviewer says did you unchain them - your response no , I unchained the others and told them to come and they did. Was that a loving act i ask you . Doesn't common sense ( God is a rational being and he has created us as rational beings ), tell you that something is wrong somewhere? Hello !

I am not saying God is obligated to save everyone. What I am saying is that God unlocks their chains and says follow me. Then it is their choice to do so are not. They can follow Him out the door to safety , or they can make the choice not to. But they are able to make the choice and respond to His Call. Your position if I understand correctly has a God holding the keys saying follow me but they can't . But your God refuses to unchain them so they can make the choice. He did it to the other two, but not for them That's cruel to me.

OK. We can say that the chains in your story is that condition described in Romans 3. We know that God removes the chains of some people (Those ordained to eternal life believed). Show us, from the Scriptures, what happens to those not ordained to eternal life, those who are in chains and end up in hell. Show us the Scriptures that speak of them.

[Chappie]

Chappie,

Greetings in the Name of our Lord. Thank you for responding. Let me take these in order.

Chappie said, "Free-will cannot exist without outside persuasion/coercion. For freewill to exist, it must be manifested through persuasion/coercion. You cannot have one without the other. Still neither persuasion nor coercion must not/can not exert a power so strong that it renders the will inert. The will without the persuasion/coercion is only half the equation."

Once again I hear you 'saying' that this is what the Bible teaches, but this is not a 'demonstration' of what it says, it is merely you telling me what you think it says. The terms and conditions are foreign to the text itself. I see no verses expounded explaining 'persuasion/coercion'. The model you present does not do justice to the text.

“Once again I hear you 'saying' that this is what the Bible teaches“… I see that when you are not interested in the truth of ones response to you, you start a nice little circular argument to maintain an appearance if intelligence. When and after all is said and done, we are all explicitly guilty of giving our impression of what the bible teaches. When all is said and done, you have nothing scriptural to present to anyone save what you think the bible says. So if you want to accuse others of precisely what you are guilty of, go ahead. But if that is your best defense/offense, please know that you got nothing…

Chappies said, "How did God establish free-will? He put an enticing tree in the middle of the Garden and then told Adam not to eat from it. The tree said, come, eat; enjoy the benefits and pleasure of my fruit. God said, no you don't. Once these persuasions coming from opposite ends of the spectrum began to enact their influence/persuasion/coercion in Adams life; for the first time in his existence, he had to make a choice."

Gosh Chappie were you really there? This senerio sounds so real! (Hogwash...but real.) I have a lot of Bibles but none of them starts in Genesis One with the title "God establishes Free Will". You are reading that into the text. You are placing influences on Adam that the text never does. When say,"for the first time in his existence, he had to make a choice" you are saying that up to that time in his life he never chose between an apple and a pear for dinner. He never chose to walk to the right of the Tree of Life instead of the left. This does not seem to explain the text very well.

“Gosh Chappie, were you really there”. What an exercise in desperation. If I say yes, can you prove that I was not. Were you there. If not, based on your silliness, you don’t know whither I am telling the truth or not.

Were you there, just how much first hand information do you have, let me answer… None!!! Perhaps yo have a better understanding of the tree than I do. Based on your understanding of scripture, why was it there. God does not specifically explain, but one with understanding can take the scripturally revealed consequences and derive some knowledge. But you do not believe in projection theology unless you are projecting John Calvins mistakes upon scripture. Then draw becomes drag, and all becomes the chosen few, and the world; meant to expand ones horizons you use to narrow things down. I will draw all men becomes “I will draw some chosen few. Please do not discuss with me my study habits untill you have cleaned up your own.

You have already lost your integrity because you have to misquote me in order to rebutt me.

This conversation is headed straight to the garbage can.

Have a blessed life…

[scaramouch]

“Once again I hear you 'saying' that this is what the Bible teaches“… I see that when you are not interested in the truth of ones response to you, you start a nice little circular argument to maintain an appearance if intelligence. When and after all is said and done, we are all explicitly guilty of giving our impression of what the bible teaches. When all is said and done, you have nothing scriptural to present to anyone save what you think the bible says. So if you want to accuse others of precisely what you are guilty of, go ahead. But if that is your best defense/offense, please know that you got nothing…



“Gosh Chappie, were you really there”. What an exercise in desperation. If I say yes, can you prove that I was not. Were you there. If not, based on your silliness, you don’t know whither I am telling the truth or not.

Were you there, just how much first hand information do you have, let me answer… None!!! Perhaps yo have a better understanding of the tree than I do. Based on your understanding of scripture, why was it there. God does not specifically explain, but one with understanding can take the scripturally revealed consequences and derive some knowledge. But you do not believe in projection theology unless you are projecting John Calvins mistakes upon scripture. Then draw becomes drag, and all becomes the chosen few, and the world; meant to expand ones horizons you use to narrow things down. I will draw all men becomes “I will draw some chosen few. Please do not discuss with me my study habits untill you have cleaned up your own.

You have already lost your integrity because you have to misquote me in order to rebutt me.

This conversation is headed straight to the garbage can.

Have a blessed life…

Come on Chappie don't bail on me so easily! I have asked you to demostrate that Free Will is taught in the Bible. Something you appear to believe rather strongly. I love people who will stick to their guns about what they beleive. But simply showing that someone made a choice is not a demonstration using the text. We have no way of knowing 'why' they choose as they did. We are not told 'why' Adam chose as he did. We don't know why someone who knew no sin would chose to sin. How do we now what effect coercion had on a will that did not have sin attached to it? These are questions presented in the text but not answered by those texts.

If Free Will is so clearly taught in the Bible then it should be easy to show this using the texts from Scripture. The word Free should be defined and the word Will should be defined as well using the text. I have no problem with the fact that it is your interpretation of the text, I just don't believe that it stands up logically to what the whole of Scripture teaches, regardless of whether Calvin taught it or not.

Which leads me to a question that I may have to start a thread to get an answer. But I think that your dislike of all things Calvin make you a good starting point. I have debated points of theology for many years, and in each case the individual that I debate has certian pet peeves against my understanding of what I believe Scripture teaches as a system. (i.e. Calvinism)

What is the bottom line for you Chappie? What is it about the Calvinistic Reformed Doctrine that bugs you the worst? I would really like to know.

And by the way, if we don't resort to silliness now and then, this could really get boring and bombastic rather quickly. If it bothers you I apologize. That doesn't mean I'll stop, it just means that I will apologize a head to time.

