One Question Calvinists Can't Answer

[seer]

Why did God pick you and not your non-elect neighbor? If God takes nothing about the man into account, what logically distinguishes you from your neighbor? Look at it this way - you have two idenical lumps of clay in front of you - you want to make a lovely pot and a common pot - how do you choose which lump for which purpose?

[yxboom]

Why did God pick you and not your non-elect neighbor? If God takes nothing about the man into account, what logically distinguishes you from your neighbor? Look at it this way - you have two idenical lumps of clay in front of you - you want to make a lovely pot and a common pot - how do you choose which lump for which purpose?
dont forget to put in the stipulation:


In your attempted answer, try to avoid a question which begs an equivalent question. For example, avoid answers like "God's sovereign will". (This is simply to beg the question "Why did God's sovereign will decide to pick you and not your non-elect neighbor?)

[Xmansmommy]

Let's also not fail to mention that the two lumps of clay are the most worthless kind of clay imaginable and how God chose to make one into a beautiful pot reflecting His own beauty for His glory and the other He'll despise and hate eternally because it's ugly and because He made it despicable and worthless to begin with.

[yxboom]

lo and behold the clay was not clay at all but two piles of poopy.

[Kevin Wayne]

And if you say "it was done according to his secret will and his good pleasure", we'll call that a non-answer and re-state the original question to you again. ;-)

[studyhound]

Why did God pick you and not your non-elect neighbor? If God takes nothing about the man into account, what logically distinguishes you from your neighbor? Look at it this way - you have two idenical lumps of clay in front of you - you want to make a lovely pot and a common pot - how do you choose which lump for which purpose?
The Father, Jesus, and the HS play rock-paper-scissors, (ps this answers what they were doing in eternity past :blush:)

[yxboom]

The Father, Jesus, and the HS play rock-paper-scissors, (ps this answers what they were doing in eternity past :blush:)
but rock-paper-scissors is for only 2 participants not 3.

[Kevin Wayne]

but rock-paper-scissors is for only 2 participants not 3.

OK, so the Spirit referees?

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

You guys are brutal. :wink:

[john-philip]

You're not questioning calvinism. You're questioning God, and you guys need to stop.



:pot:

[Kevin Wayne]

You guys are brutal. :wink:


Thank-you. ;-)

[seer]

You're not questioning calvinism. You're questioning God, and you guys need to stop.



:pot:

No, they are questioning a false concept of God...

[Cheetah]

Doesn't God have the right to choose someone out of His own free will? What makes Him choose someone instead of another is unknown to me, but He has a role in His Kingdom for everyone whom He has predestined. You're trying to find out something about God which is unknown to human minds, in the words of the psalmist, "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too high to understand."

[Kevin Wayne]

Doesn't God have the right to choose someone out of His own free will? What makes Him choose someone instead of another is unknown to me, but He has a role in His Kingdom for everyone whom He has predestined. You're trying to find out something about God which is unknown to human minds, in the words of the psalmist, "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too high to understand."


Let me help you out here:


1) A Calvinist posted a question for which there is no logical anwer & titled the thread "The Question The Arminian Can't Answer"

2) That person included "instructions" on how to answer the question, as if he is in a place in instruct us.

3) So this thread is the same thing, but putting the proverbial "shoe on the other foot."


Make sense...?

[Calvinist4Him]

Why did God pick you and not your non-elect neighbor?

Because He wanted to.

If God takes nothing about the man into account, what logically distinguishes you from your neighbor?

Nothing, all have sinned, there is none righteous, no not one.

Look at it this way - you have two idenical lumps of clay in front of you - you want to make a lovely pot and a common pot - how do you choose which lump for which purpose?

Shall the lumps of clay instruct the potter?

[Kevin Wayne]

Because He wanted to.



Nothing, all have sinned, there is none righteous, no not one.



Shall the lumps of clay instruct the potter?



You mean like the way the lumps go around rebuking the potter for co-operative grace?

[Calvinist4Him]

You mean like the way the lumps go around rebuking the potter for co-operative grace?

Would you care to rephrase your question, and maybe get to your point?

[Kevin Wayne]

Would you care to rephrase your question, and maybe get to your point?

Sure, as soon as you re-phrase yours.

[yxboom]

Because He wanted to.
you mustnt have read the stipulation. that answer begs the question. try again.

[Calvinist4Him]

you mustnt have read the stipulation. that answer begs the question. try again.

Which question? Can the Almighty do what He wants to do?

[Kevin Wayne]

Which question? Can the Almighty do what He wants to do?

Yes, even make a world where co-operative grace exsists.

[Calvinist4Him]

Yes, even make a world where co-operative grace exsists.

He could make a world where green men exist too! That said, do you have Scripture to support the notion of "co-operative grace"? How can all glory go to God in your world of "co-operative grace"?

[yxboom]

Which question? Can the Almighty do what He wants to do?
why did God elect you but not another?

[john-philip]

No, they are questioning a false concept of God...

Oh, don't worry. I was just practicing calvinist dogma for fun.

Calvinist's put the dawg in dawgmatic assertion. :cool: :hehe:

[Anoetos]

1. It's a stupid question no one, especially a Calvinist should stoop to answer

2. The intent of the questioner is, clearly, to bait.

3. This question should be ignored for the crapola it is.

[Kevin Wayne]

1. It's a stupid question no one, especially a Calvinist should stoop to answer

2. The intent of the questioner is, clearly, to bait.

3. This question should be ignored for the crapola it is.


And so should the question for the Arminians that was originally proposed.

[john-philip]

1. It's a stupid question no one, especially a Calvinist should stoop to answer

2. The intent of the questioner is, clearly, to bait.

3. This question should be ignored for the crapola it is.

1. Then the other question in the other thread is even worse. At least this question isn't loaded.

2. Intent is irrelevant.

3. Your mom.

4. How is the question stupid?

[dreamaccount200]

Because He wanted to.

God is no respector of persons



Nothing, all have sinned, there is none righteous, no not one.
True, so on what basis does he show favor ?



Shall the lumps of clay instruct the potter?

Is asking questions about election instructing the potter?
I assume you are talking about Romans 9:20

Paul does not forbid us to ask questions concerning the manner of gods election. Rather what Paul forbids us to do is complain against god. God urges us to study the scripture to attain understanding and wisdom. 2 tim 2: 15 3:16-17 the text does not say anything about Gods unconditional election it does however say god has the ultimate say in his choice.

[Calvinist4Him]

1. It's a stupid question no one, especially a Calvinist should stoop to answer

I thought there is no such thing as a stupid question? :blush:

2. The intent of the questioner is, clearly, to bait.

Right you are, I knew that before I decided to :bite:

3. This question should be ignored for the crapola it is.

:bait: isn't a bad idea, but if you're in the mood for playing games. :hehe:

[Anoetos]

And so should the question for the Arminians that was originally proposed.

Granted.

Or, as we say in Detroit, "Granite"

[dreamaccount200]

Doesn't God have the right to choose someone out of His own free will? What makes Him choose someone instead of another is unknown to me, but He has a role in His Kingdom for everyone whom He has predestined. You're trying to find out something about God which is unknown to human minds, in the words of the psalmist, "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too high to understand."

Who has he predestined? On what basis have they been predestined?

[dreamaccount200]

1. It's a stupid question no one, especially a Calvinist should stoop to answer

2. The intent of the questioner is, clearly, to bait.

3. This question should be ignored for the crapola it is.

Its not a question of stooping to answer. They cant answer

[BenK]

I think there's quite a difference between the two questions as they relate to the two different systems. The problem with this question as it is posed to Calvinists is that it demands a knowledge of God's thoughts; I think a Calvinist can legitmately call on holy mystery at this point.

On the other hand, the dogmatic assertion by some Calvinists that there is absolutely nothing about those God elects to that make them preferable to those God reprobates seems simply to say that God has no reason for his choices. If we're going to assert holy mystery let's be serious about holy mystery (as for instance Lutherans seem to be, if I understand them correctly) and not assert dogmatically everything we want to assert and then appeal to mystery to solve outright contradictions.

In the case of the 'Question Arminians can't answer' the problem was a strictly logical one; the Calvinist basically demands that the orthodox Christian accept Calvinistic premises to reach orthodox conclusions.

[Anoetos]

Dream,

My point was that the question was not even posed in order to gather serious responses.

Rather, it was posed as a counter to another question suggested by a Calvinist as being unanswerable.

I'm merely pointing out that it's baiting...that's all.

Hey, I like stupid questions as much as the next guy but since I'm no longer a Calvinist I can just grab the popcorn and watch you all waste time, energy and bandwidth emotionally anathematizing eachother.

[Anoetos]

If we're going to assert holy mystery let's be serious about holy mystery (as for instance Lutherans seem to be, if I understand them correctly) and not assert dogmatically everything we want to assert and then appeal to mystery to solve outright contradictions.

This is close to the strongest indictment of Calvinism I have come across, and that is the observation that Calvinism is, essentially, baptized rationalism resulting in a Faith bled of all it's beauty.

[Anoetos]

The average Calvinist is smarter and better read than the average Arminian, this doesn't make him right, of course though he sometimes thinks it does.

For me, this means I tend, in actual practice to take Calvinists more seriously than Arminians, but then a lot of that has to do with a deep understanding of where Calvinists come from theologically and a continued sharing with them of some really core doctrinal principles.