[twohumble]

“Once again I hear you 'saying' that this is what the Bible teaches“… I see that when you are not interested in the truth of ones response to you, you start a nice little circular argument to maintain an appearance if intelligence. When and after all is said and done, we are all explicitly guilty of giving our impression of what the bible teaches. When all is said and done, you have nothing scriptural to present to anyone save what you think the bible says. So if you want to accuse others of precisely what you are guilty of, go ahead. But if that is your best defense/offense, please know that you got nothing…



“Gosh Chappie, were you really there”. What an exercise in desperation. If I say yes, can you prove that I was not. Were you there. If not, based on your silliness, you don’t know whither I am telling the truth or not.

Were you there, just how much first hand information do you have, let me answer… None!!! Perhaps yo have a better understanding of the tree than I do. Based on your understanding of scripture, why was it there. God does not specifically explain, but one with understanding can take the scripturally revealed consequences and derive some knowledge. But you do not believe in projection theology unless you are projecting John Calvins mistakes upon scripture. Then draw becomes drag, and all becomes the chosen few, and the world; meant to expand ones horizons you use to narrow things down. I will draw all men becomes “I will draw some chosen few. Please do not discuss with me my study habits untill you have cleaned up your own.

You have already lost your integrity because you have to misquote me in order to rebutt me.

This conversation is headed straight to the garbage can.

Have a blessed life…

"Draw, and drag" (as in: to draw water from a well)
Both are acceptable definitions of the aramaic word "elko", and both mean 'to pull irrestistably'. There is no hint of coersion or persuasion as a definition for this word. You deny it, so, who is a revisionist? You say we are, and again, on this thread, you are in contention with others. Does this say anything? I think it does Chappie, I hope you see how it always seem to happen with you.

[Chappie]

Come on Chappie don't bail on me so easily! I have asked you to demostrate that Free Will is taught in the Bible. Something you appear to believe rather strongly. I love people who will stick to their guns about what they beleive. But simply showing that someone made a choice is not a demonstration using the text. We have no way of knowing 'why' they choose as they did. We are not told 'why' Adam chose as he did.

Yes we are, the answer is just too simple for you. You are not willing to accept God's words at face value. If the bible told you that Adam sinned because he wanted to, you would have to know why he wanted to before you could accept the truth that he sinned.

We don't know why someone who knew no sin would chose to sin. How do we now what effect coercion had on a will that did not have sin attached to it? These are questions presented in the text but not answered by those texts.

He did not choose to sin. He chose to eat from the tree that God had forbidden him to eat. He chose to listen to Eve rather than God. It was disobedience, he did not choose disobedience, he chose to eat. The consequences of his actions was later called sin.

I have always contended that in order for freewill to exist, there has to exist a minimum of two balanced and equal persuasions. Call them good and evil. We yield to either one or the other of our own volition.

If Free Will is so clearly taught in the Bible then it should be easy to show this using the texts from Scripture. The word Free should be defined and the word Will should be defined as well using the text. I have no problem with the fact that it is your interpretation of the text, I just don't believe that it stands up logically to what the whole of Scripture teaches, regardless of whether Calvin taught it or not.

There is not the slightest idea in my mind that my evaluation could be wrong, Still there is not the slightest doubt that Reformed Theology is wrong. Reformed theology has nothing to do with logic, ask TwoHumble. Logic falls apart when trying to fanthom scripture. But if you are ever really to exegete scripture using reason and logic, I would simply love to. The key being when the reasonableness and logic of your theology breaks down, your theology breaks down.

Which leads me to a question that I may have to start a thread to get an answer. But I think that your dislike of all things Calvin make you a good starting point. I have debated points of theology for many years, and in each case the individual that I debate has certian pet peeves against my understanding of what I believe Scripture teaches as a system. (i.e. Calvinism)

If the reasonableness and logic of what you teach did not turn God into a selfish despot, and I say that in all sincerity, perhaps I could believe.

Election I despise because it is not clearly and precisely taught in scripture, and it portrays a selfish God, that is unloving (love does not seek its own) willing to deny most of his creation access to him, then wants to torture them without ever establishing accountability.

Look carefully at your concept of total depravity. Follow it to it's reasonable and logical conclusion and you will find that it places men below the criteria that establishes moral accountability. Men, incapable of following any part of their nature save that which is evil. Animals are creatures without moral accountability, capable of doing only that which is instinctive to them. There is no GWTJ where they are judged and tortured for being as they were born to be. These animals are not tortured for eternity because of the nature that they were born with. Neither are men. Christ provided all men with the provisions to escape the nature that they were born with. You accuse, without sufficient evidence, God of bestowing this priveledge on some and denying it to others according to his good pleasure. Even you say that it is not because one man was good, and another was bad, it just made God feel good to save a few and burn the rest. In which case men do not go to hell because they were good or bad, their nature has nothing to do with it, it just gives God pleasure...


What is the bottom line for you Chappie? What is it about the Calvinistic Reformed Doctrine that bugs you the worst? I would really like to know.

Thank you for asking. Honestly and sincerly I answer. Election chaps my hide... It portrays my God in a light that is not in keeping with his revealed nature. It makes him look like an ugly God.

And by the way, if we don't resort to silliness now and then, this could really get boring and bombastic rather quickly. If it bothers you I apologize. That doesn't mean I'll stop, it just means that I will apologize a head to time.

Silly is good, no need to apologize..

[Chappie]

"Draw, and drag" (as in: to draw water from a well)
Both are acceptable definitions of the aramaic word "elko", and both mean 'to pull irrestistably'. There is no hint of coercion or persuasion as a definition for this word. You deny it, so, who is a revisionist? You say we are, and again, on this thread, you are in contention with others. Does this say anything? I think it does Chappie, I hope you see how it always seem to happen with you.

A person that is being dragged or irresistibly drawn cannot be in conformance with that which is indigenous to the word "come". The bible says that a man cannot come unless he is drawn.

You are so fond of that water being drawn from the well, did the water resist to the point that force had to be applied to overcome its will. Or did it yield to the laws of nature/physics? Was that water totally depraved, kicking and screaming, "I don't want to be saved"? Did the person drawing it have to give it a new heart before it could be drawn? Did it have to be born again and regenerated first? Have you ever stood back, snapped your finger and said, "Water, come here". The context of the verse negates irresistible force being used. Force, yes. To a point. But not to the point of irresistibility.

There is a difference between drawing a man and drawing a bucket of water... God help us if you cannot see that.. :pray:

[Theolog]

A person that is being dragged or irresistibly drawn cannot be in conformance with that which is indigenous to the word "come". The bible says that a man cannot come unless he is drawn.

You are so fond of that water being drawn from the well, did the water resist to the point that force had to be applied to overcome its will. Or did it yield to the laws of nature/physics? Was that water totally depraved, kicking and screaming, "I don't want to be saved"? Did the person drawing it have to give it a new heart before it could be drawn? Did it have to be born again and regenerated first? Have you ever stood back, snapped your finger and said, "Water, come here". The context of the verse negates irresistible force being used. Force, yes. To a point. But not to the point of irresistibility.

There is a difference between drawing a man and drawing a bucket of water... God help us if you cannot see that.. :pray:

Hey sometimes God just pours the bucket out into the fires of hell. God help us if you cannot see that....

[Chappie]

Hey sometimes God just pours the bucket out into the fires of hell. God help us if you cannot see that....

Poor fellow.... Guess he just got bored and needed something to do..... May the real God help him if that is the case.

[Trout]

:fencing: :fight: :bonk: :argh: :whack: :poke: :flaming: :whip: :dizzy: :badger: :badger: :egad: :egad: :zzz:


What an edifying discussion!!

[mrsnacks]

Many good points Chappie. I present arguments to my calvinist friends employing what I believe sound logic and reasoning and I get battered for that . Then they turn around to the unbelievers in evangelism and use apologetics ( I should say evidential apologetics , presuppositional ,or both ) in an attempt to bring one to the faith. They respond to the objections using logic and reasoning . Look at the arguments for the existence of God : cosmological , moral , and the design argument. Take even TAG from Van Till and Bahnsen. The use of those arguments requires using common sense and a knowledge and use of logical reasoning. Christians say it is irrational statement to say that the universe came from nothing. Someone had to make it. But let us not use or appeal to logic when discussing calvinism right ?

If God chooses who He wants to save and He does all the work removing the blinders from the unbeliever - mind you the unbeliever is blind and can't see or choose. He is condemned for having a sinful nature , for sinning and he /she can't help it. If there were 5 people were sleeping in a house on fire . And I go in and lead one person out and not the others because I just didn't feel like it. Would my act be loving ? In the normal scheme of things all would say - it's great that you saved one person , but you had the time and could've saved them all - why didn't you ? But calvinists in general don't want to hold God to that criticism .Why not ? He claims to be all- loving . He is willing that none should perish and etc. God said it ! Calvinist friends tell me -- God does what he wants and it's His business who He saves. If that's is true then he is not a loving God to me. He is Lord over a bunch of created robots who worship Him and accept Him only because He ordained it that way . There is no choice in the matter. Therefore evangelism doesn't make any sense to me except that God commands us to evangelize. He already has everyone picked that he wants so ....

[Chappie]

:fencing: :fight: :bonk: :argh: :whack: :poke: :flaming: :whip: :dizzy: :badger: :badger: :egad: :egad: :zzz:


What an edifying discussion!!

One must be careful to criticize false doctrine, and to edify only the truth. Do you have anything of value to add in addition to your criticism?

[Chappie]

Many good points Chappie. I present arguments to my calvinist friends employing what I believe sound logic and reasoning and I get battered for that . Then they turn around to the unbelievers in evangelism and use apologetics ( I should say evidential apologetics , presuppositional ,or both ) in an attempt to bring one to the faith. They respond to the objections using logic and reasoning . Look at the arguments for the existence of God : cosmological , moral , and the design argument. Take even TAG from Van Till and Bahnsen. The use of those arguments requires using common sense and a knowledge and use of logical reasoning. Christians say it is irrational statement to say that the universe came from nothing. Someone had to make it. But let us not use or appeal to logic when discussing calvinism right ?

If God chooses who He wants to save and He does all the work removing the blinders from the unbeliever - mind you the unbeliever is blind and can't see or choose. He is condemned for having a sinful nature , for sinning and he /she can't help it. If there were 5 people were sleeping in a house on fire . And I go in and lead one person out and not the others because I just didn't feel like it. Would my act be loving ? In the normal scheme of things all would say - it's great that you saved one person , but you had the time and could've saved them all - why didn't you ? But calvinists in general don't want to hold God to that criticism .Why not ? He claims to be all- loving . He is willing that none should perish and etc. God said it ! Calvinist friends tell me -- God does what he wants and it's His business who He saves. If that's is true then he is not a loving God to me. He is Lord over a bunch of created robots who worship Him and accept Him only because He ordained it that way . There is no choice in the matter. Therefore evangelism doesn't make any sense to me except that God commands us to evangelize. He already has everyone picked that he wants so ....

I can tell that you have spent some time with reformed theology. Great observations....

[TheFiveSolas]

Chappie:
I have always contended that in order for freewill to exist, there has to exist a minimum of two balanced and equal persuasions. Call them good and evil. We yield to either one or the other of our own volition.

As I asked several weeks ago, and to which you never replied, does God have "a minimum of two balanced and equal persuasions"? I contend that the Bible teaches He doesn't, and therefore according to your own definition of free-will God doesn't have free-will. As I concluded several weeks ago your own position/definition, if true, would deny free-will to our sovereign Creator.

[Chappie]

As I asked several weeks ago, and to which you never replied, does God have "a minimum of two balanced and equal persuasions"? I contend that the Bible teaches He doesn't, and therefore according to your own definition of free-will God doesn't have free-will. As I concluded several weeks ago your own position/definition, if true, would deny free-will to our sovereign Creator.

Does the one that designs and gives freewill have freewill. A similar question would be, does the creator of all things have a creator. Your question is a foolish attempt to deny what is evidenced around you everyday of your life. Does God choose between good and evil. Far be it from me to do evil. God is here distancing himself from election as preached by reformed theology. :wink:

Did God ordain this post of yours, or did he allow you to be its originator???

[mrsnacks]

God commands all to repent and believe. If there is no free choice in the matter - then God appears to be an a ' wild and crazy " God to issue these commands by not providing salvation for everyone. Does God expect the impossible?
Generally calvinists ( not all) will witness and share the gospel ,like I had mentioned before, appeal to the laws of logic especially in dealing with atheists . They act and witness assuming that the unbeliever has a choice in the matter . They talk out of their elbows when they do this. Here's a dialogue. At least Bill is acting consistently.

Bill Calvin says : " I will share the Gospel with you sir, but I want to be honest with you. I believe you have no choice in the matter - you are spiritually dead and cannot come to God . So will you repent and accept Christ ? If not , God didn't choose you in the first place. God chooses you _ you don't choose Him. I am saved , because he loves me and chose to save me . Isn't God merciful and full of grace ? As far as you are concerned sir - you are lost and going to hell unless God chooses you and transforms you by being born from above. If He hasn't decided to choose you for His kingdom- then you are lost. "

Arnie Atheist: What are you saying ? You are crazy! You say God is loving . He doesn't sound so loving to me. I reject your God because Christianity to me is an irrational belief. For example all you christians have said Jesus is coming "soon." You all have been saying that ever since I was 10 and that was 40 years ago. If i said to my wife --I promise I will be back soon and showed up 40 years later - would I be a liar or not ?