[Calvinist4Him]

This is close to the strongest indictment of Calvinism I have come across, and that is the observation that Calvinism is, essentially, baptized rationalism resulting in a Faith bled of all it's beauty.

Gee, I think I'll take that as a compliment, being that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. :smile:

[seer]

The point is guys, there is no logical reason why God chooses one and not the other, the choice has to be arbitrary in the end. God loved the elect by a mere flip of the coin. If you think otherwise give me a logical reason why God loves you and not your non-elect neighbor.

[Kevin Wayne]

He could make a world where green men exist too! That said, do you have Scripture to support the notion of "co-operative grace"? How can all glory go to God in your world of "co-operative grace"?


Sorry this response took so long:



To answer part 2 of your question 1st, I touched on that very issue in the Question for Arminians thread. Look it up.



Now for part 1:


Phillipans 2:12 So then, my dear friends, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now even more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God who is working among you both the willing and the working for His good purpose. 14 Do everything without grumbling and arguing, 15 so that you may be blameless and pure, children of God who are faultless in a crooked and perverted generation, among whom you shine like stars in the world. 16 Hold firmly the message of life. Then I can boast in the day of Christ that I didn't run in vain or labor for nothing.


Working with God who works in you = co-operatve grace.



Lu 14:27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.


Ditto



John 12:35 Jesus answered, "The light will be with you only a little longer. Walk while you have the light, so that darkness doesn't overtake you. The one who walks in darkness doesn't know where he's going. 36 While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become sons of light." Jesus said this, then went away and hid from them.


Same.



Romans 12:1 Therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, I urge you to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God; this is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.


Presenting ourselves as sacrifices to God, so that we can discern his will (which btw is a posture that leads us to give all Glory to God.)



James 4:6 But He gives greater grace. Therefore He says: God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. 7 Therefore, submit to God. But resist the Devil, and he will flee from you. 8 Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, sinners, and purify your hearts, double-minded people! 9 Be miserable and mourn and weep. Your laughter must change to mourning and your joy to sorrow. 10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will exalt you.


Same as last.



John 1:11 He came to the world that was his own, but his own people did not accept him. :12 But to all who did accept him and believe in him he gave the right to become children of God. :13 They did not become his children in any human way -- by any human parents or human desire. They were born of God.

I interpret this as follows:

:11- He came to his “uniquely owned people” (Wuest), and they rejected him.

:12- But those who did accept him were given passage to be “born of God.”

:13- Not in the way people are born through “sexuality”, but in a heavenly birth God takes us through when we fulfill the requirement inherent in :12.



Romans 8:13 for if you live according to the flesh, you are going to die. But if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.


More cooperation, towards perseverance.


Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

NIV footnote: “Or works together with those who love him to bring about what is good—with those who”- which does justice to the Gk sunergei.



Romans 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either. 22 Therefore, consider God's kindness and severity: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness toward you--if you remain in His kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.


Respect God, who is sovereign, & co-operate.

_______________



Now if you'll excuse me I've been on here too long. I don't subscribe to threads so if it's while beofre I respond to anyone, apologies in advance...

[dreamaccount200]

Sorry this response took so long:



To answer part 2 of your question 1st, I touched on that very issue in the Question for Arminians thread. Look it up.



Now for part 1:


Phillipans 2:12 So then, my dear friends, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now even more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God who is working among you both the willing and the working for His good purpose. 14 Do everything without grumbling and arguing, 15 so that you may be blameless and pure, children of God who are faultless in a crooked and perverted generation, among whom you shine like stars in the world. 16 Hold firmly the message of life. Then I can boast in the day of Christ that I didn't run in vain or labor for nothing.


Working with God who works in you = co-operatve grace.



Lu 14:27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.


Ditto



John 12:35 Jesus answered, "The light will be with you only a little longer. Walk while you have the light, so that darkness doesn't overtake you. The one who walks in darkness doesn't know where he's going. 36 While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become sons of light." Jesus said this, then went away and hid from them.


Same.



Romans 12:1 Therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, I urge you to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God; this is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.


Presenting ourselves as sacrifices to God, so that we can discern his will (which btw is a posture that leads us to give all Glory to God.)



James 4:6 But He gives greater grace. Therefore He says: God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. 7 Therefore, submit to God. But resist the Devil, and he will flee from you. 8 Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, sinners, and purify your hearts, double-minded people! 9 Be miserable and mourn and weep. Your laughter must change to mourning and your joy to sorrow. 10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will exalt you.


Same as last.



John 1:11 He came to the world that was his own, but his own people did not accept him. :12 But to all who did accept him and believe in him he gave the right to become children of God. :13 They did not become his children in any human way -- by any human parents or human desire. They were born of God.

I interpret this as follows:

:11- He came to his “uniquely owned people” (Wuest), and they rejected him.

:12- But those who did accept him were given passage to be “born of God.”

:13- Not in the way people are born through “sexuality”, but in a heavenly birth God takes us through when we fulfill the requirement inherent in :12.



Romans 8:13 for if you live according to the flesh, you are going to die. But if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.


More cooperation, towards perseverance.


Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

NIV footnote: “Or works together with those who love him to bring about what is good—with those who”- which does justice to the Gk sunergei.



Romans 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either. 22 Therefore, consider God's kindness and severity: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness toward you--if you remain in His kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.


Respect God, who is sovereign, & co-operate.

_______________



Now if you'll excuse me I've been on here too long. I don't subscribe to threads so if it's while beofre I respond to anyone, apologies in advance...

Good post

[studyhound]

I thought there is no such thing as a stupid question? :blush:

Apparently you have never been to a community college...:clueless:


:sh:

[smaller]

The point is guys, there is no logical reason why God chooses one and not the other, the choice has to be arbitrary in the end. God loved the elect by a mere flip of the coin. If you think otherwise give me a logical reason why God loves you and not your non-elect neighbor.

One of these days you guys will figure out that BOTH vessels of honor and vessels of destruction serve The Householder who is God.

So you ask why did God make a vessel of Gold and why did He make one of pewter?

Who CARES!

If both vessels are unto His Service then your question has already been answered.

There is gold to make vessels of and there is pewter to make vessels of.

Don't forget that both of these vessels are in the same lump and that lump is YOU. That is the point of the exercise of Romans 9.

Using this understanding we can say also that God CHOSE Pharaoh as well and Pharaoh served God's Purposes. The mistake is in thinking that there was not a vessel of honor also in Pharaoh's lump. God used the vessel of destruction IN PHAROAH rather than the vessel of honor. This does not mean the vessel of honor will not be going on with God. It just means that you DID NOT SEE IT IN THIS WORLD because you are BLINDED IN THE JUDGMENT OF OTHERS AND BLIND TO THE VESSEL OF DESTRUCTION IN YOURSELF.

And if this position of two vessels is transferred to EVERY PERSON it makes for a tidy little wrap on things from Above for EVERYONE.

Your theology is stale and stifling j. I really am surprised you still wallow in it. It would have bored me to tears to have clung to your baloney for so many years now. Sorry to be frank. You can take a whack at me now as well if it would make you feel better.

enjoy!

smaller

[seer]

Your theology is stale and stifling j. I really am surprised you still wallow in it. It would have bored me to tears to have clung to your baloney for so many years now. Sorry to be frank. You can take a whack at me now as well if it would make you feel better.

Thanks Eel. Gracious as ever...

[smaller]

Your theology is stale and stifling j. I really am surprised you still wallow in it. It would have bored me to tears to have clung to your baloney for so many years now. Sorry to be frank. You can take a whack at me now as well if it would make you feel better.

Thanks Eel. Gracious as ever...

You always took it rather well j...;)

[seer]

You always took it rather well j...;)

It's kind of hard to insult a dead man... ; )

[smaller]

It's kind of hard to insult a dead man... ; )

Don't you find it a tad disturbing that nearly everything that has ever lived is going to be eternally annihilated?

Was there some point in all of this God???

Maybe so. Hope speaks well.

[seer]

Don't you find it a tad disturbing that nearly everything that has ever lived is going to be eternally annihilated?

Was there some point in all of this God???

Maybe so. Hope speaks well.

Things die Eel. You don't believe that all the animals that ever live will be raised again - do you. It's a great and sad lesson that will be with us through out eternity. This is what life looked like without God, this is what life looks like with God.

[smaller]

Things die Eel. You don't believe that all the animals that ever live will be raised again - do you. It's a great and sad lesson that will be with us through out eternity. This is what life looked like without God, this is what life looks like with God.

Hope speaks to me in this way my friend:

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope-"

All from Romans 8 of course and NO j, I don't believe in your formation of eternal death via annihilation to nearly all of mankind and for probably ALL of creation to boot, AND it makes me rather ill inside, spiritually speaking, to hear of such things that pass themselves off as hope.

I don't know why or how you bear with such things and try to justify/link that to faith, hope and Divine Love in Christ.

God has hope for us and we have our hope in Him and that Hope will not be disappointing.

Romans 15:4
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Has The Word given you hope j? Or despair and death to nearly all things?

If the later then I do say you are certainly a walking deadman that is nearly devoid of HOPE except for perhaps himself. What good is that hope?

I'll stop now.

enjoy!

smaller

[Nang]

Why did God pick you

According to His great grace, love, wisdom, purpose, and good pleasure. (Ephesians 1:3-10)



and not your non-elect neighbor?

I have no way of knowing whether my unbelieving neighbors are reprobate or not. Do you think you know the eternal fate of your neighbors?