Bill Calvin : You are being too logical my friend. Let the scripture speak for itself. In Revelation Jesus is mentioned as returning 'soon."God doesn't lie. He will return "soon." Soon can mean in the next 6 minutes or 60 years. Stop using logical reasoning. I am sorry but the Bible says " you are blind." I have to be honest. But back to the subject. You are rejecting God and you are guilty and going to hell unless you are born again . You can't do it. God has to do it.

Arnie Atheist : But you said I should repent and believe but then I am incapable of doing any of that because I have no free choice and I can't help but reject God. Why does your God condemn me ? i saw the movie "The Passion." Didn't Christ die for the world. Wasn't Christ loving ?

Bill Calvin : Let's not bring emotion into this. Let scripture interpret scripture. Many christians would not talk to you in this way. They would talk to in a way assuming you have free choice . The would try to woo you into the kingdom of God. They would try reasoning with you in hopes that you will see . I am different and AT LEAST CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I BELIEVE . UNLESS GOD HAS CHOSEN YOU = YOU WILL NOT COME. Don't take it personal. God does not love the world in a redemptive sense , but only people like me - the church. Christ only died for the elect -- not the world. I got to go see ya. Nice talking to you. I promised my wife I would return home soon . I don't want to disappoint her.

[TheFiveSolas]

Does the one that designs and gives freewill have freewill. A similar question would be, does the creator of all things have a creator. Your question is a foolish attempt to deny what is evidenced around you everyday of your life. Does God choose between good and evil. Far be it from me to do evil. God is here distancing himself from election as preached by reformed theology. :wink:

The above appears to be a convoluted attempt at a non-answer (though, your prior assertions answered my question).

I do agree that God has freewill. I deny your definition/understanding of what constitutes freewill. In other words, I deny that freewill consists of a will that has "equal" passions/persuasions toward both good and evil. Such a view is unbiblical. God does NOT have equal passions, one toward evil and the other toward good, from which he must "freely" choose good over evil. Therefore, as I've already proven, IF your definition of freewill WERE true, then it necessarily would follow that God would not, nor could have freewill.

On the other hand, if the definition of freewill that I put forward much earlier in this thread is correct then God does have freewill. Again, since you never seemed to address the definition of freewill that is an alternative to your faulty view, I will reiterate. Freewill consists of the ability of a person/being to make choices without being forced or coerced. God doesn't have "equal persuasions/passions", but rather is always perfectly Holy and Righteous. However, His will is free in all actions He chooses because His choices are made without being forced or coerced. The same holds true for man. As long as when we choose we are doing so WITHOUT being forced or coerced we are acting freely (i.e., freewill is being employed).

Did God ordain this post of yours, or did he allow you to be its originator???

God ordained that I would freely, without force or coercion, desire to/choose to write this post. As long as my decision was made because I WANTED to write the post (i.e., I DESIRED to write the post) and did so without being FORCED or COERCED then it necessarily and logically follows that I freely chose/willed to do so.


I have to wonder if it is your position that God doesn't know the future since IF God knows the future then what He knows will happen WILL happen and you CANNOT choose otherwise. Whence is your faulty definition of freewill with such a (biblical) view of God's foreknowledge? Answer: it cannot exist (in other words, if God knows the future, then it follows that YOUR understanding of freewill must be in error).

[twohumble]

The above appears to be a convoluted attempt at a non-answer (though, your prior assertions answered my question).

I do agree that God has freewill. I deny your definition/understanding of what constitutes freewill. In other words, I deny that freewill consists of a will that has "equal" passions/persuasions toward both good and evil. Such a view is unbiblical. God does NOT have equal passions, one toward evil and the other toward good, from which he must "freely" choose good over evil. Therefore, as I've already proven, IF your definition of freewill WERE true, then it necessarily would follow that God would not, nor could have freewill.

On the other hand, if the definition of freewill that I put forward much earlier in this thread is correct then God does have freewill. Again, since you never seemed to address the definition of freewill that is an alternative to your faulty view, I will reiterate. Freewill consists of the ability of a person/being to make choices without being forced or coerced. God doesn't have "equal persuasions/passions", but rather is always perfectly Holy and Righteous. However, His will is free in all actions He chooses because His choices are made without being forced or coerced. The same holds true for man. As long as when we choose we are doing so WITHOUT being forced or coerced we are acting freely (i.e., freewill is being employed).



God ordained that I would freely, without force or coercion, desire to/choose to write this post. As long as my decision was made because I WANTED to write the post (i.e., I DESIRED to write the post) and did so without being FORCED or COERCED then it necessarily and logically follows that I freely chose/willed to do so.


I have to wonder if it is your position that God doesn't know the future since IF God knows the future then what He knows will happen WILL happen and you CANNOT choose otherwise. Whence is your faulty definition of freewill with such a (biblical) view of God's foreknowledge? Answer: it cannot exist (in other words, if God knows the future, then it follows that YOUR understanding of freewill must be in error).
As I have not read this whole thread, I am not sure where you are coming from regarding some of these statements, but, for hypothetical circumstances, lets pretend you "desire" to write this post. Why do you so desire to do it? Do you know? Is it because you had no coersion to write it, or because your desires themselves coerced you? If you say "I was not coerced to write it", I will ask, "how do you know".

I submit that we are all coerced by our own desires. As Alice in Wonderland says to the Chesire cat.."which way do I turn", and the cat responds, 'that depends on where you want to go', to which Alice says 'I don't know where I want to go', and the cat responds, 'then I guess it doesn't matter'. This in essence would be the free will you discribe, totally free from coersion, even coersion from our own desires. I also submit that this is totally without any semblence of reality. We never make a meaningful decision based on a total lack of desire one way or the other.

The bottom line is, its our desires that coerce us to do what we do, and the question then becomes, 'how did we get our desires', and 'were our desires programed into us'?

Hence, free will is the excersise of our desires, which I submit is not to say its the excersise of some 'blind, I don't care, will' but instead, free will is a directed decision making process whereby our innate, or God breathed tendencies, are acted upon. This is in full harmony with scripture, as in the end, we still make the choices for our actions, and God is still the author. Thus we have harmony between free will and predestination.

[Chappie]

The above appears to be a convoluted attempt at a non-answer (though, your prior assertions answered my question).

I do agree that God has freewill. I deny your definition/understanding of what constitutes freewill. In other words, I deny that freewill consists of a will that has "equal" passions/persuasions toward both good and evil. Such a view is unbiblical.

That's OK, your denial changes nothing. It just points to your lack of understanding.

God does NOT have equal passions, one toward evil and the other toward good, from which he must "freely" choose good over evil. Therefore, as I've already proven, IF your definition of freewill WERE true, then it necessarily would follow that God would not, nor could have freewill.