If God takes nothing about the man into account, what logically distinguishes you from your neighbor?

Faith . . .which I received by the grace, love, wisdom, purpose and good pleasure of God. (Ephesians 1:3-10)

Look at it this way - you have two idenical lumps of clay in front of you - you want to make a lovely pot and a common pot - how do you choose which lump for which purpose?

You are not asking "how." The "how" is easy . . .God chooses by Sovereign right.

You are trolling in an effort to challenge "why" God chooses one lump for honor and another lump for dishonor, while ignoring the Holy Scripture that clearly and seriously warns against questioning the grace, love, wisdom, purpose, and good pleasure of God. (Ephesians 1:3-20, plus Romans 9:20)

You do not impress God Almighty with your posts.

Nang

[yxboom]

You are trolling in an effort to challenge "why" God chooses one lump for honor and another lump for dishonor, while ignoring the Holy Scripture that clearly and seriously warns against questioning the grace, love, wisdom, purpose, and good pleasure of God. (Ephesians 1:3-20, plus Romans 9:20)

You do not impress God Almighty with your posts.

Nang
fear and trembling....fear and trembling!

[john-philip]

You do not impress God Almighty with your posts.

Good thing God's press secretary came to inform you of this, Seer. Apparently the non-calvinists aren't allowed to speak to Him directly.

[john-philip]

According to His great grace, love, wisdom, purpose, and good pleasure. (Ephesians 1:3-10)

So God had to choose you in order for Him to be most wise, good, pleasured, and loving? God could not have been equally wise, good, pleasured, and loving with choosing some non-elect rather than you? If your answer to these questions is 'no', then you haven't answered the OP question.

[Nang]

So God had to choose you in order for Him to be most wise, good, pleasured, and loving?

Huh?

Did I say anything close to this?


God could not have been equally wise, good, pleasured, and loving with choosing some non-elect rather than you?

:lol:

If God had chosen "some non-elect," they would be elect . . .which has nothing to do with me at all.


If your answer to these questions is 'no', then you haven't answered the OP question.

I answered the OP question, and I did so biblically.

You just don't like my answer.

That's undoubtedly a grave spiritual problem for you.

Nang

[john-philip]

Huh?

Did I say anything close to this?

No, but I did have a point behind it, which you were unwilling to consider: If God could have been equally wise, loving, and pleasured with electing some other individual than you, then what was His reason for electing you over that other individual? If God would not have been equally wise, loving, and pleasured with electing another individual then you have made your election necessary for God to be most wise, loving, and pleasured. IOW, God's state of being most wise would be contigent on your election!





I answered the OP question, and I did so biblically.

You just don't like my answer.

That's undoubtedly a grave spiritual problem for you.

Nang

Tell me, Nang, do you understand what the purpose of a theological disccusion forum is? Do you know what the difference is between a logical argument and a dogmatic assertion? What led you to the conclusion I don't like your answer? Can you give an argument showing how my response necessitates that I must not like your answer and that I have a grave spiritual problem? If not, then your statement was irrelevant and an ad hom at best, and divisive, arrogant and fallacious, at worst. If you can I'd love to hear it, though I suspect it will be more unfounded dogmatic assertion.

[yxboom]

Good thing God's press secretary came to inform you of this, Seer. Apparently the non-calvinists aren't allowed to speak to Him directly.
All of nang's posts are written on God's letterhead. if you look close enough you can make out the watermark.

[Nang]

No, but I did have a point behind it, which you were unwilling to consider:

You will find me very unwilling to debate arguments that have been put in my mouth.




If God could have been equally wise, loving, and pleasured with electing some other individual than you, then what was His reason for electing you over that other individual?

Again, I have already answered this, but you do not like my (biblical) answer.

I will say this however, in addition: God did not elect me in Jesus Christ over any other person because of any virtue or worthiness within me, or because of any effort on my part, let alone merit earned. I was totally hateful towards God, thoroughly depraved, and completely undeserving of His grace.


IOW, God's state of being most wise would be contigent on your election!

My election was contingent upon God's love, grace, wisdom, purpose and good pleasure. (Ephesians 1:3-10)



Tell me, Nang, do you understand what the purpose of a theological disccusion forum is?

I am here to witness to the absolute truth of God, according to His Holy Word, which reveals the good news of Jesus Christ. Theological enough for you?


Do you know what the difference is between a logical argument and a dogmatic assertion?

My "dogma" is Biblical; thus also logical.

Nang

[john-philip]

You will find me very unwilling to debate arguments that have been put in my mouth.

Where did I put an argument in your mouth? I simply asked a follow up question to your answer. Seeing as this is a discussion forum, I see nothing wrong with that.



Again, I have already answered this, but you do not like my (biblical) answer.

You haven't answered my question at all which is this: If God could have been equally wise, loving, and pleasured with electing some other individual than you, then what was His reason for electing you over that other individual?


I will say this however, in addition: God did not elect me in Jesus Christ over any other person because of any virtue or worthiness within me, or because of any effort on my part, let alone merit earned. I was totally hateful towards God, thoroughly depraved, and completely undeserving of His grace.

Yes, I understand all this. It's fine for answering the OP, we agree. But I'm asking you to answer my question now, which you haven't even touched.




My election was contingent upon God's love, grace, wisdom, purpose and good pleasure. (Ephesians 1:3-10)

Was God's love, grace, wisdom, purpose, and good pleasure contigent upon your election? Because this is what your argument leads to, logically. Your defense of arguing by assertion, which is logically fallacious, is tiring.



I am here to witness to the absolute truth of God, according to His Holy Word, which reveals the good news of Jesus Christ. Theological enough for you?

Doesn't seem like that's what you want to do. What you are showing me is that you want to be lazy and unthoughtful and dogmatically assert your position in defending it. You will continue to beg the question and say "it's not my position, but the Bible's" which adds to your logically fallacious arguments as well as circularly leads us back to the starting point: defending your position that this is what the Bible claims.



My "dogma" is Biblical; thus also logical.

Nang, you can assert something correct but argue it by logically fallacious means. For instance, I can give the following assertion: triangles have three sides. Let's say, then, my argument goes like this:

Squares have four sides
Triangles are not squares
Therefore, traingles have three sides.

Clearly my argument is a non sequitor, even if the conclusion is correct. If I were to merely retort to "but triangles do have three sides, so clearly you have a problem with logic" rather than reevaluating my argument, you would probably find me quit obnoxious and tiring. Because my argument then begs the question. Which is exactly what your statement does.

You have not answered my follow up question, and depending on how you do answer it, your origingal answer may not answer the OP. If all you have to respond with is "but my position is Biblical" than you have only argued by assertion, leaving your argument logically fallacious.

[john-philip]

All of nang's posts are written on God's letterhead. if you look close enough you can make out the watermark.
Well, He must have gotten your permission to watermark it, since you're a site owner. :hehe:

[seer]

According to His great grace, love, wisdom, purpose, and good pleasure. (Ephesians 1:3-10)





I have no way of knowing whether my unbelieving neighbors are reprobate or not. Do you think you know the eternal fate of your neighbors?





Faith . . .which I received by the grace, love, wisdom, purpose and good pleasure of God. (Ephesians 1:3-10)



You are not asking "how." The "how" is easy . . .God chooses by Sovereign right.

You are trolling in an effort to challenge "why" God chooses one lump for honor and another lump for dishonor, while ignoring the Holy Scripture that clearly and seriously warns against questioning the grace, love, wisdom, purpose, and good pleasure of God. (Ephesians 1:3-20, plus Romans 9:20)

You do not impress God Almighty with your posts.

Nang

You did not answer the question Nang. I asked why you and not one who is lost. What about you if different than the one who is lost? And if there is no difference then God's choice was arbitrary - God loved you by a mere flip of the coin...

[Mal-Intent]

I don't know, apparently it just might be me, but I was raised with the belief in a God who is loving and open towards all of his creation, and merciful to any who should decide to follow him.

To me, a God who creates a being with the purpose of him being damned to eternal torture is not loving or merciful at all, it is cruel and sadistic.

[yxboom]

Well, He must have gotten your permission to watermark it, since you're a site owner. :hehe:
who am I to question God?

[Colossians]

This question is easily answerable. But I'm not going to tell you the answer yet.


In the meantime (and this has nothing to do with the answer), why is it you're allowed to freely choose, but God isn't?
You can choose God or the Devil, but God only gets to choose those who choose Him? So we get more fulfilled than He does? He doesn't really have a choice, but has to eat what's put in front of Him?

But perhaps your God is someone who used to live in the USSR where you get a vote and you have to vote for the communist party, so He doesn't know any better.

[seer]

This question is easily answerable. But I'm not going to tell you the answer yet.

PLease do it now...


In the meantime (and this has nothing to do with the answer), why is it you're allowed to freely choose, but God isn't?

Love has to be freely given and received from both parties. So God is free to love the world are we are free to respond. There is no such thing as forced love.

But please stay on topic...

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

*A-man runs to get pen and parchment*

[yxboom]

In the meantime (and this has nothing to do with the answer), why is it you're allowed to freely choose, but God isn't?
You can choose God or the Devil, but God only gets to choose those who choose Him? So we get more fulfilled than He does? He doesn't really have a choice, but has to eat what's put in front of Him?
that is really sad that your view of God's love of the world is so skewed. You paint the sinner repenting and turning to God as a raw deal for God. Thank heavens God doesn't feel the same as you. Jesus made it abundantly clear that all of heaven rejoices at the repentance of every sinner. We were the ones who turned from God not vice versa.
it really is a shame your world view would lead you to fail to comprehend the beauty of 1 John 4:19.

[Kevin Wayne]

This question is easily answerable. But I'm not going to tell you the answer yet.


In the meantime (and this has nothing to do with the answer), why is it you're allowed to freely choose, but God isn't?
You can choose God or the Devil, but God only gets to choose those who choose Him? So we get more fulfilled than He does? He doesn't really have a choice, but has to eat what's put in front of Him?

But perhaps your God is someone who used to live in the USSR where you get a vote and you have to vote for the communist party, so He doesn't know any better.




:rofl:

[Nang]

You did not answer the question Nang. I asked why you and not one who is lost. What about you if different than the one who is lost? And if there is no difference then God's choice was arbitrary - God loved you by a mere flip of the coin...

How could God have chosen me by a "mere flip of the coin," when I am assured by Holy Scripture that I was (deliberately) "created in Christ Jesus?" (Ephesians 2:10b)

Was man created by a "mere flip of the coin?"

Don't think so. God had complex and immense reason and purpose behind all the depths of the creation of the universe and mankind.

Much more so did God have complex and immense reason and purpose behind creating a humanity in Christ Jesus to His glory.

Are you angry because Judas is Judas and Jesus is Jesus?

Was the difference between the two men an "arbitrary" act of God, or was the difference intensely significant, purposefully deep, and eternal in scope?

Nang

[Kevin Wayne]

How could God have chosen me by a "mere flip of the coin," when I am assured by Holy Scripture that I was (deliberately) "created in Christ Jesus?" (Ephesians 2:10b)

Was man created by a "mere flip of the coin?"

Don't think so. God had complex and immense reason and purpose behind all the depths of the creation of the universe and mankind.

Much more so did God have complex and immense reason and purpose behind creating a humanity in Christ Jesus to His glory.

Are you angry because Judas is Judas and Jesus is Jesus?

Was the difference between the two men an "arbitrary" act of God, or was the difference intensely significant, purposefully deep, and eternal in scope?

Nang



And therefore, God is "the author of evil!" ;-)

[Colossians]

x...boom,


You paint the sinner repenting and turning to God as a raw deal for God.
That you think it is a good deal for God, means you don't understand we don't deserve it. Such is the Arminian mind.


We were the ones who turned from God not vice versa.
Which all the more tells you it is not as good a deal for Him as it is for us.

[yxboom]

x...boom,


You paint the sinner repenting and turning to God as a raw deal for God.
That you think it is a good deal for God, means you don't understand we don't deserve it.

Kind of like your "questions".


Such is the Arminian mind.

how tragic.

We were the ones who turned from God not vice versa.
Which all the more tells you it is not as good a deal for Him as it is for us.
convienient you gloss over the angels rejoicing and 1 John 4:19

[seer]

Don't think so. God had complex and immense reason and purpose behind all the depths of the creation of the universe and mankind.

Sure God created because He is a creative being. It's in His blood so to speak. But again, you have avoided the question - if you have two identical lumps of clay infront of you - which one do you choose for which purpose?

[Kevin Wayne]

x...boom,


You paint the sinner repenting and turning to God as a raw deal for God.
That you think it is a good deal for God, means you don't understand we don't deserve it. Such is the Arminian mind.


We were the ones who turned from God not vice versa.
Which all the more tells you it is not as good a deal for Him as it is for us.


:lol: You are quite the king of the nonsequitur, aren't you?

[Giver]

I wonder if this will help some of you? Jesus once told me to quit trying to figure Him out. Just follow Him.

Giver

[Nang]

And therefore, God is "the author of evil!" ;-)

Did God "author" your post, or are you the "author" of your post?

I believe that God caused you to post the way you did, thereby reflecting your true nature, but I also believe that you are responsible for the words you publically author.

And you will be judged by your authorship.

The words are yours . . .not God's.

Nang

[Nang]

[i]if you have two identical lumps of clay infront of you - which one do you choose for which purpose?

Do you deny God has the right to do with His creation what He desires?

(IOW's, the moral answers you seek does not reside in the "clay", but in the plans, purposes, intents, and will of the Creator [potter].)

Nang

[Kevin Wayne]

Did God "author" your post, or are you the "author" of your post?

I believe that God caused you to post the way you did, thereby reflecting your true nature, but I also believe that you are responsible for the words you publically author.

And you will be judged by your authorship.

The words are yours . . .not God's.

Nang


:ahem:

[seer]

Do you deny God has the right to do with His creation what He desires?

(IOW's, the moral answers you seek does not reside in the "clay", but in the plans, purposes, intents, and will of the Creator [potter].)

Nang

Of course God has a right to do what He will. But no matter how unjust? But you still have not answered the question - one what basis does God plan X for lump of clay A and Y for lump of clay B?

[Nang]

Of course God has a right to do what He will. But no matter how unjust?

There! You have finally said it. You consider God to be unjust because He is Sovereign and His will be done.

The Bible plainly teaches God is omnipotent over all His creation, and that He can do what He pleases and save who He wishes, but you consider that to be unjust, and you think your idea of how and why God should save sinners is more just than God.

Audacious, to say the least.



But you still have not answered the question - one what basis does God plan X for lump of clay A and Y for lump of clay B?

On the basis that everything God does is good, just, holy and righteous.

(That is the answer you do not like and the answer you resist.)

When God chooses some vessels for honor, this is good and brings glory to His name.

When God chooses other vessels for dishonor, this is just, and brings glory to His name.

God had the right and God was right to create a humanity in Christ Jesus under Covenant to inherit the everlasting Kingdom.

God had the right and God was right to exercise justice and eliminate wicked men, sin, death and the devil; preventing all from inheriting the everlasting Kingdom.

But, who are you, to question the rightness and justice of Holy God, I ask?

Nang

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Hi Nang

Do you base your assumptions that God saves who He wants and damns who he wants on Romans 9?

[seer]

When God chooses some vessels for honor, this is good and brings glory to His name.

When God chooses other vessels for dishonor, this is just, and brings glory to His name.

Really? How does He pick which vessel for which purpose? Does He flip a coin?

[Nang]

Hi Nang

Do you base your assumptions that God saves who He wants and damns who he wants on Romans 9?

Hi Analogman,

God's sovereignty is the revelation of the entire Bible, but predestination (double) is made especially clear through Paul's teachings in Romans 9.

Nang

[john-philip]

When God chooses some vessels for honor, this is good and brings glory to His name.

When God chooses other vessels for dishonor, this is just, and brings glory to His name.

Really? How does He pick which vessel for which purpose? Does He flip a coin?
Great point, Seer. Not only has Nang not answered the question, but she has almost walked right into saying that God's reason for choosing the elect is the same reason for choosing the reprobate. If she isn't saying God chooses arbitrarily, then it seems she is saying God is confused. Either way, she still hasn't answered the question. :wink:

[Nang]

[i]

Really? How does He pick which vessel for which purpose? Does He flip a coin?

Really God chooses.

Really God chooses righteously and justly.

Really, God does not flip a coin.

You have been given a God-centered answer several times now, but apparently you are unable to receive the Godly truth, being centered upon yourself.

I will add an answer in the negative to your question, just to be thorough (and to finish this conversation) . . .

God does not choose His elect depending on foreknowledge of any good works, merits, or virtue found in sinful men and women, nor does God save according to any action (foreknown profession of faith) in men or women.

God chooses those whom He "knows" according only to the works, merits, and virtues found in His Son.

Salvation does not depend upon the creatures, at all, but only on the love and grace of the Creator.

Nang

[Nang]

Great point, Seer. Not only has Nang not answered the question,

Nang has answered the question several times.



but she has almost walked right into saying that God's reason for choosing the elect is the same reason for choosing the reprobate.

Well, congratulations. Very astute of you to notice the import on my answers.

Yes, God chooses both ways due to His sovereignty and right; being a Holy and Almighty God.

Very good.


If she isn't saying God chooses arbitrarily, then it seems she is saying God is confused. Either way, she still hasn't answered the question. :wink:

I'm not confused. I have answered.

You and Seer seem confused and unable to comprehend the truth.

Nang

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Hi Analogman,

God's sovereignty is the revelation of the entire Bible, but predestination (double) is made especially clear through Paul's teachings in Romans 9.

Nang

Thanks Nang. Maybe we'll discuss Romans 9 someday. I assure you it has nothing to do with the predestination of individuals.

[john-philip]

If you say so, Nang.

Where did I put an argument in your mouth? I simply asked a follow up question to your answer. Seeing as this is a discussion forum, I see nothing wrong with that.





You haven't answered my question at all which is this: If God could have been equally wise, loving, and pleasured with electing some other individual than you, then what was His reason for electing you over that other individual?




Yes, I understand all this. It's fine for answering the OP, we agree. But I'm asking you to answer my question now, which you haven't even touched.






Was God's love, grace, wisdom, purpose, and good pleasure contigent upon your election? Because this is what your argument leads to, logically. Your defense of arguing by assertion, which is logically fallacious, is tiring.





Doesn't seem like that's what you want to do. What you are showing me is that you want to be lazy and unthoughtful and dogmatically assert your position in defending it. You will continue to beg the question and say "it's not my position, but the Bible's" which adds to your logically fallacious arguments as well as circularly leads us back to the starting point: defending your position that this is what the Bible claims.