It is utter foolishness to compare that which God has given to his creation in a way that limits that which is God. Man's freewill was given by God, with only the freedoms intended by God. It works the way God said that it would work. It does not define God; it is unwise to use it in any attempt to define God. That is what you are trying to do, you have much to learn.

On the other hand, if the definition of freewill that I put forward much earlier in this thread is correct then God does have freewill. Again, since you never seemed to address the definition of freewill that is an alternative to your faulty view, I will reiterate. Freewill consists of the ability of a person/being to make choices without being forced or coerced.

God's freewill is based on his omnipotence, which means that it is unhindered. Man's freewill is based on the freedoms set forth by God. Man's freewill is activated by desires in response to persuasion. To eat from that tree, or not to eat. To obey or to disobey. God cannot be defined by man's freewill. They are not the same thing essentially...

However, you have inadvertently spoken truth without true understanding. Man's freewill does consist of the ability to make decisions without irresistible force or coercion. God is not subject to either force or coercion. Man's freewill cannot define God..

God doesn't have "equal persuasions/passions", but rather is always perfectly Holy and Righteous. However, His will is free in all actions He chooses because His choices are made without being forced or coerced. The same holds true for man. As long as when we choose we are doing so WITHOUT being forced or coerced we are acting freely (i.e., freewill is being employed).

Still God's will is subject to persuasion, lest prayer be utter foolishness. God heard the cries of Sodom & Gomorrah, Abraham petitioned him on behalf of the righteous men of the cities. Some things are self evident. You have never in your life made a choice in response to nothing. Still for the sake of some misunderstanding, you refuse to recognize that truth...

God ordained that I would freely, without force or coercion, desire to/choose to write this post. As long as my decision was made because I WANTED to write the post (i.e., I DESIRED to write the post) and did so without being FORCED or COERCED then it necessarily and logically follows that I freely chose/willed to do so.

Still, you were not persuaded to come here by nothing. You were persuaded to come by a desire to discuss God's word. Say not that you came here out of nothing....

I have to wonder if it is your position that God doesn't know the future since IF God knows the future then what He knows will happen WILL happen and you CANNOT choose otherwise. Whence is your faulty definition of freewill with such a (biblical) view of God's foreknowledge? Answer: it cannot exist (in other words, if God knows the future, then it follows that YOUR understanding of freewill must be in error).

This is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate language to make a point that the writer did not intend. You vainly try to superimpose foreknowledge upon predestination when a simple trip to a good dictionary will show that they do not share the same consequences. One (predestination, to cause to happen in harmony with or in spite of that which hinders) is a consequence of the proactive power of God, the other (foreknowledge) in and of itself is nothing more than a passive knowledge of a future event.

We could both be in error, still I am goverened by a genuine attempt to gain understanding of what the bible teaches. I do not play games with words, I do not use slight of hand. I make no attempt to squeeze my position in by squeezing what the bible says. Foreknowledge is foreknowledge, predestination is predestination. When I use them, I let each stand in its own integerity.

I may not be right, but that does not change the fact that you are wrong....

[Chappie]

As I have not read this whole thread, I am not sure where you are coming from regarding some of these statements, but, for hypothetical circumstances, lets pretend you "desire" to write this post. Why do you so desire to do it? Do you know? Is it because you had no coersion to write it, or because your desires themselves coerced you? If you say "I was not coerced to write it", I will ask, "how do you know".

I submit that we are all coerced by our own desires.

Makes sense to me.. I have often used a power within me, that is greater than any power within me to coerce myself to do something that I did not want to do. Coercion is a power designed to manipulate ones will. Irrisistible force does not consider ones will. It has the power to force or overcome any resistence. Paul's war within himself will not help you here.

To be coerced by ones own will is an oxymoron. Persuasion can be either an external or internal force. Both are the result of criteria, whither internal or external. To overpower one is always an external force...

As Alice in Wonderland says to the Chesire cat.."which way do I turn", and the cat responds, 'that depends on where you want to go', to which Alice says 'I don't know where I want to go', and the cat responds, 'then I guess it doesn't matter'. This in essence would be the free will you discribe, totally free from coersion, even coersion from our own desires. I also submit that this is totally without any semblence of reality. We never make a meaningful decision based on a total lack of desire one way or the other.

All that Alice is stating is that she does not have sufficient reason/persuasion to act in either direction. So she does nothing... She remains unpersuaded....

The bottom line is, its our desires that coerce us to do what we do, and the question then becomes, 'how did we get our desires', and 'were our desires programed into us'?

It is the ability to react to the persuasions of our desires without being subjected to a power greater than our ability to resist; that is what freewill consist of. Trying to base freewill on an absence of persuasion results in no will. Men are constantly bombarded with outside stimuli to react in this manner or that manner.

Hence, free will is the excersise of our desires, which I submit is not to say its the excersise of some 'blind, I don't care, will' but instead, free will is a directed decision making process whereby our innate, or God breathed tendencies, are acted upon. This is in full harmony with scripture, as in the end, we still make the choices for our actions, and God is still the author. Thus we have harmony between free will and predestination.

Man has freewill to do what God has already imposed upon him to do. He is free to do it, but he is not free not to. Sounds like my first attempt at speaking spanish.... :pray:

[mrsnacks]

The bottom line is, its our desires that coerce us to do what we do, and the question then becomes, 'how did we get our desires', and 'were our desires programed into us'?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it really our desires ? Paul said that he was doing things that he didn't want to do .... if one commits suicide - that act is not necessarily because that person wanted to die. His desire may have been to live all along , but depression or chemical imbalance had an effect on the victim and desires could have nothing to do with it. Many do things not because they desire to do it - there can be other factors involved. and many times several desires are involved in the same situation. I may desire to stay awake and hate coffee at the same time. I take a drink of the coffee not because I desire it , because I know it will keep me awake. A lot of times we do things not because we desire it --- because we can't help ourselves but do it.

What gets me is that God desires none to be lost. But there are those that will be lost. But God is able to fulfill His desire and make it a reality by choosing everyone by a holy zap according to calvinism. He doesn't though. Why not? If man is unable to come to God unless God calls him/her , then why doesn't He call everyone if that's the case ? God said His desire is that no one perishes so what gives ?

[twohumble]

The bottom line is, its our desires that coerce us to do what we do, and the question then becomes, 'how did we get our desires', and 'were our desires programed into us'?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it really our desires ? Paul said that he was doing things that he didn't want to do .... if one commits suicide - that act is not necessarily because that person wanted to die. His desire may have been to live all along , but depression or chemical imbalance had an effect on the victim and desires could have nothing to do with it. Many do things not because they desire to do it - there can be other factors involved. and many times several desires are involved in the same situation. I may desire to stay awake and hate coffee at the same time. I take a drink of the coffee not because I desire it , because I know it will keep me awake. A lot of times we do things not because we desire it --- because we can't help ourselves but do it.

Great thought, which is in total harmony with what I have said. When we are a "slave to sin", it is our own[ desires that overwhelm us, and our desires are all selfish. However, when God influences our life, our desires are overcome by His desire, and we become a slave to Christ. Certainly we have 3 sets of desires at work....the evil one, God, and our own. When Gods desire is imprinted on us, and he prepares the field of our heart for the Holy Spirit, and His Son is revealed to us, we begin to see our old self start to take a back seat to our new self, that is in the image of Christ. You assertion that we do things because "we cannot help it" illustrates my point. When you are a slave to sin, you sin, even though you don't really want to...the evil one is too strong an influence as are the set of 'selfish desires'...but haven't you also noticed that, as a Christian, we also do things that were foreign to our nature before we came to Christ? Yep, dats what I am talkin about!! Exciting hu?

In regard to the other outside influences that affect our desires, let me sum it up by saying "God is sovereign" and He controls all things for His good.

What gets me is that God desires none to be lost. But there are those that will be lost. But God is able to fulfill His desire and make it a reality by choosing everyone by a holy zap according to calvinism. He doesn't though. Why not? If man is unable to come to God unless God calls him/her , then why doesn't He call everyone if that's the case ? God said His desire is that no one perishes so what gives ?

The "none of you to be lost" quote from Peter must be taken into context. Peter was addressing the church of believers, just as Jesus says "I will not lose one that the Father has given me". The context makes all the difference, as you have noted, that some men are certainly lost, yet, God always gets His way, so, as you say, "what gives"....just this, none of those appointed for life will be lost, Jesus says they are in His hand, and more than that, they are in the Fathers hand, and NOTHING can take us from Him.

But, you also ask why He does not call all men, and now you ask the mind of God....I only know what scripture says, and it says Gods wisdom is not mans wisdom, hence if it doesn't make sense to us, does not mean it does not make sense to God. I trust in a just and merciful God, and I trust in His word, so, although I don't know why all men are not called, I must not change scripture by denying thats exactly what it says. I am forced to realize that God has His reasons, and His purpose, and that is sovereign to my purpose and reason.

[Theolog]

What gets me is that God desires none to be lost. But there are those that will be lost. But God is able to fulfill His desire and make it a reality by choosing everyone by a holy zap according to calvinism. He doesn't though. Why not? If man is unable to come to God unless God calls him/her , then why doesn't He call everyone if that's the case ? God said His desire is that no one perishes so what gives ?

If you have really read what Calvinist believe from Calvinist's and not their enemys you would already know this.

What gives is God does call everyone and everyone refuses. If you really want to understand Calvinism I will answer your questions using the bible.

Here is how God calls all men.

God disires that none should perish. Romans 1:18 clearly states that God gives all men the the revelation of himself so none have excuse that God has not called them.

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

This should satisfy your question that God gives all men grace to know and understand him. All men have an opportunity to turn to God. Do you agree?

Calvinism is Biblical Theology so I will use the Bible to prove that Calvinism is based purely on the Bible, it if you are really interested in what Calvinists believe.

[Chappie]

If you have really read what Calvinist believe from Calvinist's and not their enemys you would already know this.

What gives is God does call everyone and everyone refuses. If you really want to understand Calvinism I will answer your questions using the bible.

Here is how God calls all men.

God disires that none should perish. Romans 1:18 clearly states that God gives all men the the revelation of himself so none have excuse that God has not called them.

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 

19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

This should satisfy your question that God gives all men grace to know and understand him. All men have an opportunity to turn to God. Do you agree?

Calvinism is Biblical Theology so I will use the Bible to prove that Calvinism is based purely on the Bible, it if you are really interested in what Calvinists believe.

Excellant scriptural answer to the question posed, absolutely no mention of any efficacious/irresistible grace... No assertion that God rejected anyone before they had done any good or evil. Not a hint of rejection before the world was. This is a complete denial by the scripture of the concept of predestination and election as expoused by reformed theology.

Romans 1:18 makes it plain that they were rejected based on their deeds, not because they were not chosen. All men do have an opportunity to turn to God. None are predestined to hell before the world was.. Christs death was sufficient for the whole world, he died for all men, no limited attonment.

Without his death of propitiation, salvation is impossible for any man. And it is as you said, all men have the opportunity to come. And if that is true, limited attonment, election before the world was, and a predestined (predetermined) destiny cannot be. (Foreknowledge) What God did, and what God knows are not the same concept...

Either make the tree consistent with the fruit, or the fruit consistent with the tree. Peaches do not grow on an apple tree. Never heard of a peachapple tree.....

I am not an enemy of Calvinism. I love it so much that I want it to be placed within its proper classification.... False Doctrine.... :wink:

[Chappie]

What gets me is that God desires none to be lost. But there are those that will be lost. But God is able to fulfill His desire and make it a reality by choosing everyone by a holy zap according to calvinism. He doesn't though. Why not? If man is unable to come to God unless God calls him/her , then why doesn't He call everyone if that's the case ? God said His desire is that no one perishes so what gives ?

It is God's desire that all be saved, still that desire does not negate his concept of justice. God does call everyone to a saving knowledge of his grace, but as free moral agents, we are charged with the responsibility to accept or reject his call. God bids us to come, but the choice is ours, so are the consequences.

[Chappie]

Great thought, which is in total harmony with what I have said. When we are a "slave to sin", it is our own[ desires that overwhelm us, and our desires are all selfish. However, when God influences our life, our desires are overcome by His desire, and we become a slave to Christ.

Huuuuuuummm. Slave to sin. You have not used the concept in its proper context. It does not mean as you suggest that we are slaves to our desires. It means that because of sin in our lives, we have been captured by sin and cannot escape the consequences of sin. (Hell) Being a slave of Christ is a command to us to submit to Christ to the best of our ability as we once submitted to sin before Christ rescued us. A slave has three option availiable to them in reguard to his master, submission, escape, or rescue. As a slave to Christ we are called upon to submit.

Christ's desires do not overcome our desires; if they did, we would cease to sin. The Holy Spirit within us, works with us, leading and guiding us, helping us to overcome our sinful desires. It is called regeneration.

When you are a slave to sin, you sin, even though you don't really want to...the evil one is too strong an influence as are the set of 'selfish desires'...but haven't you also noticed that, as a Christian, we also do things that were foreign to our nature before we came to Christ? Yep, dats what I am talkin about!! Exciting hu?

Here I need some help. I have been told by other Calvinist that the state of the non-elect is that they are so depraved that they never really want to do anything but sin. But here you have slaves to sin that really do not want to sin. Which is it, are they as depraved and happy sinning as has been previously suggested or not. If they do not want to sin, and are forced to do so, sup?