Nang, you can assert something correct but argue it by logically fallacious means. For instance, I can give the following assertion: triangles have three sides. Let's say, then, my argument goes like this:

Squares have four sides
Triangles are not squares
Therefore, traingles have three sides.

Clearly my argument is a non sequitor, even if the conclusion is correct. If I were to merely retort to "but triangles do have three sides, so clearly you have a problem with logic" rather than reevaluating my argument, you would probably find me quit obnoxious and tiring. Because my argument then begs the question. Which is exactly what your statement does.

You have not answered my follow up question, and depending on how you do answer it, your origingal answer may not answer the OP. If all you have to respond with is "but my position is Biblical" than you have only argued by assertion, leaving your argument logically fallacious.

[Nang]

Thanks Nang. Maybe we'll discuss Romans 9 someday. I assure you it has nothing to do with the predestination of individuals.

That will be interesting, for I believe Romans 9 most definitely does refer to individual souls.

Nang

[seer]

Really God chooses.

Really God chooses righteously and justly.

Really, God does not flip a coin.

You have been given a God-centered answer several times now, but apparently you are unable to receive the Godly truth, being centered upon yourself.

I will add an answer in the negative to your question, just to be thorough (and to finish this conversation) . . .

God does not choose His elect depending on foreknowledge of any good works, merits, or virtue found in sinful men and women, nor does God save according to any action (foreknown profession of faith) in men or women.

God chooses those whom He "knows" according only to the works, merits, and virtues found in His Son.

Salvation does not depend upon the creatures, at all, but only on the love and grace of the Creator.

Nang


Nang, you are still avoiding the question. If God does not flip a coin then on what basis does he choose one lump of clay over the other? The lumps are completely interchangeable. In other words God could have decided to choose your non-elect neighbor instead of you - nothing would prevent Him from doing so.

[mickiel]

Nang, you are still avoiding the question. If God does not flip a coin then on what basis does he choose one lump of clay over the other? The lumps are completely interchangeable. In other words God could have decided to choose your non-elect neighbor instead of you - nothing would prevent Him from doing so.




The calling of God is just a matter of time, place and his own design in the human. Each person will be called in their own order.

The reason God calls the firstfruits, first, is exactly what you see in each of them. Their exact present characther, their exact faults and flaws are what God wants in the personal pot of creation he is designing within them. The chosen of God are more-so chosen BECAUSE of their weaknesses, not their strengths. Not many wise are called, not many noble, not many strong is a sure revelation of how God, who changes not, still, and always calls people. A careful examination of those already called individuals in scripture is a sure insight into the pre-patterns of the unchangeing God. They were sinners, weak, wild, criminals, not particually smart and in fact they are foolish. The word is clear on these things.

People look for the oppisite in trying to figure God out. They think the called one is good, spiritual, righteous, or something glaringly angelic. No, God has already incerted inside the person what will combine with their human nature to re-create what God is after. So it IS NOT what we think is IN the human that bequeaths the calling of God, its what God has already incerted within, and that is the exact same thing in each human, the Holy Spirit. Be they neighbors, twins or whatever, NOTHING is different in their calling except the timing. The one called now is simply needed now to fill a position that was designed before they were born. If God wanted a 6 foot female with a temper trantrum problem, who was russian to be called in the year 2007, then that is who fits the bill. They were made that way and what God is developing them into is what we don't know, nor need to know.

[Nang]

Nang, you are still avoiding the question. If God does not flip a coin then on what basis does he choose one lump of clay over the other? The lumps are completely interchangeable. In other words God could have decided to choose your non-elect neighbor instead of you - nothing would prevent Him from doing so.

The "lumps" are not interchangeable. They are alike in that all men are created flesh, but men issue from different seed. The two kinds of seed are cursed with enmity against each other.

There is an issue from the devil, which consists of the sons of Adam conceived, born, and held in bondage to sin, death and the devil. (Genesis 3:16)

There is an issue from the Seed of woman, Jesus Christ, which consists of the sons of God, created in Him. (Genesis 3:16)

"The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one." Matthew 13:38

"That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of promise are counted as the seed." Romans 9:8

"Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ." Galatians 3:16

"And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise." Galatians 3:29

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever." I Peter 1:23

"Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God." I John 3:9

"For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:10

Nang

[Spiderman&Co.]

Let me help you out here:


1) A Calvinist posted a question for which there is no logical anwer & titled the thread "The Question The Arminian Can't Answer"

2) That person included "instructions" on how to answer the question, as if he is in a place in instruct us.

3) So this thread is the same thing, but putting the proverbial "shoe on the other foot."


Make sense...?

If you start a thread that seeks to do the same thing as another thread that is not logical, ill-tempered, and unmannered, then how is that you are any less illogical, ill-tempered, or unmannered??

In my opinion, to set up a question that is loaded with presuppositions that your opponent does not share is equally invalid regardless of your theological position.

[yxboom]

If you start a thread that seeks to do the same thing as another thread that is not logical, ill-tempered, and unmannered, then how is that you are any less illogical, ill-tempered, or unmannered??

In my opinion, to set up a question that is loaded with presuppositions that your opponent does not share is equally invalid regardless of your theological position.
two reasons come to mind.

1) to show just how absurd the original question was.
2) as a simple display of mockery

[GoBahnsen]

I only read the first page and C4Him was the only Calvinist answer I found. Hey...welcome back seer!

I love this question you pose. It is very interesting in and of itself and the way it get's answered is very revealing. All the non Calvinists were busy telling the Calvinists to not answer the question with anything other than that people must make themselves to differ.

What does that amount to or at least lead to? Exactly what grace is supposed to eliminate...boasting.

Oh I know the non Calvinist says that one cannot boast for simply reaching out and taking a gift, but they forget all that's involved in taking that gift. Everyone in their right mind would take the gift if they knew what was coming. Everyone would have got on board with Noah if they knew what was coming. Once the rain started people wanted to take the gift.

The Rich man wanted to be with Abraham and Lazarus, he wanted the gift too, but it was too late for him.

So why does one reach out and take the gift and the other does not? And you guys want to answer that it's all about man's will. God certainly can't be up to calling out a foreknown people for Himself. There is no "elect" in your Bibles. You don't understand the why of it all, so you remove "elect" "chosen" out of your Arminian/semi-Pelagian Bibles, and say that people elect themselves.

You say Calvinists can't answer your question seer (and I'm not an official Calvinist, though I agree with them on most doctrines), well so what! There are a lot of things that pertain to God that humans cannot explain. In fact, the more explainable God becomes often betrays the manipulation of Scripture to bring God down to our level of understanding.

We don't want God to have any secrets, yet the Bible says He does. Don't like it? Tuff. Paul just answered these types with this polite put down..."who are you oh man?" That's a question the non Calvinists can't answer... they are convinced that they can question the Potter and they will, nevermind the Apostolic charge to avoid questioning God's sovereignty at given points.

Asking why God chose me is natural to be sure, but looking inward to find some good thing in my flesh is looking in the wrong place. The goodness is in God and He has not told us why He chooses some and let's others go. We do know that people also choose, but we can't explain why. Why one "sees" and another remains "blind". And blind they are, for if they only knew they would get on the ark, for no man ever yet hated his own flesh.

May God continue to mercifully open the eyes of His enemies and make them friends. This has been another GoBahnsen perspective and does not relect the beliefs of all the owners or staff on Tweb :lol: .

[yxboom]

you make a fantastic attempt at answering a loaded question. bravo.

[smaller]

I don't think anyone holds it against God having ways that are past finding out and saying tuff.

I do have a problem with a man named Calvin who says that he has a lock on just what those Sovereign ways are and consist of. This is a logical fallacy on the part of Calvinism.

They teach a Sovereign God who's ways are past finding out, particularly in regards to election, yet they are the arbiters of said Sovereign God's thoughts via Mr. Calvin's doctrines,

all the while fully admitting the utter depraved frailty of Mr. Calvin who is fully deserving of frying alive forever save by Mr. Calvins extraction of himself from said fate.

I smell a rat burning. Sorry.

go figure.

In my world they call these types of presentations "conflicts of interest" and those acts are punishable in my world by jail time.

enjoy!

smaller

[Kevin Wayne]

two reasons come to mind.

1) to show just how absurd the original question was.
2) as a simple display of mockery


Works for me.

[Kevin Wayne]

What does that amount to or at least lead to? Exactly what grace is supposed to eliminate...boasting.

Oh I know the non Calvinist says that one cannot boast for simply reaching out and taking a gift, but they forget all that's involved in taking that gift. Everyone in their right mind would take the gift if they knew what was coming. Everyone would have got on board with Noah if they knew what was coming. Once the rain started people wanted to take the gift.

Asking why God chose me is natural to be sure, but looking inward to find some good thing in my flesh is looking in the wrong place. The goodness is in God and He has not told us why He chooses some and let's others go. We do know that people also choose, but we can't explain why. Why one "sees" and another remains "blind". And blind they are, for if they only knew they would get on the ark, for no man ever yet hated his own flesh.




So does true humility come from being in the presence of God, or from your acquiescence to a particular set of Theological constructs?

[john-philip]

What is the loaded premise in the OP question?


Why did God pick you and not your non-elect neighbor? If God takes nothing about the man into account, what logically distinguishes you from your neighbor? Look at it this way - you have two idenical lumps of clay in front of you - you want to make a lovely pot and a common pot - how do you choose which lump for which purpose?