In regard to the other outside influences that affect our desires, let me sum it up by saying "God is sovereign" and He controls all things for His good.

If God controols all things, and evil is so prevalent in this world, perhaps God should put man in charge. We are fully capable of messing things up on our own. Oh shucks!!!! Man is in charge. Way back in Genesis, God gave man dominion over the earth.

Sovereignty does not mean that God controols everything, it means that he has the right to do so, or the right to put you in charge. Sovereignty does not produce a given set of circumstances as you so desperately suggest. Sovereignty means that if there are a million ways to do a thing, God can choose any one of that million that pleases him.

Obviously, sovereignty does not necessarily produce election as you suggest. You bow before the sovereignty of God, but only as long as he does it your way. Predestination/Election.

The "none of you to be lost" quote from Peter must be taken into context. Peter was addressing the church of believers, just as Jesus says "I will not lose one that the Father has given me". The context makes all the difference, as you have noted, that some men are certainly lost, yet, God always gets His way, so, as you say, "what gives"....just this, none of those appointed for life will be lost, Jesus says they are in His hand, and more than that, they are in the Fathers hand, and NOTHING can take us from Him.

If God "always" gets his way, then he wants me to sin. In that case my sins are his sins and he is the biggest sinner of all. Blasphemy....

But, you also ask why He does not call all men, and now you ask the mind of God....I only know what scripture says, and it says Gods wisdom is not mans wisdom, hence if it doesn't make sense to us, does not mean it does not make sense to God.

It is election that makes no sense to God. That is why it makes no sense to you. When any part of an equation does not make sense, neither does the equation. A little bit of levin, levins the whole lump. Reformed theology will always trip over its own foot...

I trust in a just and merciful God, and I trust in His word, so, although I don't know why all men are not called, I must not change scripture by denying thats exactly what it says. I am forced to realize that God has His reasons, and His purpose, and that is sovereign to my purpose and reason.

And your ways are not his ways, because you deny through your false concept of election; the ability to believe and trust in God just as you do. And it is derived from a he loves me, but he does not love you mentality. That is the mentality that reformed theology imposes upon scripture.

God has his reasons allright. And we perhaps cannot know them. But one thing we can know; they are righteous, just, and holy. Therein, election is eliminated...

[Theolog]

I am not an enemy of Calvinism. I love it so much that I want it to be placed within its proper classification.... False Doctrine.... :wink:

You my friend are a liar.

[mrsnacks]

Thanks to you all for your input. The problem as I see it is that being that I have talked to many calvinists , they all have represented calvinism in a dirfferent way. And that's what has caused me a bit of confusion. One will say no one is able to come to God. No one seeks God . The unbeliever is blinded and dead in his sins and unless God acts he will continue on the road to hell.
------------------------------------------------
Theolog said : "This should satisfy your question that God gives all men grace to know and understand him. All men have an opportunity to turn to God. Do you agree?

Calvinism is Biblical Theology so I will use the Bible to prove that Calvinism is based purely on the Bible, it if you are really interested in what Calvinists believe."

-----------------------------------------

I say: There are calvinists that will disagree with you on the points you made. The point that "God gives all men grace to know and understand Him." How about the verse (I don't have my Bible with me ) that says that "no one understands. " Also you said that all men have the opportunity to turn to God. That's not what calvinists in general have told me. The unbeliever is not able to turn to God. He doesn't understand or seek Him. He is dead spiritually and his nature rebels against God they say . That doesn't sound like an opportunity to me. You are assuming man has a free will in which many calvinists disagree with you on.

If I turn to my daughter and say to her that I'm going to give her an opportunity to earn a few dollars if she does a specific errand for me . She is excited about the so called opportunity to earn money from her dad,so she asks " what can I do for you ? " I then say to her , " I will pay you a hundred dollars if you would walk to the store and pick up a few groceries and return within 3 minutes. Her face reflects shock and amazement and she says -" dad the store is 15 miles away and it's impossible to walk there and return home with the groceries in 30 minutes, let alone 3 minutes. Am I giving my daughter an opportunity to earn some money really ? Would it be cruel of me to say -- " well don't ever say honey I never gave you an opportunity ." That's the God of calvinism to me.

[Chappie]

You my friend are a liar.

Well Theo, I guess that you could truthfully say that. But I rather choose to call it an oxymoron. You know, an effort to squeeze conflicting concepts into harmony with each other. Kinda like reformed theology and the bible. :wink:

Still, I will admit that you have a real flair with words.....

May God Bless...

[Chappie]

But, you also ask why He does not call all men, and now you ask the mind of God....I only know what scripture says, and it says Gods wisdom is not mans wisdom, hence if it doesn't make sense to us, does not mean it does not make sense to God. I trust in a just and merciful God, and I trust in His word, so, although I don't know why all men are not called, I must not change scripture by denying thats exactly what it says. I am forced to realize that God has His reasons, and His purpose, and that is sovereign to my purpose and reason.

After thought.
Is it not first prudent and wise to make sure that you are of the elect before you trust him. Otherwise his mercy is not mercy, it is vengence. In which case his mercy has predestined/purchased (before the world was) you a ticket straight to hell. Am I right about that? Itsa question...

You tend to be suggesting blind obedience Humble. Is that the case. It is a question, not an accusation..

Does God command blind obedience? What does scripture say about blind leading the blind. Why did Christ come to bring us out of darkness into his marvelous light? My people perish from a lack of knowledge. Yet you appear to sugest that you are edified by it. Sup?

[Chappie]

Thanks to you all for your input. The problem as I see it is that being that I have talked to many calvinists , they all have represented calvinism in a dirfferent way. And that's what has caused me a bit of confusion. One will say no one is able to come to God. No one seeks God . The unbeliever is blinded and dead in his sins and unless God acts he will continue on the road to hell.
------------------------------------------------
Theolog said : "This should satisfy your question that God gives all men grace to know and understand him. All men have an opportunity to turn to God. Do you agree?

Calvinism is Biblical Theology so I will use the Bible to prove that Calvinism is based purely on the Bible, it if you are really interested in what Calvinists believe."

-----------------------------------------

I say: There are calvinists that will disagree with you on the points you made. The point that "God gives all men grace to know and understand Him." How about the verse (I don't have my Bible with me ) that says that "no one understands. " Also you said that all men have the opportunity to turn to God. That's not what calvinists in general have told me. The unbeliever is not able to turn to God. He doesn't understand or seek Him. He is dead spiritually and his nature rebels against God they say . That doesn't sound like an opportunity to me. You are assuming man has a free will in which many calvinists disagree with you on.