[Nitsuard]

An Omnipotent GOD has no problem with such matters. He prepared the Lamb's Book of Life from before he foundation of the World, and it contained each and every name of those individuals whom HE intended to 'save' as HIS children for Eternity. (perhaps now you know just what 'omnipotent' means).

[Kevin Wayne]

An Omnipotent GOD has no problem with such matters. He prepared the Lamb's Book of Life from before he foundation of the World, and it contained each and every name of those individuals whom HE intended to 'save' as HIS children for Eternity. (perhaps now you know just what 'omnipotent' means).


And if we persevere, we won't get erased from it....

[Spiderman&Co.]

Quote: Originally posted by Spiderman&Co.

If you start a thread that seeks to do the same thing as another thread that is not logical, ill-tempered, and unmannered, then how is that you are any less illogical, ill-tempered, or unmannered??

In my opinion, to set up a question that is loaded with presuppositions that your opponent does not share is equally invalid regardless of your theological position.

two reasons come to mind.

1) to show just how absurd the original question was.
2) as a simple display of mockery

Sorry...i didn't mean to interupt the free-flow of garbage being thrown from all sides!!!

[yxboom]

Quote: Originally posted by Spiderman&Co.

If you start a thread that seeks to do the same thing as another thread that is not logical, ill-tempered, and unmannered, then how is that you are any less illogical, ill-tempered, or unmannered??

In my opinion, to set up a question that is loaded with presuppositions that your opponent does not share is equally invalid regardless of your theological position.



Sorry...i didn't mean to interupt the free-flow of garbage being thrown from all sides!!!
have you read the threads? while the intent of the author was ridiculous. i fail to see "free-flow of garbage being thrown", when in fact there was some very eloquent responses in spite of the author's absurdity.

[Spiderman&Co.]

have you read the threads? while the intent of the author was ridiculous. i fail to see "free-flow of garbage being thrown", when in fact there was some very eloquent responses in spite of the author's absurdity.

Yes. I have read this thread as well as the sister thread - A Question No Arminian Can Answer. I just see very little real discussion and a great deal of sarcasm and satire. That's what I mean by "free-flow of garbage."

What does all this do for us??? Does it advance the intellectual discussion? Encourage the stimulation of new ideas? What do you think yxboom? You are a deep thinker and active participant on these boards.

[yxboom]

Yes. I have read this thread as well as the sister thread - A Question No Arminian Can Answer. I just see very little real discussion and a great deal of sarcasm and satire. That's what I mean by "free-flow of garbage."
i realize that.


What does all this do for us???
something to do on our offtime?

Does it advance the intellectual discussion? Encourage the stimulation of new ideas? What do you think yxboom? You are a deep thinker and active participant on these boards.
I see posts like GoB that sincerely attempt to answer the authors question and I see (more in the original than this thread) some very intellectual answers from micah4, kevin wayne, john-philip among a few others. As well as appropriate responses to alert those who may not be familiar with such arguments of the fallacious attempts of the author to score debate points underhandedly from Xavier and Sheepdog for instance. and of course there are my responses which really serve no other purpose than to allow me the freedom to speak.

[Spiderman&Co.]

something to do on our offtime?


Speaking of offtime...it comes to mind that we have yet to get together for dinner...i seem to recall an open ended invitation to your place for dinner....

[yxboom]

Speaking of offtime...it comes to mind that we have yet to get together for dinner...i seem to recall an open ended invitation to your place for dinner....
aye. it is still open although geebob has since relocated so it would be a bit difficult to coordinate with him. speaking of which i was in your neck of the woods this past few days looking for a vehicle.

[GoBahnsen]

So does true humility come from being in the presence of God, or from your acquiescence to a particular set of Theological constructs?I would say that true humility is a fruit of the Holy Spirit at work in a heart. He won't do that in a vacuum, so true theological constructs play their part.

But, I'm a little at a loss as to why you ask this question in response to my last post.

BTW, your' being a non Calvinist of some kind (and I being Reformed of some kind) shouldn't cause you to make the mistake of thinking that Calvinists don't believe that people must choose Christ or be lost.

Talk to you later Kevin.

[Gabby]

The idea that God chooses who He will call, at least for me, seems to come with the idea that the choosing is done in some arbitrary way, or without emotion. It was just done as way for God to fulfill His own purposes. But as someone has pointed out God is the first lover, we love because he first loved us. 1John 4:19

Why did God choose to love some and not others? Also if one of God's choosen follows the proverb To train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it, is that parent affecting God's choice of electing that child or is the choice of God still arbitrary? If it is arbitrary, what's the point of the training, if it's not then.....

just wondering,
chris

[Kevin Wayne]

I would say that true humility is a fruit of the Holy Spirit at work in a heart. He won't do that in a vacuum, so true theological constructs play their part.

But, I'm a little at a loss as to why you ask this question in response to my last post.

BTW, your' being a non Calvinist of some kind (and I being Reformed of some kind) shouldn't cause you to make the mistake of thinking that Calvinists don't believe that people must choose Christ or be lost.

Talk to you later Kevin.



I asked you that questiion because in your post you used the oft-repeated saw that tries to tie belief in synergism with a lack of humility. Glad you admitted it's down to having a relationship with God, not so much what church we go to. I don't see any serious humility on the part of most Calvinists, and the ones that do show it often beg off arguing or even stop being Calvinists. Sorry, but that's what I've observed.

[yxboom]

BTW, your' being a non Calvinist of some kind (and I being Reformed of some kind) shouldn't cause you to make the mistake of thinking that Calvinists don't believe that people must choose Christ or be lost.
the intellectual honesty of GoB is evidenced here contrasted against nang who refused to discuss (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1188822&postcount=154) any further with xmm because of her use of the word "choose" when addressing nang's testimony.

[john-philip]

Quote: Originally posted by Spiderman&Co.

If you start a thread that seeks to do the same thing as another thread that is not logical, ill-tempered, and unmannered, then how is that you are any less illogical, ill-tempered, or unmannered??

In my opinion, to set up a question that is loaded with presuppositions that your opponent does not share is equally invalid regardless of your theological position.



Sorry...i didn't mean to interupt the free-flow of garbage being thrown from all sides!!!


The thing is, I don't see how Seer loaded a premise into his question that the calvinist wouldn't accept. I'm not trying to be hypocritical here, honestly, but no one has even pointed out where they even think an unacceptable premise might be loaded into the question.

[Ormly]

tioy

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Why did God pick you and not your non-elect neighbor?My understanding, be it ever so simple minded and feeble, is that Calvinists have always said we don't know the answer to that, since, as Augustine put it, His will is inscrutible.

If a Calvinist said he COULD answer it, I'd be concerned. Where would he have gotten such info?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The thing is, I don't see how Seer loaded a premise into his question that the calvinist wouldn't accept. I'm not trying to be hypocritical here, honestly, but no one has even pointed out where they even think an unacceptable premise might be loaded into the question.You're quite right. We Calvinists find the question entirely unobjectionable. Unanswerable in my view (other than what I said above), but unobjectionable nonetheless.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

My understanding, be it ever so simple minded and feeble, is that Calvinists have always said we don't know the answer to that, since, as Augustine put it, His will is inscrutible.

Finally. Thanks for the honest answer.

Regards.

[john-philip]

My understanding, be it ever so simple minded and feeble, is that Calvinists have always said we don't know the answer to that, since, as Augustine put it, His will is inscrutible.

If a Calvinist said he COULD answer it, I'd be concerned. Where would he have gotten such info?

I get concerned when calvinists try to answer the question, also. If they say that God's decision to elect P over Q was made based on the fact that He is wise, loving, and holy, then they have made God's state of being most wise, loving, and holy contingent upon electing P over Q - unless they try to grant that God could be equally wise, loving, and holy electing Q instead of P, in which case, the question has not been answered. I hoped Nang could see this and realize a simple "I don't know" would have sufficed, rather then holding to a position that makes her election a necessary condition for God's state of being most wise, loving, and holy.

BTW, I would see no reason to object to an "I don't know" answer. I don't think it hurts the calvinist's position whatsoever.

[GoBahnsen]

I get concerned when calvinists try to answer the question, also. If they say that God's decision to elect P over Q was made based on the fact that He is wise, loving, and holy, then they have made God's state of being most wise, loving, and holy contingent upon electing P over Q - unless they try to grant that God could be equally wise, loving, and holy electing Q instead of P, in which case, the question has not been answered. I hoped Nang could see this and realize a simple "I don't know" would have sufficed, rather then holding to a position that makes her election a necessary condition for God's state of being most wise, loving, and holy.

BTW, I would see no reason to object to an "I don't know" answer. I don't think it hurts the calvinist's position whatsoever.

One thing I would bring up is the Romans 9 perspective again. There you have the Apostle informing his potential antagonist, that God is a sovereign Potter and He really does make vessels according to His good pleasure.

So you have a John the Baptist popping out into this world filled with the Spirit from the womb. He is a creation of God out of the same lump of clay that Pilate was formed from. And neither can argue back at the Potter and say "why have You made me like this?" They can ask the question, but they can't argue with God. God has formed what He has formed...end of story.

[Chappie]

I get concerned when calvinists try to answer the question, also. If they say that God's decision to elect P over Q was made based on the fact that He is wise, loving, and holy, then they have made God's state of being most wise, loving, and holy contingent upon electing P over Q - unless they try to grant that God could be equally wise, loving, and holy electing Q instead of P, in which case, the question has not been answered. I hoped Nang could see this and realize a simple "I don't know" would have sufficed, rather then holding to a position that makes her election a necessary condition for God's state of being most wise, loving, and holy.

BTW, I would see no reason to object to an "I don't know" answer. I don't think it hurts the calvinist's position whatsoever.

Holy cow!! John-Phillip, I did not know that you were a calvnist.. :eek:

[Chappie]

One thing I would bring up is the Romans 9 perspective again. There you have the Apostle informing his potential antagonist, that God is a sovereign Potter and He really does make vessels according to His good pleasure.

So you have a John the Baptist popping out into this world filled with the Spirit from the womb. He is a creation of God out of the same lump of clay that Pilate was formed from. And neither can argue back at the Potter and say "why have You made me like this?" They can ask the question, but they can't argue with God. God has formed what He has formed...end of story.

This is a never ending story.. The problem is not that God has formed what he has formed, end of story: The problem is that you say that he formed stuff that he says that he did not form the way that you said he formed it. :whack:

[GoBahnsen]

This is a never ending story.. The problem is not that God has formed what he has formed, end of story: The problem is that you say that he formed stuff that he says that he did not form the way that you said he formed it. :whack:Sorry Chappie, but in your view we should have seen things in the Bible like "...and John the Baptist turned from God and declared that Jesus was not the way, therefore Jehovah was taken a back and began to search for a new fore-runner, in order that He might have one."

And while we do find believers sinning, terribly at times, God never loses one of His own. The people wanted a king. God gave them one of their own in Saul. After that lesson to them, God gave them His own in David. One was a vessel of wrath, fitted for destruction (I assume, but can't say for sure), the other...a vessel of mercy, though David sinned badly at times.

That's the way I see it.

[Gabby]

I don't understand how you can know if you are a vessel of common use or honourable use or a vessel made to demonstrate God's wrath? How is it possible. A person could be going along in his life trying his best to honour God and then wham here comes God's wrath and destruction. It could happen to anyone, believer, unbeliever, Calvinist, Arminean (sp?), your children, my children, ect. He calls whom he calls. and know one can know what his use it to be until after his usefulness is used up. Yes? No?

chris

[smaller]

I don't understand how you can know if you are a vessel of common use or honourable use or a vessel made to demonstrate God's wrath? How is it possible. A person could be going along in his life trying his best to honour God and then wham here comes God's wrath and destruction. It could happen to anyone, believer, unbeliever, Calvinist, Arminean (sp?), your children, my children, ect. He calls whom he calls. and know one can know what his use it to be until after his usefulness is used up. Yes? No?

chris

The frailty of both Calvin and Arminian positions regarding "election" is that they BOTH want to affirm that they personally are ONLY A VESSEL of HONOR because they 'believe.' They also BOTH deny that in their respective LUMPS that they also have a VESSEL OF DESTRUCTION.

Both of these vessels are in the same LUMP. One cannot extract themselves as only a vessel of honor when their deeds clearly show a vessel of destruction is ALSO PRESENT.

On the basis of the existence of a vessel of destruction within each lump of mankind God can indeed wreak RANDOM HAVOC AT HIS WILL unto those VESSELS and those vessels are in every person.

Death is God's servant, separating those vessels of destruction from the vessels of honor and in this THERE IS NO LOSS.

The vessels of destruction are accumulating here, attaching themselves to the next available lump of clay and awaiting their final judgment via first separation, and then destruction via God's fire and flood.

Many are beginning to see this separation and are speaking and writing of it, and this revealing of the man of sin in our temples, our bodies, is the precursor for what is about to come.

Be ready.

[Chappie]

Sorry Chappie, but in your view we should have seen things in the Bible like "...and John the Baptist turned from God and declared that Jesus was not the way, therefore Jehovah was taken a back and began to search for a new fore-runner, in order that He might have one."

And while we do find believers sinning, terribly at times, God never loses one of His own. The people wanted a king. God gave them one of their own in Saul. After that lesson to them, God gave them His own in David. One was a vessel of wrath, fitted for destruction (I assume, but can't say for sure), the other...a vessel of mercy, though David sinned badly at times.

That's the way I see it.

The problem arrises when the fact that you believed that God predestined their desires for a king, which should conclude that they had no desired other than what God desired in the first place. God engineered the whole thing. So, what lesson was taught? How to do the jingle when God pulled the string..

[GoBahnsen]

I don't understand how you can know if you are a vessel of common use or honourable use or a vessel made to demonstrate God's wrath? How is it possible. A person could be going along in his life trying his best to honour God and then wham here comes God's wrath and destruction. It could happen to anyone, believer, unbeliever, Calvinist, Arminean (sp?), your children, my children, ect. He calls whom he calls. and know one can know what his use it to be until after his usefulness is used up. Yes? No?

chrisAhhh, but the people of God are commanded by Apostolic authority to "make your calling and election sure..." (Peter).

I understand your question. At times I am so unimpressed with myself that I can't hardly believe that I'm a believer. At times I fear. But that fear drives me to Christ, not harlots. "Foul! Right to the fountain fly...wash me Savior or I die."

So we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, yet all the while hanging onto "for it is God who is at work in you both to do and to will according to His good pleasure."

You say if we can't we can't know, because God has the final say, then how do we know we are His? All I can say is...just keep clingng to Jesus. Believe that God is good because He says He is. Believe God. He says He will be merciful, then let us believe Him. We aren't to be about trying to peek into the Lamb's book of life. That has been hidden from our eyes for this pilgrim journey of faith and those who try to break into that book, are not being faithful servants of the Most High.

Sort of like a butler who goes around looking in his master's drawers to find out if he is in the will. Bad butler. His Master knows him and so let him be faithful in service and believe in the goodness of his Master.

So...to answer your question: the Christian who fears that he might be serving God in vain, is like that servant who hid his talent in the napkin and brought it forth with no gain. The Master was displeased with that servant who questioned His own goodness.

We assure our hearts by our continued perseverence in the faith, however pathetic we may think it to be at times. We have no place else to go...He alone has the words of eternal life. Let us believe God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent.

Love, GB

[Gabby]

Ahhh, but the people of God are commanded by Apostolic authority to "make your calling and election sure..." (Peter).

I understand your question. At times I am so unimpressed with myself that I can't hardly believe that I'm a believer. At times I fear. But that fear drives me to Christ, not harlots. "Foul! Right to the fountain fly...wash me Savior or I die."

So we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, yet all the while hanging onto "for it is God who is at work in you both to do and to will according to His good pleasure."

You say if we can't we can't know, because God has the final say, then how do we know we are His? All I can say is...just keep clingng to Jesus. Believe that God is good because He says He is. Believe God. He says He will be merciful, then let us believe Him. We aren't to be about trying to peek into the Lamb's book of life. That has been hidden from our eyes for this pilgrim journey of faith and those who try to break into that book, are not being faithful servants of the Most High.

Sort of like a butler who goes around looking in his master's drawers to find out if he is in the will. Bad butler. His Master knows him and so let him be faithful in service and believe in the goodness of his Master.

So...to answer your question: the Christian who fears that he might be serving God in vain, is like that servant who hid his talent in the napkin and brought it forth with no gain. The Master was displeased with that servant who questioned His own goodness.

We assure our hearts by our continued perseverence in the faith, however pathetic we may think it to be at times. We have no place else to go...He alone has the words of eternal life. Let us believe God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent.

Love, GB


Yes, I agree, that's all we can do. Flee to Him and cling to Him.

[GoBahnsen]

The problem arrises when the fact that you believed that God predestined their desires for a king, which should conclude that they had no desired other than what God desired in the first place. God engineered the whole thing. So, what lesson was taught? How to do the jingle when God pulled the string..Ok...so you want me to erase the word predestined out of my Bible? Here's the thing, God is God and sometimes people don't like that very much.

Let God back off and let us play god and that's what our evil hearts really want. Let Him limit Himself...give us some determining power for ourselves and we won't find fault with Him.

Satan approached Eve with similar bait. "This God is too controlling Eve. You need to step out and show Him that you can be like Him. He's holding out on you and you can't believe Him. He's afraid you'll discover how to be like Him and He doesn't want any competition...so be bold Eve and eat. A loving God couldn't be too upset with your assertiveness...so go for it babe!"

Edit in: You know Chappie, you're a minister of the Gospel of Christ, right? Do you tell your flock to trust Christ alone for salvation? Do you warn them to not trust their own righteousness but rather to be clothed upon by Christ's righteousness? To be found in Him, not having a righteousness of their own through law keeping?

If so, then I'm glad for your people who you under-shepherd. Do you tell them to trust their own wills? Do you tell them that their own will is the only thing God cannot overcome? If so, you're a poor teacher, but nevertheless...I rejoice that you preach Christ, though weakly...not giving the full counsel of God to them.

[Chappie]

Ok...so you want me to erase the word predestined out of my Bible? Here's the thing, God is God and sometimes people don't like that very much.

Naaah. That would be as dishonest as persisting in using it out of context.

Let God back off and let us play god and that's what our evil hearts really want. Let Him limit Himself...give us some determining power for ourselves and we won't find fault with Him.

I find no fault with God, just with calvinism.

Satan approached Eve with similar bait. "This God is too controlling Eve. You need to step out and show Him that you can be like Him. He's holding out on you and you can't believe Him. He's afraid you'll discover how to be like Him and He doesn't want any competition...so be bold Eve and eat. A loving God couldn't be too upset with your assertiveness...so go for it babe!"

Even if that is true, it does not give you leave to formulate false doctrine. You say that God designed and causes all the evil in the world, does he really want me to try and be like him? Does he really eschew evil?

Edit in: You know Chappie, you're a minister of the Gospel of Christ, right? Do you tell your flock to trust Christ alone for salvation? Do you warn them to not trust their own righteousness but rather to be clothed upon by Christ's righteousness? To be found in Him, not having a righteousness of their own through law keeping?

I teach them to trust Christ and Christ alone for their salvation. If he says repent, trust him. Do as he has commanded. I teach that Christ said: "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink". {John 7:37} You teach that he lied, he only meant some men. I teach that that which God calls men to do, he will provide the means for us to do it.

If so, then I'm glad for your people who you under-shepherd. Do you tell them to trust their own wills? Do you tell them that their own will is the only thing God cannot overcome? If so, you're a poor teacher, but nevertheless...I rejoice that you preach Christ, though weakly...not giving the full counsel of God to them.

I tell them to trust the bible before men like Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards and the likes get their hands on it.

I am a poor teacher, but i am not deliberately deceptive as your theology calls on you to be.

Then you rejoice that I preach Christ and Christ crucified, and not Christ crucified and then modified. I rejoice in every opportunity I get to expose false teachings. Reformed theology has provided me with enough material to rejoice in refuting for a life time...

Goba. A warning.. You do not worship God, you worship the lie that men told you about God... :pray:

Be well, and may God bless..

[john-philip]

Holy cow!! John-Phillip, I did not know that you were a calvnist.. :eek:

:huh:

Chappie, I'm confused. How did you get that I was a Calvinist out of that? :eh: (I'm not)

[Spiderman&Co.]

The thing is, I don't see how Seer loaded a premise into his question that the calvinist wouldn't accept. I'm not trying to be hypocritical here, honestly, but no one has even pointed out where they even think an unacceptable premise might be loaded into the question.

The hidden premise is that we can understand what the reason is that motivates God's election. Or perhaps also that there is a "reason" in the human sense of this term. A Calvinist (which I would consider myself one...though of a strange variety!) would not accept the premise that we can know God's reason for election. Hence, the question, "Why did God pick you and not your non-elect neighbor?" is loaded.

I consider this question of the same variety as the sister thread which asked the Arminian on what basis they made a decision for Christ as opposed to your unsaved neighbor. Both, in my opinion, are of the "When did you stop beating your wife" variety. And I expressed this on the other thread, as well.

But these two threads are so profound because they reveal that we will never gain any ground in the discussion if we don't re-examine some of our own fundamental philosophical assumptions.


Here is the OP:

Why did God pick you and not your non-elect neighbor? If God takes nothing about the man into account, what logically distinguishes you from your neighbor? Look at it this way - you have two idenical lumps of clay in front of you - you want to make a lovely pot and a common pot - how do you choose which lump for which purpose?

[Chappie]

:huh:

Chappie, I'm confused. How did you get that I was a Calvinist out of that? :eh: (I'm not)

John-Phillip:
I had to go back to your previous two posts to find where my confusion came from. You have my most profound apologies for my statement... :bonk: For my mistake..

[john-philip]

One thing I would bring up is the Romans 9 perspective again. There you have the Apostle informing his potential antagonist, that God is a sovereign Potter and He really does make vessels according to His good pleasure.

So you have a John the Baptist popping out into this world filled with the Spirit from the womb. He is a creation of God out of the same lump of clay that Pilate was formed from. And neither can argue back at the Potter and say "why have You made me like this?" They can ask the question, but they can't argue with God. God has formed what He has formed...end of story.

I'm not sure if you think helps you in answering the question or not. Anyway, my point was to say that God elected Person P over Q because He is most wise, loving, and holy (presumably you would want to say that God is most wise, loving, and holy) is to say that God's state of being most wise, loving, and holy is contigent upon person P's, (who in this case we can say is GoB :wink:) election, which entails that it was logically impossible for God to be most wise, loving, and holy without electing you, GoB. That's an awful lot riding on your election.

If you agree that God would be most wise, loving, and holy by electing someone else rather than you, than you are not giving a reason for God's electing of you and not someone else.

It's the same thing with answering that God elected you according to His good pleasure. If you are saying that God is most pleased with your election, then God being most pleased is contigent upon your election and it is logically impossible for Him to be equally pleased without electing you.

[john-philip]

John-Phillip:
I had to go back to your previous two posts to find where my confusion came from. You have my most profound apologies for my statement... :bonk: For my mistake..

It may take a while, but I'll try to forgive you for making such a statement....






:hehe: :wink:

[john-philip]

The hidden premise is that we can understand what the reason is that motivates God's election. Or perhaps also that there is a "reason" in the human sense of this term. A Calvinist (which I would consider myself one...though of a strange variety!) would not accept the premise that we can know God's reason for election. Hence, the question, "Why did God pick you and not your non-elect neighbor?" is loaded.

I consider this question of the same variety as the sister thread which asked the Arminian on what basis they made a decision for Christ as opposed to your unsaved neighbor. Both, in my opinion, are of the "When did you stop beating your wife" variety. And I expressed this on the other thread, as well.

But these two threads are so profound because they reveal that we will never gain any ground in the discussion if we don't re-examine some of our own fundamental philosophical assumptions.


Here is the OP:




Hi SM&Co,

Thanks for the insight. To be sure, you are saying that the calvinist believes that it is impossible for us to know why God elected one over another, correct?

And if so, apperantly, then, some of the calvinists in this thread don't realize they share such a premise. :wink:

[ShannonM]

Why did God pick you and not your non-elect neighbor? If God takes nothing about the man into account, what logically distinguishes you from your neighbor? Look at it this way - you have two idenical lumps of clay in front of you - you want to make a lovely pot and a common pot - how do you choose which lump for which purpose?

Did you ever read John Piper's distinction between mercy and grace?

[Spiderman&Co.]

Hi SM&Co,

Thanks for the insight. To be sure, you are saying that the calvinist believes that it is impossible for us to know why God elected one over another, correct?

And if so, apperantly, then, some of the calvinists in this thread don't realize they share such a premise. :wink:

No. The Calvinist does not believe it is impossible to know God's reason for election. They simply assert that the reason has not been revealed and that since it is not revealed it may be beyond our ability to understand or comprehend.

That's my take!

[john-philip]

No. The Calvinist does not believe it is impossible to know God's reason for election. They simply assert that the reason has not been revealed and that since it is not revealed it may be beyond our ability to understand or comprehend.

That's my take!

Well, in that case, I don't really think the epistemological state of the one being asked the question is being presumed by the one asking the question. IOW, I don't presume that one knows the answer when I ask someone something, so I'm not "loading" that premise into the question. For example, if I ask a child why the sky is blue, it is not a loaded question, even though the child probably does not know. The child just has to say "I don't know" and leave it at that.

I don't know if you'll find anyone who is willing to broaden the scope of the loaded question fallacy to include presuming that the one being questioned knows the answer, and even if you can, you'd have to show that that's what is going on here. It may just be that the one asking the question does not presume that the one he is asking knows the answers. In fact, you generally would call such a person presumptous :wink:

[Spiderman&Co.]

Well, in that case, I don't really think the epistemological state of the one being asked the question is being presumed by the one asking the question. IOW, I don't presume that one knows the answer when I ask someone something, so I'm not "loading" that premise into the question. For example, if I ask a child why the sky is blue, it is not a loaded question, even though the child probably does not know. The child just has to say "I don't know" and leave it at that.

I don't know if you'll find anyone who is willing to broaden the scope of the loaded question fallacy to include presuming that the one being questioned knows the answer, and even if you can, you'd have to show that that's what is going on here. It may just be that the one asking the question does not presume that the one he is asking knows the answers. In fact, you generally would call such a person presumptous :wink:

LOL! Actually that very thing was done!! Re-read the first page of this thread....it was clarified that the implication of the OP was to exclude any appeal to mystery! This was a "non-answer." Hence, to return to your above example, the child is not allowed to say he does not know why the sky is blue.

Have a good weekend! I will soon be offline and getting some much needed R&R!


dont forget to put in the stipulation:

In your attempted answer, try to avoid a question which begs an equivalent question. For example, avoid answers like "God's sovereign will". (This is simply to beg the question "Why did God's sovereign will decide to pick you and not your non-elect neighbor?)

And if you say "it was done according to his secret will and his good pleasure", we'll call that a non-answer and re-state the original question to you again. ;-)

[ShannonM]

It's the same thing with answering that God elected you according to His good pleasure. If you are saying that God is most pleased with your election, then God being most pleased is contigent upon your election and it is logically impossible for Him to be equally pleased without electing you.

What?

No no no - this is not it at all. The "then" in your statement is not even slightly contingent upon the "if."

I believe God is pleased with my election...because of what He has chosen to do, not because of anything I did. I can also believe that He would be equally pleased in not electing me. He is pleased by His purposes, and those alone, whatever they may be.

It truly, truly isn't contingent upon me, or His election of me. God forbid.

By the way, any Calvinist worth his salt knows he has absolutely nothing to brag about, ever, in this life or the next.