If I turn to my daughter and say to her that I'm going to give her an opportunity to earn a few dollars if she does a specific errand for me . She is excited about the so called opportunity to earn money from her dad,so she asks " what can I do for you ? " I then say to her , " I will pay you a hundred dollars if you would walk to the store and pick up a few groceries and return within 3 minutes. Her face reflects shock and amazement and she says -" dad the store is 15 miles away and it's impossible to walk there and return home with the groceries in 30 minutes, let alone 3 minutes. Am I giving my daughter an opportunity to earn some money really ? Would it be cruel of me to say -- " well don't ever say honey I never gave you an opportunity ." That's the God of calvinism to me.

:cheers: :thumb:

[rhutchin]

If I turn to my daughter and say to her that I'm going to give her an opportunity to earn a few dollars if she does a specific errand for me . She is excited about the so called opportunity to earn money from her dad,so she asks " what can I do for you ? " I then say to her , " I will pay you a hundred dollars if you would walk to the store and pick up a few groceries and return within 3 minutes. Her face reflects shock and amazement and she says -" dad the store is 15 miles away and it's impossible to walk there and return home with the groceries in 30 minutes, let alone 3 minutes. Am I giving my daughter an opportunity to earn some money really ? Would it be cruel of me to say -- " well don't ever say honey I never gave you an opportunity ." That's the God of calvinism to me.

Here is the way you should phrase it to illustrate Calvinist thinking.

If I turn to my daughter and say to her that I'm going to give her an opportunity to earn a few dollars if she does a specific errand for me. She is excited about the so called opportunity to earn money from her dad,so she asks " what can I do for you ? " I then say to her , " I will pay you a hundred dollars if you would walk to the store and pick up a few groceries and return within 3 minutes. Her face reflects shock and amazement and she says -" dad, I want to stay home and watch TV. Can't you give me the $100 just because you are a loving father?"

Does your daughter get the $100?

[Chappie]

Here is the way you should phrase it to illustrate Calvinist thinking.

If I turn to my daughter and say to her that I'm going to give her an opportunity to earn a few dollars if she does a specific errand for me. She is excited about the so called opportunity to earn money from her dad, so she asks "what can I do for you“? I then say to her, "I will pay you a hundred dollars if you would walk to the store and pick up a few groceries and return within 3 minutes. Her face reflects shock and amazement and she says -" dad, I want to stay home and watch TV. Can't you give me the $100 just because you are a loving father?"

Does your daughter get the $100?

If your offer was sincere and right in its purpose and origins in the first place, the answer is no.

You see, the offer is conditional, it is predicated upon the daughter walking to the store. Instead of accepting the plan along with the benefits offered, she tries to negate the plan, yet still obtain the benefits.

The sincerity of the Fathers offer is predicated upon the daughter’s ability to fulfill it. If the daughter is paralyzed from the neck down, (Totally Depraved) the offer is scandalous and insincere. It is nothing short of mockery.

Being that the offer tended is a conditional one, and is predicated upon the one tending the offer, and the one to whom the offer is tended receiving a desired benefit; and the daughters response negating the desired benefit (walking to the store) of the father; the answer must be NO!!! You get nothing suga.....

[Chappie]

As I have not read this whole thread, I am not sure where you are coming from regarding some of these statements, but, for hypothetical circumstances, let’s pretend you "desire" to write this post. Why do you so desire to do it? Do you know? Is it because you had no coercion to write it, or because your desires themselves coerced you? If you say "I was not coerced to write it", I will ask, "how do you know".

I have read this post a few times, it really never made sense to me. It took me a while to figure out why.

Men are body, soul, and spirit. The soul is our seat of consciousness, it is through the soul that we think, react, decide, and purpose. Which makes it the seat of our desires and decisions. If our desires are a part of our soul, and our decisions are a part of our soul, and what we desire is what we decide; how is it possible for one to coerce the other? Who is this entity inside me that is forcing me?

We are created in God’s image; does God’s desire coerce God to do something that God does not want to do. Or does God coerce his desires to do something that his desires do not want to do? How can it be said logically that our desires (Soul) coerces our desires? (Soul.)

I submit that we are all coerced by our own desires. As Alice in Wonderland says to the Cheshire cat.. “which way do I turn", and the cat responds, 'that depends on where you want to go', to which Alice says 'I don't know where I want to go', and the cat responds, 'then I guess it doesn't matter'. This in essence would be the free will you describe, totally free from coercion, even coercion from our own desires. I also submit that this is totally without any semblance of reality. We never make a meaningful decision based on a total lack of desire one way or the other.

Our desires and decisions are as much a part of who and what we are as we are who and what we are. Who and what we are cannot coerce who and what we are... They are one in the same. What we are is inseparable from who we are. Coercion is always an outside pressure brought to bear by one entity upon another entity. Just how does my soul coerce my soul?

The bottom line is, its our desires that coerce us to do what we do, and the question then becomes, 'how did we get our desires', and 'were our desires programmed into us'?

OK, we have established the proprietary elements of desires. They have a mind and power of their own. Yet desires power is limited to the power of suggestion only. But who and what is the “US” that is coerced? Does “US” have a mind and desires of its own that can be coerced by desires that are not a part of us? All of our desires are a part of us. And it is impossible for them to bring external coersion upon us. Say I submit that your desires can coerce my desire, but how do my desires coerce my desires.

I will admit that we can have confliction desires, still these conflicting desires can result in only one decision, to act this way or that way or not to act at all: And these confliction desires are nothing more than part of our one (the “us) decision making process.

Decisions are the result of intelligence deciding and acting between confliction desires. Through intelligence (God gave it to us, might as well use it) we decide which of our desires will produce the most desirable consequences, then we act. Our desires do not act, they are passive, they hold only the powers of suggestion. They (desires) do not even have the power to make a decision, that power is indigenous to intelligence.

How do you know that I did not coerce my desires to be here on this board? How do you know that the opposite of what you say is true? That it was actually my desires (US) that coerced my desires to be here? In other words you say that I was coerced by my desires and my desires won. I ask you how do you know that it was not I that wanted to be here and my desires coerced my desires, I won, and I am here because I desire to be and not because my desires coerced me to be here.?

Hence, free will is the exercise of our desires, which I submit is not to say it’s the exercise of some 'blind, I don't care, will'

Which ones, my desires or my desires desires‘? If my desires were coerced, how do you know that my desires did not coerce back. In order for coercion to be needed my desires had to coerce back. {A house divided can not stand}

but instead, free will is a directed decision making process whereby our innate, or God breathed tendencies, are acted upon.

This is in full harmony with scripture, as in the end, we still make the choices for our actions, and God is still the author. Thus we have harmony between free will and predestination.

And I submit that this is nothing more than an irrational, unreasonable, illogical attempt to validate what is irrational, unreasonable, and illogical. :pray: :wink: