Did God make robots?

[themuzicman]

Taken from the inclusivist/exclusivist, our local "I'm not a Calvinist" theologian said:

Love is involved. I'm not a Calvinist by name and I think that some of them are too wooden when it comes to love and relationship. Just some of them, not the majority.

The thing is, we love BECAUSE He first loved us. And part of the demonstration of that love is the exercising of power. In your view, I think, the love is shown in the cross (I see that love too), but then it just get's left there.

In my view, not only is the love seen in the Cross, but the power that raised Christ from the dead and that power also raises the spiritually dead elect, to new life, thus they believe the Gospel. So yes, I do revel in God's demonstration of His love in Christ, but I respond according to His power which works in me both to will and to do according to His good pleasure.

I think you think too much in terms of human relationships. If a guy wants a girl for a wife he must win her heart. He has no real power like that of God's Spirit power, to bring her to see that he is right for her and then hope she chooses him. That's all creature to creature stuff.

God is a Creator. His love works with power to give new life to the dead, thus these love Him for that. I really think I'm hitting a nail on the head when I say, you and those like you, think of God too much like He is a fellow creature looking for love. He is not looking for love, He is love and He gives love first. If the Almighty sets His affection on you before the world begins, you will come to know it and you will be saved by it.

You on the other hand have God "finding out" who the cooperators will be, and then He responds accordingly. Creating the whole world in arrangement to accommodate these creatures who have made themselves qualified by their intrinsic cooperative spirit which they "willed" into existence. God then becomes the great cosmic responder to all these types. But God didn't make them that way in your view.

In reformed theology, these future cooperators are such by God's doing and THAT is what you will not have. It smacks of robot. And I have been thinking about this more and you're going to hate this, but I'll take a chance.

In a sense, all creatures are robots of some kind. Man made robots are crude and have no souls. Insects are robots to the max. Spiders robotically spin webs from the computer chip that God placed in them. We watch them spin and we give God the glory for His marvelous robot, the spider.

Animals are more complex robots and even possess emotion on some level. Humans are the ultimate robots, made in God's image. They are not like metal robots, but robots with spirits and souls, whatever those are. They come into this world evil. They fight against their maker by nature.

Some of these robots get cured, others are left defective, fit for destruction.
Don't like it? Tough. Oh...and these robots that get cured, they can love too, they are God's highest order of earthly creation. Robots with soul and spirit. Amazing creatures indeed. And God receives glory unto Himself through them and takes pleasure in having relationship with them. Oh great mystery of mysteries.

But what you want, I think, is that man be a god himself. And the big creator God, seeks relationship with these little creator gods. As if these have always existed and have something God wants from them, if only He can get it. They are autonomous and can give God something of value to God, because what they possess they created, in your view...this is what I think.

Do you see it? You have said God knew what you would pray billions of years ago and that mattered to God. You see right there, you set yourself up as a little eternal god who actually moves the hand of the big God. You, seer, created a thought or idea apart from God and God responds to it. You are a god. You are something outside of God. God wants in. God wants your love. You've got what God is after.

This is all so off base. God is the Creator of all things and the creature has nothing but what he has received from God. You give God nothing, but that which He has given you to give back to Him. You are not autonomous. You are a robot at some level. And creatures don't like to hear that. The Mormons really gave it the cure and express the true nature of the sinful creature, who wants to be a god himself. Having qualities, self created, that God then seeks to obtain for Himself. Can you see it?

This is a good post if I do so say myself. I wish some mod or admin would give a POTD. I haven't had a POTD in agesp


So, how so the real Calvinists feel about this view?

Michael

[GoBahnsen]

Taken from the inclusivist/exclusivist, our local "I'm not a Calvinist" theologian said:




So, how so the real Calvinists feel about this view?

MichaelNice one muz. I suppose some "real calvinists" won't like the robot thing, but if you look at how I qualified the robot remarks, it should hardly be offensive. All I'm saying is that we are creatures, not little gods. Sorry to offend any Mormons.

[themuzicman]

Nice try at backpeddling, but your words are here for all to read, especially:

In a sense, all creatures are robots of some kind. Man made robots are crude and have no souls. Insects are robots to the max. Spiders robotically spin webs from the computer chip that God placed in them. We watch them spin and we give God the glory for His marvelous robot, the spider.

Animals are more complex robots and even possess emotion on some level. Humans are the ultimate robots, made in God's image. They are not like metal robots, but robots with spirits and souls, whatever those are. They come into this world evil. They fight against their maker by nature.

You just said that animals are nothing more than complex robots, and man is nothing more than the most complex animal/robot of all, who happen to have souls and spirits.

I do find it interesting that you describe man as ontologically evil. Was Adam created ontologically evil, or was his created nature altered in some way?

If altered, who has the power to be able to alter man's ontological, created human nature to be evil?

Michael

[GoBahnsen]

Nice try at backpeddling, but your words are here for all to read, especially:



You just said that animals are nothing more than complex robots, and man is nothing more than the most complex animal/robot of all, who happen to have souls and spirits.

I do find it interesting that you describe man as ontologically evil. Was Adam created ontologically evil, or was his created nature altered in some way?

If altered, who has the power to be able to alter man's ontological, created human nature to be evil?

MichaelI'm not back-peddling at all. I asked for the post to be shouted from the roof-top of POTD. ( BTW, who's gonna do that for me? I once did my own and received 5 pearls, but I promised not to do that again.)

Yes man is evil. The heart of man is evil and desperately wicked, who can know it Michael? What's a robot made in God's image with soul and spirit? Man. Is man programed? To some degree...I would say yes. Paul describes it in Romans 7. He can't understand why he does evil when he wants to do good. What do you think man is, some totally free autonomous little creator god?

[yxboom]

what say ye about

Was Adam created ontologically evil, or was his created nature altered in some way?

If altered, who has the power to be able to alter man's ontological, created human nature to be evil?

[themuzicman]

I'm not back-peddling at all. I asked for the post to be shouted from the roof-top of POTD. ( BTW, who's gonna do that for me? I once did my own and received 5 pearls, but I promised not to do that again.)

I don't think you're going to find any love from either side on this one.

Yes man is evil.

You didn't answer my last two questions about that.

The heart of man is evil and desperately wicked, who can know it Michael? What's a robot made in God's image with soul and spirit? Man. Is man programed? To some degree...I would say yes.

MORE backpeddling. Is man a robot or not? First you say he is, then you say, "to some degree". What degree?

Paul describes it in Romans 7. He can't understand why he does evil when he wants to do good. What do you think man is, some totally free autonomous little creator god?

Did I ever make that claim? Just because you've chosen to run to one extreme doesn't mean that I've run to the opposite one.

Michael

[Xmansmommy]

If we're robots and we're made in God's image does that make God like, the Ultimate Optimus Prime? :hehe:

[yxboom]

If we're robots and we're made in God's image does that make God like, the Ultimate Optimus Prime? :hehe:
then who would be Unicron?

[Xmansmommy]

I'll have to ask Xman. :shifty: I don't watch Transformers. :whistle:

[Nang]

Taken from the inclusivist/exclusivist, our local "I'm not a Calvinist" theologian said:




So, how so the real Calvinists feel about this view?

Michael

I thought GoBahnsens's post was most excellent and full of the truth.

He uses the term "robot" in the sense of all humans being subject to God's Sovereignty and control, and anyone who denies such subjection is fooling themselves.

God rules. God is King, and all humanity is at His beck and call, to produce Godly good.

Right on, GB! If I had some power around here, I would rec your post to the Dean's list today! God's reward for your bravery will be much better, tho.

Nang

[seer]

I thought GoBahnsens's post was most excellent and full of the truth.

He uses the term "robot" in the sense of all humans being subject to God's Sovereignty and control, and anyone who denies such subjection is fooling themselves.

God rules. God is King, and all humanity is at His beck and call, to produce Godly good.

Right on, GB! If I had some power around here, I would rec your post to the Dean's list today! God's reward for your bravery will be much better, tho.

Nang


No King needs to control every event in His kindgom. If Gb is correct then God alone is the author of sin. And He programmed us to be exactly the way we are. Say it Nang - God wants us to sin. He made us to sin...

[Nang]

No King needs to control every event in His kindgom.

Blasphemous statement, IMO.



If Gb is correct then God alone is the author of sin.

Gb is correct, and you enjoy making blasphemous declarations against God. That is quite worrisome.


And He programmed us to be exactly the way we are. Say it Nang - God wants us to sin. He made us to sin...

Nope, won't join your pitiful party.

Nang

[Kevin Wayne]

When people start referring to me as a robot, I know the next step is they are going to declare the right to yank my circuits. :wink:

[seer]

Blasphemous statement, IMO.

Do you know what's blasphemous? You making God the author of sin...

[Nang]

Blasphemous statement, IMO.

Do you know what's blasphemous? You making God the author of sin...


You know, Seer, that very charge used to intimidate me as a young Christian, but I have become older and wiser, and now see the charge reflects deliberate ignorance on the part of the one who makes it.

For it reveals a lack of reverance for God's holiness and a terrible lack of knowledge about mankinds' sin; both of which can only be gained by a genuine seeking to know God as He is revealed in the Holy Scriptures.

So say what you will, there is no sin in God, even though He created man who sinned.

Nang

[suffer for joy]

Paul describes it in Romans 7. He can't understand why he does evil when he wants to do good. What do you think man is, some totally free autonomous little creator god?

Paul was speaking from a redemptive reality. The real question is what was Adam created to be (and what was he prior to the fall), not what are we now.

[seer]

You know, Seer, that very charge used to intimidate me as a young Christian, but I have become older and wiser, and now see the charge reflects deliberate ignorance on the part of the one who makes it.

For it reveals a lack of reverance for God's holiness and a terrible lack of knowledge about mankinds' sin; both of which can only be gained by a genuine seeking to know God as He is revealed in the Holy Scriptures.

So say what you will, there is no sin in God, even though He created man who sinned.

Nang

Then answer me Nang. Does God want men to sin or not?

[yxboom]

Blasphemous statement, IMO.
Nang, would this be a reasonable description of God in your opinion?

An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.

[GoBahnsen]

The popcorn is popping nicely...I'll be back

[Nang]

Then answer me Nang. Does God want men to sin or not?

You Arminians have things backwards.

You argue that the faith that saves comes from the sinner, and not from God, but that the sin that kills, comes from God, and not from the sinner.

Just the opposite is true.

You like to accuse "Calvinists" of declaring God to be the author of sin, when Scripture teaches no such thing, but when "Calvinists" point out that Scripture teaches Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith, you argue and deny.

Go figure . . .

Nang

[themuzicman]

You Arminians have things backwards.

You argue that the faith that saves comes from the sinner, and not from God, but that the sin that kills, comes from God, and not from the sinner.

OVT argues that sin comes from Man, salvation comes from God, but that faith is man's response to Gods drawing.

Just the opposite is true.

You like to accuse "Calvinists" of declaring God to be the author of sin, when Scripture teaches no such thing, but when "Calvinists" point out that Scripture teaches Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith, you argue and deny.

Actually, you teach that God forces people to believe. You fail to exeget "author and finisher" properly.

Go figure . . .

Nang

Well, since you embrace what GoB says, then you embrace the problem of evil and the problem of God requiring justification from men who were made to do them by the one judging them.

michael

[yxboom]

You Arminians have things backwards.

You argue that the faith that saves comes from the sinner, and not from God, but that the sin that kills, comes from God, and not from the sinner.

Just the opposite is true.

You like to accuse "Calvinists" of declaring God to be the author of sin, when Scripture teaches no such thing, but when "Calvinists" point out that Scripture teaches Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith, you argue and deny.

Go figure . . .

Nang
no response to my inquiry above?


Nang, would this be a reasonable description of God in your opinion?

An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.

[Nang]

OVT argues that sin comes from Man, salvation comes from God, but that faith is man's response to Gods drawing.



Actually, you teach that God forces people to believe. You fail to exeget "author and finisher" properly.



Well, since you embrace what GoB says, then you embrace the problem of evil and the problem of God requiring justification from men who were made to do them by the one judging them.

michael

The word "force" denigrates the word "grace."



Nang

[Nang]

no response to my inquiry above?


Your "inquiry" is not clear.

Restrictions upon the absolute ruler or restrictions upon his subjects?

Nang

[yxboom]

Your "inquiry" is not clear.

Restrictions upon the absolute ruler or restrictions upon his subjects?

Nang
the ruler

[themuzicman]

The word "force" denigrates the word "grace."



Nang

Which is one major reason why Calvinism doesn't fit into the scriptures.

Michael

[Nang]

the ruler

If a ruler restricts himself, his rule is not absolute.

Nang

[yxboom]

If a ruler restricts himself, his rule is not absolute.

Nang
ok, so would you say this is an accurate description of God?

An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.

[Nang]

Which is one major reason why Calvinism doesn't fit into the scriptures.

Michael

Calvinists do not believe in or use the word "force" when describing God drawing men to Jesus Christ.

Arminians are the ones who insist on using the word.

Nang

[Nang]

ok, so would you say this is an accurate description of God?

An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.

You mean, "an absolute ruler who governs without restriction upon Himself?"


Nang

[yxboom]

You mean, "an absolute ruler who governs without restriction upon Himself?"


Nang
Without all the word games, is it an accurate description or not. A simple yes or no would be fantastic.

[micah4]

Calvinists do not believe in or use the word "force" when describing God drawing men to Jesus Christ.

Arminians are the ones who insist on using the word.

Nang

Well that's just playing dull in avoiding the use of a word that obviously fits the scenario your theology describes. Calvinists insist that the unregenerate man is not willing to come to Christ, and is regenerated apart from any act of will on their part- so being regenerated is necessarily an act which is done by an outside agent to an unregenerate person- against what they would voluntarily will- under Calvinist theology. Can you provide a definition of force reasonably close to commonly accepted usage which this scenario doesn't fit? I doubt it.

[yxboom]

Can you provide a definition of force reasonably close to commonly accepted usage which this scenario doesn't fit? I doubt it.
As evidenced above you can see how difficult it is to get an acceptable definition from Nang.

[mickiel]

Take several children outside in a fenched in back yard and tell them they can freely play. But you tell them they cannot go outside of the fench. What you have done is give them an environment in which they can exist in time and you have given them measured space within which they can manuver freely. They are given a time in which they must stop their playing and come back into the house. They can only play with the things you have provided. They are not in control of their reality, you are. And you are responsible for them. You are the parent, you own the yard, the house, you purchased the toys and you put the fench up.

This is an exact representation of what God did to Adam and Eve, or humanity, as I can think of. Even this simple explination willnot be understood by many of you. Because truth is seen as lies, and lies as truth in this day and age.

[GoBahnsen]

Nang:The word "force" denigrates the word "grace."




themuzicman:Which is one major reason why Calvinism doesn't fit into the scriptures.

The question is, how do we define this "force"? We don't know what it is. How does God work within, "both to WILL and to DO..."? Is it force, as in coercion? How does God accomplish His will? We don't know exactly what it is He does or how He does it.

Back to the Robot thing, let me bring this up...the sex drive. It's programed into our being. God didn't leave us with a mere intellectual quandry about having sex to have kids. We are, most men at least, going nuts with this program within us and while we might use birth control, it seldom is abstinance. We are like robots in that way.

How many times would a man like to just turn off that switch? His wife is angry with him and cuts him off. He counters within himself "fine...I don't need it anyway". After a few days or weeks...he is reconsidering his first resolve :lol: . He is a robot of sorts and is captured by his own Creator's program. He is forced to comply or enter deeper depression.

[yxboom]

Take several children outside in a fenched in back yard and tell them they can freely play. But you tell them they cannot go outside of the fench. What you have done is give them an environment in which they can exist in time and you have given them measured space within which they can manuver freely. They are given a time in which they must stop their playing and come back into the house. They can only play with the things you have provided. They are not in control of their reality, you are. And you are responsible for them. You are the parent, you own the yard, the house, you purchased the toys and you put the fench up.
and?

This is an exact representation of what God did to Adam and Eve, or humanity, as I can think of.
thats a terrible representation if you are hoping to define a specific providence.

Even this simple explination willnot be understood by many of you. Because truth is seen as lies, and lies as truth in this day and age.
way to poison the well.

[yxboom]

Back to the Robot thing, let me bring this up...the sex drive. It's programed into our being. God didn't leave us with a mere intellectual quandry about having sex to have kids. We are, most men at least, going nuts with this program within us and while we might use birth control, it seldom is abstinance. We are like robots in that way.
except the bolded text (mine) seems to refute your own argument

[Nang]

Without all the word games, is it an accurate description or not. A simple yes or no would be fantastic.

Until you reword your question, I will not answer.




Nang

[yxboom]

Until you reword your question, I will not answer.




Nang
So how would Nang like me to reword the question. "Is this an accurate description of God" too difficult to understand? Let me help. If it is not then say No. If it is then say Yes. There are no strings attached. I simply want to find an agreeable description.

[GoBahnsen]

except the bolded text (mine) seems to refute your own argumentHow so? Are you saying that God did not program men with a drive for sex? That men must be educated or they won't figure things out? Look at the rapes? Look at how this God given drive is so powerful that Paul says, don't deny your mate lest Satan get an advantage.

It is so powerful that God places a commandment in His top ten, to not covet your neighbor's wife. Men don't covet another man's wife because she makes a great pot roast.

At least "not most men". Have I refuted myself again boom?

[Nang]

So how would Nang like me to reword the question. "Is this an accurate description of God" too difficult to understand? Let me help. If it is not then say No. If it is then say Yes. There are no strings attached. I simply want to find an agreeable description.

Oh, sorry.

I accepted your definition of an absolute ruler. etc as part of the question.

Want to start over?

:lol:

Nang

[yxboom]

How so?

the fact that this "so powerful" drive varies in men. Some men are able to overcome this drive and others lack it entirely, by your own admission via the bolded text. how does this not show that men are able to choose contrary to their natural programming? unless that was the point you were making it seems you refuted yourself.

Are you saying that God did not program men with a drive for sex? That men must be educated or they won't figure things out? Look at the rapes? Look at how this God given drive is so powerful that Paul says, don't deny your mate lest Satan get an advantage.

It is so powerful that God places a commandment in His top ten, to not covet your neighbor's wife. Men don't covet another man's wife because she makes a great pot roast.

At least "not most men". Have I refuted myself again boom?
it would seem so.

[yxboom]

Oh, sorry.

I accepted your definition of an absolute ruler. etc as part of the question.

Want to start over?

:lol:

Nang
you are that response to prayer for patience right

ok, so would you say this is an accurate description of God?

An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.

[mickiel]

and?




way to poison the well.


It was poisoned before I came to this place, thats why I never drink.

As one comes to know God, they come to know that they really do not know him. The reason is because we do not have the sense to know him. We are not born with it, we cannot manufactor it, we cannot deserve it. Why? Because our will is innsufficent as God created it. God will not place responsibility of salvation or spiritual wisdom on what is childish human irresponsibility that thinks itself responsible for things that are Godly.

Once Adam sinned, he locked in our way of life. Once Jesus died, he locked in our future. Pure predestined inheritance, as befits the irrestible will of God. Humans who think our destiny is based on our will, are simply babys in a cradle, as we all really are. We are Gods babys, not robots, .... Babys.

[GoBahnsen]

the fact that this "so powerful" drive varies in men. Some men are able to overcome this drive and others lack it entirely, by your own admission via the bolded text. how does this not show that men are able to choose contrary to their natural programming? unless that was the point you were making it seems you refuted yourself.


it would seem so.I think it is a truth that God has given some men a gift of no real need for a woman in the way I mentioned. This is God's doing as much as he gifts one man with a great intellect and another is a Forest Gump.

What you are doing boom, in my opinion, is reducing these things to "will power", which is perfectly consistent with your emphasis on "freewill". You empower the will of man beyond it's rightful place, but you are not alone and these are the things we debate :tongue: .

[Xmansmommy]

I'm not sure rape is a good description of the God given gift of human sexuality. For the most part, rape isn't even about sex but about power. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

[yxboom]

I think it is a truth that God has given some men a gift of no real need for a woman in the way I mentioned. This is God's doing as much as he gifts one man with a great intellect and another is a Forest Gump.

What you are doing boom, in my opinion, is reducing these things to "will power", which is perfectly consistent with your emphasis on "freewill". You empower the will of man beyond it's rightful place, but you are not alone and these are the things we debate :tongue: .
however, the sex drive in men... vary and can be manipulated. It is not a compelling program within men because some men can go hours, days, weeks, months, even years without the drive. Not to mention this drive can be curbed and/or removed entirely. It is not like water where we all require it or die, we choose it. Most married men would attest to this.

[Nang]

ok, so would you say this is an accurate description of God?


An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.


I would say the description you provide is incomplete and still unclear; therefore, your "inquiry" is unsubstantial and unanswerable in its present form.

Until you are willing to reword and elaborate with a more straight-forward description, and delineate the exact "restrictions" you reference, I remain unwilling to indulge you with a response.


Nang

[GoBahnsen]

however, the sex drive in men... vary and can be manipulated. It is not a compelling program within men because some men can go hours, days, weeks, months, even years without the drive. Not to mention this drive can be curbed and/or removed entirely. It is not like water where we all require it or die, we choose it. Most married men would attest to this. Some men have refused food and water, for a cause, and died...you have refuted yourself. You miss my point. We are God's creatures. He wanted men to procreate. Men, after the fall are rebellious and if they could, they would have stopped procreating. God trumped them with a desire that drives a man like one who runs from swarming bees. You can stop and get stung to death, most opt to comply.

[yxboom]

Some men have refused food and water, for a cause, and died...you have refuted yourself.
they died so no I didn't. you made up a false contradiction.
You miss my point. We are God's creatures. He wanted men to procreate. Men, after the fall are rebellious and if they could, they would have stopped procreating. God trumped them with a desire that drives a man like one who runs from swarming bees. You can stop and get stung to death, most opt to comply.
unlike the false contradiction you came up for me, you actually did contradict yourself when you said...
I think it is a truth that God has given some men a gift of no real need for a woman in the way I mentioned.
If God wanted men to procreate and trumped their rebellious nature to not procreate then why is it a gift from God that some have no desire to procreate?

btw your response still doesn't address the fact that men can choose to curb their desire or to lack it entirely.

[GoBahnsen]

they died so no I didn't. you made up a false contradiction.

unlike the false contradiction you came up for me, you actually did contradict yourself when you said...

If God wanted men to procreate and trumped their rebellious nature to not procreate then why is it a gift from God that some have no desire to procreate?

btw your response still doesn't address the fact that men can choose to curb their desire or to lack it entirely.So where are you going with this boom? You remind me of the people who say, we don't have to sin so let's just all stop it. Sin is just a choice, so just say no...end of problem.

We ought to have tons of good choosers who no longer sin. Fact is, we are not made that way. We are made to depend on God and we spend a lifetime (sanctification) trying to get that lesson right.

[micah4]

Men don't covet another man's wife because she makes a great pot roast.

Certainly not. But, if she makes great baklava, that is another matter!

[yxboom]

So where are you going with this boom?
Nevada.

You remind me of the people who say, we don't have to sin so let's just all stop it. Sin is just a choice, so just say no...end of problem.
Isnt this the whole desire and calling of God? To sin not.

We ought to have tons of good choosers who no longer sin. Fact is, we are not made that way. We are made to depend on God and we spend a lifetime (sanctification) trying to get that lesson right.
Thats an awkward connection. We are dependant on God so we sin.

[GoBahnsen]

Nevada. Best answer you have given


Isnt this the whole desire and calling of God? To sin not.
Yes...so why do we? Why can't we just be good?


Thats an awkward connection. We are dependant on God so we sin.
No, we are dependent on God more than we realize.

[yxboom]

Best answer you have given
thank ye.

Yes...so why do we? Why can't we just be good?
gosh darn it cause thats the way God programmed us. :teeth:

No, we are dependent on God more than we realize.
that was vague enough to be adequate.

[smaller]

Compared to God on any scale mankind would surely seem like robots.

SlaveBOTs.

[micah4]

The question is, how do we define this "force"? We don't know what it is. How does God work within, "both to WILL and to DO..."? Is it force, as in coercion?


Here's a definition of coercion I believe works:

The exercise of some power in order to influence some agent to act in such a way that (1) they would not have so acted without the exercise of said power and (2) that they would have perceived this action as detrimental to their well being apart from one's exercise of said power.

That's pretty short and sweet, and I think it's clear that the calvinistic model of regeneration meets this delineation of what constitutes force or coercion, on both points (1) and (2).

So unless you can provide a better definition of force or coercion which calvinistic regeneration doesn't meet, or you can demonstrate why this definition is inadequate, we are left to conclude that calvinistic regeneration is properly described as forced and coerced.

[Calvinist4Him]

No, we are dependent on God more than we realize.

On that note, without Him we can do nothing, nor can we know anything. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge...

Col 2:1 "For I want you to know how great a struggle I have on your behalf and for those who are at Laodicea, and for all those who have not personally seen my face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." - NASB

[themuzicman]

Calvinists do not believe in or use the word "force" when describing God drawing men to Jesus Christ.

Arminians are the ones who insist on using the word.

Nang

Force is the result of something being "irresistible".

Michael

[themuzicman]

On that note, without Him we can do nothing, nor can we know anything. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge...

Col 2:1 "For I want you to know how great a struggle I have on your behalf and for those who are at Laodicea, and for all those who have not personally seen my face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." - NASB

Do you know what Paul is writing about, here? Do you have any idea what his task in writing to the Colossians at this time is?

If you did, you'd understand this passage better.

Michael

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I think GB needs to define very closely just what he means by "robot." He is using human technology as a metaphor for what we are, and this, though all too common in our discussions, remains altogether too vague to describe what we are theologically. Besides, all this is just another spin on theological determinism and the POE. If a robot of human creation wears out or malfunctions beyond repair, it goes to the junk heap without remorse or moral consequence. Just how can evil or punishment or morality in general be applied to a mere robot? It seems that we must be qualitatively different from "robots" as we know them such that morality can pertain to us and not them---what is this difference? Or is morality itself a sham or some kind of superficial fabrication? These questions should be addressed here---without banter, without obfuscation. If not, the whole allegation that we're robots is just pointless, and Calvinism {which our being declared "robots" is somehow supposed to help(!)} certainly fares the worse for that....

[GoBahnsen]

From the exclusivist thread by spiderman.

GB:It makes you a god in the "creator sense" if you came up with anything uncreated by God. It's hard for this philosopher to put it into convincing fashion, but nothing can exist outside of God. No thought or idea.

seer:I did not create my ability to love or do good. That is God given. What man must do is to exercise, by God's grace, those abilities. Of course if you are correct Gb, then "sin" is as much a part of God as any other thing.

The idea of sin was in the mind of God before it existed. He saw Lucifer sin before He created him. None of us can imagine what God thinks when he sizes these things up or does God size anything up for that matter, that's what humans do. Anyway, God can't sin, but He can and has brought a creation into existence whereby He purposed that sin exist for a season.




GB:Sort of like the gingerbread man offering his raisin buttons to the little girl who made him, he...thinking she desired raisins. And if we carry this out to our discussion, man's "will" or "love" is nothing more than those raisins. These qualities exist in God's created reality. Ultimately He is back of them.

seer:But it is still up to the gingerbread man to offer back what the little girl gave him.
Yes, it was up to John the Baptist to offer back what God had given to him and God prophecied that John should do what he did. Pilate fulfilled his role. Judas his.



GB:What you all believe is that God created gods, but no...He created man, a creature and the creature cannot create...ultimately speaking. He only works with that which he has received.

seer:No kidding. But let me ask you Gb, do you think that God is insecure? That He couldn't handle human freedom?
God handles human freedom just fine. Look at Nebuchadnezzar, freely defying God and God dealt with the king's freedom by taking his right mind away for several seasons until the king learned who really rules in heaven. Other kings are not dealt with in this way, because they must perform all the evil God has purposed they should carry out. And so they do, like little robots, not knowing that nothing they do alters God's plan and purpose.



GB:John the Baptist did not create John the Baptist... the godly prophet, fore-runner of the Messiah. Your camp ought to say the opposite. Yet, you all have no real answer for this "puppetry" of God.

seer:God also chose King Saul - except his end was different - "It regreted Me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following Me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night."
So now you're going to make the mistake of thinking that this language use is to be taken to mean that God got a rude surprise? That God hoped for better with Saul? That God is like men in this way?

The people rejected God as King and wanted a man, the first king was God's way of showing them what men are all about.

Opps...I'm messing up spider's thread again...so I'm going to move this to the robot thread.

[smaller]

It's more of a question of the temporal effects of ANTI-SPIRITS upon mankind. We cannot define or contain just exactly what Spirit is, yet alone ANTI-spirit other than it being the opposite or opposer of God in Christ. If Jesus said He is The Way, The Truth and The Life then it stands to reason that ANTI-spirit is opposite or opposer of Way, Truth and Life.

These are not easy contemplations.

And IF these "things" have an effect on mankind what does that make us? Slaves according to The Word. A slave "labors" and is "humiliated" under servitude.

Humble weakness is Divine Produce spawned from the use of those temporal things, that which is ANTI-Christ.

It is not so much that we are then robots, but those temporal things are more like robots which God will discard when finished using.

We are slaves. They are the exercise equipment.

God IS Love making His offsping (all men) weak and humble through the suffering of sin, evil and death.

God bound men to disobedience (Romans 11:32) Men then are TIED in their bodies to ANTI-spiritual EXERCISE EQUIPMENT:

Ecclesiastes 1:13
And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.

Ecclesiastes 3:10
I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.

Hebrews 5:14
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Hebrews 12:11
Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

Using this understanding it is observable that people who KNOW GOD should labor under the cruelest form of sin, evil and hatred that is available on the planet earth, that of damning their fellow man to burn alive forever. You are presently carrying HELL ITSELF at least IN YOUR HEARTS AND MINDS.

It's a complex and very real system with Extreme Divine Determinative Purposes.

Your time under this labor will not be wasted, nor will any persons life be wasted under this system. Your particular labor will be used to judge those evil vile things that vaunt THEIR FATE unto MANKIND.

Isaiah 61
1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.
4 And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations.

The Cross was Jesus' exercise equipment SET UP BY GOD and activated by the wicked (anti-Christ spirits) whom God also uses.

Love releases a man from his exercise equipment.

enjoy!

smaller

[seer]

Gb, I'am going to expand on Pereynol's point. What would you call a man who got angry and beat up the robot he created and programmed? You would call him irrational - and that is what you have made God - irrational.

[GoBahnsen]

I think GB needs to define very closely just what he means by "robot." He is using human technology as a metaphor for what we are, and this, though all too common in our discussions, remains altogether too vague to describe what we are theologically. Besides, all this is just another spin on theological determinism and the POE. If a robot of human creation wears out or malfunctions beyond repair, it goes to the junk heap without remorse or moral consequence. Just how can evil or punishment or morality in general be applied to a mere robot? It seems that we must be qualitatively different from "robots" as we know them such that morality can pertain to us and not them---what is this difference? Or is morality itself a sham or some kind of superficial fabrication? These questions should be addressed here---without banter, without obfuscation. If not, the whole allegation that we're robots is just pointless, and Calvinism {which our being declared "robots" is somehow supposed to help(!)} certainly fares the worse for that....Hey pereynol. Thanks for sizing this all up in your normal flair of words. You're right, this is just another spin. Once I added soul and spirit to the machine, we no longer had robots in the human sense of that word. But we still find man programed to some degree. He still does the Maker's bidding, whether he do good or evil. "What you must do...do quickly" and Judas went out and fulfilled several prophecies from the Old Testament.

And like I was telling boom earlier, we have drives that get us doing what God wants. God didn't consult with us about our drives or our gifts or lack thereof. We got programed, wired, the way the Potter saw fit, not what we got to choose.

John the Baptist was God's creature as much as Judas, both freely carrying out their part in the grand plan. Who can fathom these things pereynol?

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Hey pereynol. Thanks for sizing this all up in your normal flair of words. You're right, this is just another spin. Once I added soul and spirit to the machine, we no longer had robots in the human sense of that word. But we still find man programed to some degree. He still does the Maker's bidding, whether he do good or evil. "What you must do...do quickly" and Judas went out and fulfilled several prophecies from the Old Testament.

Hey GB. My computer is ailing---a sick little "robot" if ever there was one. A few quick remarks before I go off to class... "Robots" and "programs" are still just technological metaphors, and what these may do isn't all that clear in exact relation to "their maker's bidding" morally speaking.


And like I was telling boom earlier, we have drives that get us doing what God wants. God didn't consult with us about our drives or our gifts or lack thereof. We got programed, wired, the way the Potter saw fit, not what we got to choose.

The problem is that a free-will explanation also works here, as we've discussed time and again. But how does morality enter the picture; is your Potter/Inventor/Roboteer merely being arbitrary in assigning blame and making rules that run according to his "program?"


John the Baptist was God's creature as much as Judas, both freely carrying out their part in the grand plan. Who can fathom these things pereynol?

Not us little men. Good to hear from you, GB.

[themuzicman]

Hey pereynol. Thanks for sizing this all up in your normal flair of words. You're right, this is just another spin. Once I added soul and spirit to the machine, we no longer had robots in the human sense of that word. But we still find man programed to some degree.

Yet, you seem to think that inserting a soul and spirit without saying how they affect the "robot" would be sufficient.

Furthermore, you insist on saying "to some degree" backpeddling from the robot analogy (since all that a robot has to make it go is programming), and yet fail to explain to what degree you mean.

He still does the Maker's bidding, whether he do good or evil. "What you must do...do quickly" and Judas went out and fulfilled several prophecies from the Old Testament.

Yet, you fail to move away from God being the author of evil and perpetrator of His own law.

And like I was telling boom earlier, we have drives that get us doing what God wants. God didn't consult with us about our drives or our gifts or lack thereof. We got programed, wired, the way the Potter saw fit, not what we got to choose.

However, that doesn't explain what "to some degree" means, or address in ANY way how ALL of our actions could be pre-determined.

John the Baptist was God's creature as much as Judas, both freely carrying out their part in the grand plan. Who can fathom these things pereynol?

And now you're back to "freely". Is it "robots" or "freely"?

Michael

[GoBahnsen]

Yet, you seem to think that inserting a soul and spirit without saying how they affect the "robot" would be sufficient. I think you want to talk to God, not GB.



Furthermore, you insist on saying "to some degree" backpeddling from the robot analogy (since all that a robot has to make it go is programming), and yet fail to explain to what degree you mean.
Because I don't know the degrees. I don't know what a soul is or a spirit and if they are one and the same. I observe, like you do, and I comment from my glass darkly. I see humans acting like what they are. They are all so similar in so many ways. None seeks after God. God must seek the sinner out or that sinner will perish.

Your camp credits the seekers.



Yet, you fail to move away from God being the author of evil and perpetrator of His own law.
Of course. I believe God is good. But if you and I were God, we would let sin exist. We wouldn't let a man rape a woman. We would stop him, does that make God bad? No, that makes us bad for thinking we can improve on Him.



However, that doesn't explain what "to some degree" means, or address in ANY way how ALL of our actions could be pre-determined.
Again...you're looking for a conversation with the only One who can answer these things.



And now you're back to "freely". Is it "robots" or "freely"?

Michael
It's both/ and. We freely carry out God's plan. Something humans cannot pull off unless they remove the freedom. Judas freely betrayed Christ and fulfilled God's purpose and plan. Go figure.

[micah4]

It's both/ and. We freely carry out God's plan. Something humans cannot pull off unless they remove the freedom. Judas freely betrayed Christ and fulfilled God's purpose and plan. Go figure.

How is it sensible to assign moral accountability to something that is "programmed" to do what it does? Calvinists seem to assert that this is just the way it is, yet they can give no credible criteria that distinguishes why an actual robot programmed to kill would not be morally accountable for the killing (rather his creator would be), and yet a man who is "programmed" to kill is responsible rather than his programmer. What is the criteria which distinguishes them? Only that God says so? Or is it actually that, according to your theology, God says so? And if indeed no other sensible explanation can be provided, then why should we not reject your theology as embracing things which are not sensible?

[micah4]

But we still find man programed to some degree.

By the determinist/compatibilist account usually embraced by calvinists, it would seem the degree to which man is programmed is 100%. Determinism doesn't leave room for anything being un-programmed to any degree.

[GoBahnsen]

Gb, I'am going to expand on Pereynol's point. What would you call a man who got angry and beat up the robot he created and programmed? You would call him irrational - and that is what you have made God - irrational.For one thing seer, God doesn't beat up anyone. He judges righteous judgment.

Yes...a man's robot without a soul is nothing but parts put together. Stupid to beat it up.

God's robots have souls and they are moral. Wow! Neat robots! God doesn't beat them up. The ones He made for dishonor go out and freely spit at God, and they get judged. Mystery? Of course, big time. Why would Paul inform us that God made some vessels for dishonor? Why does He tell his opponent to not question the Potter? Why do the non Reformed look the other way in Romans 9?

[GoBahnsen]

How is it sensible to assign moral accountability to something that is "programmed" to do what it does? Because the robot perverts it's programming. But if you mean Judas? Shall the thing formed say to the One who formed it "why have you made me like this?"

Calvinists seem to assert that this is just the way it is, yet they can give no credible criteria that distinguishes why an actual robot programmed to kill would not be morally accountable for the killing (rather his creator would be), and yet a man who is "programmed" to kill is responsible rather than his programmer. Shall the thing formed say to the One who formed it "why have you made me like this?"


What is the criteria which distinguishes them? Only that God says so? Or is it actually that, according to your theology, God says so? And if indeed no other sensible explanation can be provided, then why should we not reject your theology as embracing things which are not sensible?

Thou wilt say then to me, Why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will? Rom 9:20 No, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?

Does that help or just confuse you more?

[seer]

God's robots have souls and they are moral. Wow! Neat robots! God doesn't beat them up. The ones He made for dishonor go out and freely spit at God, and they get judged. Mystery? Of course, big time. Why would Paul inform us that God made some vessels for dishonor? Why does He tell his opponent to not question the Potter? Why do the non Reformed look the other way in Romans 9?

Sheesh Gb, how long have I been with you. Do we really have to go through Romans Nine again? And if the lost spit in God's face it is only because God wanted it that way. And we are back to irrational - God harming human beings for doing exactly what God wants them to do - what He created them to do. And what rational potter sets out to create junk?


BTW Paul tells us in another place that we have a say in what kind of vessel we become:

2 Tim.2:20-21

"But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work."

And since Paul is using the potter picture of Jer. 18 we should see if the vessels there have choice:

"O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them."

Clearly the clay can repent or refuse to repent...

[micah4]

Because the robot perverts it's programming.


A robot doesn't pervert its programming; that requires a capacity to do something other than what it was programmed to do, which is not true of a robot nor of a human under a compatibilist account of freedom. The most you could do to try to stretch this is come up with some definition of an activity which you call "perveting his own programming" (sinning?), but then you're left with the fact that under your model, the robot was programmed to do just that; so he was programmed to "pervert his programming" (whatever that means), which just goes back to him doing what he was programmed to do, which doesn't seem to be really perverting his programming any more than it seems to be rightly following his programming.


But if you mean Judas? Shall the thing formed say to the One who formed it "why have you made me like this?"

Shall the thing formed say to the One who formed it "why have you made me like this?"

Thou wilt say then to me, Why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will? Rom 9:20 No, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?


I don't see where these verses say that God made people sin- in fact most calvinists I've talked with tend to squirm away pretty quickly from stating that outright. Do you believe that God makes people sin?

Does that help or just confuse you more?

I'm only confused about what you actually believe, because you seem to be wavering between two opinions. On the one hand, you say that man is a robot, on the other hand, you suggest that he has powers that a robot doesn't. To some degree he's a robot, to some degree he's not. So you say he's not exactly or not quite a robot, but then you defend God's punishing him despite his being a robot- apparently by reading Romans 9 to imply that God has in fact made us robots and has made us sin, and yet we shouldn't question God's right to do so, even though it aligns with no concept of justice that we can make sense of. So if man's actions are not determined by his programming and he can go against or as you say "pervert" the way God has programmed him (certainly not the compatibilist view), then why (as you read it) does Romans 9 say that God programmed him to do exactly what he did?

[seer]

A robot doesn't pervert its programming; that requires a capacity to do something other than what it was programmed to do, which is not true of a robot nor of a human under a compatibilist account of freedom. The most you could do to try to stretch this is come up with some definition of an activity which you call "perveting his own programming" (sinning?), but then you're left with the fact that under your model, the robot was programmed to do just that; so he was programmed to "pervert his programming" (whatever that means), which just goes back to him doing what he was programmed to do, which doesn't seem to be really perverting his programming any more than it seems to be rightly following his programming.



I don't see where these verses say that God made people sin- in fact most calvinists I've talked with tend to squirm away pretty quickly from stating that outright. Do you believe that God makes people sin?



I'm only confused about what you actually believe, because you seem to be wavering between two opinions. On the one hand, you say that man is a robot, on the other hand, you suggest that he has powers that a robot doesn't. To some degree he's a robot, to some degree he's not. So you say he's not exactly or not quite a robot, but then you defend God's punishing him despite his being a robot- apparently by reading Romans 9 to imply that God has in fact made us robots and has made us sin, and yet we shouldn't question God's right to do so, even though it aligns with no concept of justice that we can make sense of. So if man's actions are not determined by his programming and he can go against or as you say "pervert" the way God has programmed him (certainly not the compatibilist view), then why (as you read it) does Romans 9 say that God programmed him to do exactly what he did?

:popcorn:

[mickiel]

There are ways that seem right to people, but the ends of those ways are nothing. Whole schools of thought have been weaved out of those nothings, espically in spiritual thought. Get together a class of people who's thoughts come from nothing, and nothing will come of it. This is why religous spiritruality has no answer to the troubles of humankind. The whole spiritual head of mankind is sick, and its ability to understand is faint. From the sole of the religous foot, to its head, there is no soundness in it.

This is why debate discussion boards are so popular, because the dissagreement, lack of unified understanding and constant lack of real spiritual growth, simply define the real condition of the spiritual man. Discussion boards reflect the real condition of spirituality, in its primal confused state of being. If you snatch one person out of the confusion and place them in an area of truth, they will be like a fish out of water, just not belong there. Consequently if you place truth in the mist of the confusion, the truth itself will be out of place. This is what the bible meant when it said truth will become like lies in the end.

This is why confusion is strong in these places, because it breeds here. Comes from here. Lives here, so it grows here. The seduction of the spiritual mind is the greatest evidence of Gods power I have ever been frightened of.

Man, when God seduces, its a powerful thing to behold. People are ever learning, I mean really really trying, but just not able to come into the truth.

This is the core reason spiritual people disagree, because God has decreed it to be so.

[GoBahnsen]

A robot doesn't pervert its programming; that requires a capacity to do something other than what it was programmed to do, which is not true of a robot nor of a human under a compatibilist account of freedom. The perverting I had in mind was our programed "drives". People eat too much, or go about sex in an ungodly way, etc. God made us with those drives and we pervert them through sin (Romans 7).


The most you could do to try to stretch this is come up with some definition of an activity which you call "perveting his own programming" (sinning?), but then you're left with the fact that under your model, the robot was programmed to do just that; so he was programmed to "pervert his programming" (whatever that means), which just goes back to him doing what he was programmed to do, which doesn't seem to be really perverting his programming any more than it seems to be rightly following his programming.
Ok then...you explain Judas betrayal


I don't see where these verses say that God made people sin I don't either and in xmansmommy style I will ask you "did I say that those verses say that God made people sin?"


- in fact most calvinists I've talked with tend to squirm away pretty quickly from stating that outright. Do you believe that God makes people sin?
No and I didn't squirm, but then I'm not a Calvinist in the strict sense.

I'm only confused about what you actually believe, because you seem to be wavering between two opinions. On the one hand, you say that man is a robot, on the other hand, you suggest that he has powers that a robot doesn't. Well yes, he has powers that MAN MADE robots lack.

To some degree he's a robot, to some degree he's not. So you say he's not exactly or not quite a robot, but then you defend God's punishing him despite his being a robot- apparently by reading Romans 9 to imply that God has in fact made us robots and has made us sin, Again, I never said God made us sin. But let's take up Judas again. God planned for his great sin. Judas didn't know that per se. Jesus didn't talk him out of it. Jesus knew what Judas must do, so He even says "get on with it now..." Judas freely did what God planned for. Now...did God make Judas sin? I don't think so. Did God plan it? Yes.


and yet we shouldn't question God's right to do so, even though it aligns with no concept of justice that we can make sense of. Ahhh, you finally got an "A" on the quiz.

So if man's actions are not determined by his programming and he can go against or as you say "pervert" the way God has programmed him (certainly not the compatibilist view), then why (as you read it) does Romans 9 say that God programmed him to do exactly what he did?Good question....Paul says "shut up".

[micah4]

Good question....Paul says "shut up".

It seems to me that you're a little too eager to glibly say "shut up". Seems to be the calvinist answer anytime a better one can't be found. But "Shut up" would only be an acceptable answer if the question which was being asked was the one Paul was addressing in this text. Paul was not addressing the question I asked you. I was not questioning God; if you missed it, I was questioning you. Last I checked God hadn't yet opened an account on these forums.

[yxboom]

I was not questioning God; if you missed it, I was questioning you. Last I checked God hadn't yet opened an account on these forums.
His spokesman has. you may be familiar with the poster, Nang.

[seer]

Ok then...you explain Judas betrayal

Gb, you keep bringing up Judas. Why? Are you saying that God made Him sin? If not - what is your point.

[micah4]

I don't either and in xmansmommy style I will ask you "did I say that those verses say that God made people sin?"


Okay, GB- you say that you don't believe those verses teach that God made people to sin, but when we were discussing how it is that God can "program" people to do everything they do- which includes sin- and still hold them accountable, these were the verses you provided as an answer. So either you believe that these verses address the situation in question (God "programming" people to sin) or your citation of them was just a random non-sequiter. I was assuming that you had a logical reason for citing those verses as an answer to the situation under consideration, which implies the former rather than the latter. The only other option I see is that you want to argue for a distinction between God "programming" somebody to do something (which is admittedly a somewhat nebulous terminology) and God "making" somebody do something.

[smaller]

This is the core reason spiritual people disagree, because God has decreed it to be so.

Undoubtedly M.

"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."

Freewillers think (?) that their will is free yet disobedient. go figure

Calvinists think they are the same as the disobedience all are bound to.

They both overlook the obvious.

By overlooking the obvious they show they are MARKED as slaves of disobedience.

! !

[micah4]

The perverting I had in mind was our programed "drives". People eat too much, or go about sex in an ungodly way, etc. God made us with those drives and we pervert them through sin (Romans 7).


Okay, but this wasn't the type of programming we were talking about.

A robot doesn't have drives, or instincts, or impulses which it may follow or not follow, or respond to a proper way or an improper way. It always responds according to its programming, and there is only one way it can respond. Whether we consider its actions proper or improper (or perverted vs. unperverted), that action was fully determined by the actions of the programmer, a factor outside of the robots power to alter.

In a similar way, determinism asserts that there is always only one way which an agent can respond, and that response is fully determined by factors outside of the agents power to alter. Obviously people dont have microchips and CPU's executing software, but nonetheless under determinism there are factors outside of our control which perform the same function of fully determining what our actions will be. These factors- whatever the determinist believes they are- our "nature", our environment, our genes, God's decree- whatever it is that has determined our actions- are the "programming" we are talking about.

If we are talking about "urges" which could be followed in a proper way or in an improper way, then that implies that the way in which the agent responds to those urges is not determined; the agent's choice may be one or the other, and in that case we're talking about and indeterministic view of choice and libertarian free will. If, however, the creatures choice to respond improperly to that urge has been pre-determined by environment, or nature, or God's decrees or plans, then this is the programming we are interested in- not the "urge" itself.

[GoBahnsen]

It seems to me that you're a little too eager to glibly say "shut up". In the style of xmansmommy "when did I tell you to shut up micah?"

Seems to be the calvinist answer anytime a better one can't be found. Somethings can't be answered. Is that possible? We talk about things here on Tweb that are highly controversial. We're not Apostles, so we can't tell each other to shut up, but Romans 9 is that peculiar place in Scripture where we find an Apostle anticipating his opponent's philosophical line of objection and Paul doesn't seek to answer it in some kind of intellectually satisfying way. Is that because He was Reformed or Calvinistic?


But "Shut up" would only be an acceptable answer if the question which was being asked was the one Paul was addressing in this text. Paul was not addressing the question I asked you. I was not questioning God; if you missed it, I was questioning you. Last I checked God hadn't yet opened an account on these forums. In my opinion, you are questioning God, because I didn't write the Bible. God hasn't opened an account here, because He owns the site. The earthly owners are His little puppets.

[yxboom]

Somethings can't be answered. Is that possible? We talk about things here on Tweb that are highly controversial. We're not Apostles, so we can't tell each other to shut up, but Romans 9 is that peculiar place in Scripture where we find an Apostle anticipating his opponent's philosophical line of objection and Paul doesn't seek to answer it in some kind of intellectually satisfying way. Is that because He was Reformed or Calvinistic?
However, you dont have that same luxury as Paul. You dont carry the same authority nor the same claim. You can't appeal to Paul's position because you don't know Paul's position. All you have is your interpretation of Paul's words and that is what is up for debate. So for you to say "Shut up" and appeal to Paul is bogus. It is not in line with Paul's use or his intent. He had the authority to say that whereas you saying it is simply weak and immature.

[smaller]

However, you dont have that same luxury as Paul. You dont carry the same authority nor the same claim. You can't appeal to Paul's position because you don't know Paul's position. All you have is your interpretation of Paul's words and that is what is up for debate. So for you to say "Shut up" and appeal to Paul is bogus. It is not in line with Paul's use or his intent. He had the authority to say that whereas you saying it is simply weak and immature.

I make that same claim to Calvinists.

I don't have any problem with Divine Sovereignty. I do have a problem when Calvinists say they have a lock on what that entails.

[GoBahnsen]

Okay, GB- you say that you don't believe those verses teach that God made people to sin, but when we were discussing how it is that God can "program" people to do everything they do- which includes sin- and still hold them accountable, these were the verses you provided as an answer. So either you believe that these verses address the situation in question (God "programming" people to sin) or your citation of them was just a random non-sequiter. I was assuming that you had a logical reason for citing those verses as an answer to the situation under consideration, which implies the former rather than the latter. The only other option I see is that you want to argue for a distinction between God "programming" somebody to do something (which is admittedly a somewhat nebulous terminology) and God "making" somebody do something.I believe God gets men doing His will even when they are sinning. How's that? You see, if you were God you would just clean up the whole place and not let people violate your law, because you would be nothing more than a big man, if you were God. You couldn't figure out how to make a creature, who would freely carry out the evil you planned for.

Now seer asked me earlier, why I keep bringing up Judas. The reason being, that he is a prime example of a human, carrying out the evil God planned for. This evil was so totally planned for, that details about it, were tucked away in Old Testament prophecy.

Yet there is a heavy element of mystery involved. Satan even getting into the act. Who's idea was this betrayal? God's, Satan's, Judas'? God knew about it before He created, so the idea of it was in the mind of God before Judas was born, yet it was Judas idea to do it, with some help from the Devil. And God watches them do all He had predicted they would do.

seer asks, "did God make Judas sin"? James answers that God doesn't even tempt men to sin. So what is actually going on, other than Judas is freely carrying out that which God planned for? And when you ask a person to explain it beyond that, you're really asking them to explain something too far beyond them. You get into the "as high as the heavens are above the earth, so are God's ways above man's...past finding out at various points.

[Xmansmommy]

And God watches them do all He had predicted they would do.

Predicted or foredetermined? BTW, I'll take those comments about my "style" as a compliment. :teeth:

[GoBahnsen]

However, you dont have that same luxury as Paul. You dont carry the same authority nor the same claim. You can't appeal to Paul's position because you don't know Paul's position. All you have is your interpretation of Paul's words and that is what is up for debate. So for you to say "Shut up" and appeal to Paul is bogus. It is not in line with Paul's use or his intent. He had the authority to say that whereas you saying it is simply weak and immature.When did I tell micah4 to shut up? I simply pointed him to place in Scripture where "like" questions as his got answered with that response, in so many words.

I agree, I do not have the right to tell members to shut up, but I can remind them of where an Apostle did that to what I consider, a similar question. And yes, that's just my opinion and interpretation, I may be wrong.

[Xavier]

The word "force" denigrates the word "grace."

Nang

Hense, why I have to laugh when people refer to the 'doctrines of grace'.

[GoBahnsen]

Predicted or foredetermined? BTW, I'll take those comments about my "style" as a compliment. :teeth:It was a compliment. We all answer one another here by reading into the words of our opponents, things that they never said, but that we assume they believe. Micah4 isn't talking to GB as much as he is talking to a Calvinist. And we both know that I'm not a Calvinist, though I agree with most Calvinistic thought. But I'm GB and I have my view and I don't believe everything my opponents presume I do.

Besides, most opponents only understand an opposing view from a "peering in" vantage point. You can't really understand spiritual truth though... until you believe it. Odd as that sounds, belief in a truth, suddenly turns the lights on to so many other truths that before, were not seen.

Predicted or foredetermined? Act 4:26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were assembled against the Lord, and against his Christ.
Act 4:27 For in truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were assembled,

Act 4:28 To do whatever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

[micah4]

Micah4 isn't talking to GB as much as he is talking to a Calvinist...I don't believe everything my opponents presume I do.


As I see it, one only has one of two options- determinism or indeterminism. Unless you can explain otherwise, I take those two to be mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive.


And we both know that I'm not a Calvinist, though I agree with most Calvinistic thought.


Which is why I'm addressing you as a determinist, because that is what most Calvinists hold to and you tend to agree with them. So far you've said nothing either to reject determinism or to endorse indeterminism, so it has seemed to remain a safe conclusion.

[seer]

seer asks, "did God make Judas sin"? James answers that God doesn't even tempt men to sin. So what is actually going on, other than Judas is freely carrying out that which God planned for? And when you ask a person to explain it beyond that, you're really asking them to explain something too far beyond them. You get into the "as high as the heavens are above the earth, so are God's ways above man's...past finding out at various points.

It's simple GB. Judas, with his own free will, and with a little help from the Devil, decided to betray Christ. God knew what this free act would be long before it happened. Why is that had to understand?

[GoBahnsen]

Okay, but this wasn't the type of programming we were talking about.

A robot doesn't have drives, or instincts, or impulses which it may follow or not follow, or respond to a proper way or an improper way. It always responds according to its programming, and there is only one way it can respond. Whether we consider its actions proper or improper (or perverted vs. unperverted), that action was fully determined by the actions of the programmer, a factor outside of the robots power to alter.
True enough for man-made machines. But if God wants to make a robot, give it a soul, make it alive, make it morally accountable and command it to obey His voice, then God can do whatever He wants. Shall the thing made say to Him who formed it, why have you made me like this?

This question implies that the thing made might not like what it got. In that sense, men are like robots, having to accept what they have been made to be.

No one is saying, at least I'm not, that humans are just like man-made robots. In no way, but they do share some commonality. We are in many ways, stuck with what God determined would be our portion in life. We want things we are not supposed to have, yet we didn't get to decide if that "want" would be there, in us...programmed in, if you like. It's just there, in our members and we're told to bring it into subjection to the power of God's Spirit working in us (believers).

And this battle between the flesh and the spirit isn't pleasant. We groan, desiring to be rid of the sinful flesh, but we're told to wait. To trust God and run the race with patience. Everyday, my programmed flesh tries to bring me down. I'm like a robot in that sense. I have this flesh and it's opposed to God. I wish it were not so. It's a real drag at times. But I'm subject to my portion and I'm instructed on how to live a godly life and given power to do so...still, half the time or more I can't seem to find the power even.

What, do you feel like you're just fine, totally free...just happily loving God and neighbor with your all every moment? Don't you sense your own roboticness as you robotically go to the refrigerator and pull out that second Haggendaz bar? The one you don't need, while you pick up the little chocolate covered almonds that fall onto your pot gut and robotically place them inbetween your front teeth while you mash them and send them across your tongue for pleasure sensations? All the while you wish you had a six-pack of abs, but instead you're working on a third haggendaz just before bed :lol: . BTW, I'm not describing my weakness, I have different ones that I robotically carry on with and shake my Romans 7 head at.


In a similar way, determinism asserts that there is always only one way which an agent can respond, and that response is fully determined by factors outside of the agents power to alter. Obviously people dont have microchips and CPU's executing software,Our brains are very much like computers. Electricity is even involved.


but nonetheless under determinism there are factors outside of our control which perform the same function of fully determining what our actions will be. These factors- whatever the determinist believes they are- our "nature", our environment, our genes, God's decree- whatever it is that has determined our actions- are the "programming" we are talking about. Ok

If we are talking about "urges" which could be followed in a proper way or in an improper way, then that implies that the way in which the agent responds to those urges is not determined; the agent's choice may be one or the other, and in that case we're talking about and indeterministic view of choice and libertarian free will. I don't really want to get into that stuff, but here's the bottom line: whatever you freely do, resist the urge or gratify it, God knew what that would be. He could write it in a book and set it before you. Then tell you to freely choose, but you will do what He has written. So you choose and then you open the book and sure enough, God had written down your choice. This is most dramatically seen in Peter's denial, where God says "go ahead and read about it first, and you'll still do what I said you will do." That's amazing. That's God. Did God make Peter deny three times? No. Did God plan it? Yes. I can't explain it beyond that.



If, however, the creatures choice to respond improperly to that urge has been pre-determined by environment, or nature, or God's decrees or plans, then this is the programming we are interested in- not the "urge" itself.
Fair enough...hey, you're quite the articulate guy micah.

[micah4]

Somethings can't be answered. Is that possible? We talk about things here on Tweb that are highly controversial. We're not Apostles, so we can't tell each other to shut up, but Romans 9 is that peculiar place in Scripture where we find an Apostle anticipating his opponent's philosophical line of objection and Paul doesn't seek to answer it in some kind of intellectually satisfying way.


I don't object to somebody appealing to Paul's words when appropriate- but in the context it seemed glibly dismissive rather than explanatory. The question I was asking was trying to clarify your position, because it seemed you rejected determinism in talking about robots who could disobey their programming on the one hand, but then appeal to a deterministic reading of Romans 9 on the other hand. Paul wasn't answering a question about whether GB consistently holds to indeterminism, determinism, or is inconsistent and wavers between the two, and I wasn't by any means charging God with injustice but was examining the consistency of the beliefs of those who seem to reject indeterminism.

Some questions may not be answerable; but I don't think the question of whether God holds men accountable for occurences outside of their ability to control is one of them. Just because one can't provide an answer to some question doesn't establish that an appeal to Paul's response is appropriate; it may just be that your theological position is flawed, which is of course, as boom noted, the question on the floor...

I don't mean to entirely avoid your appeal to Paul's remarks, but first I'd like to figure out whether the way you're reading Romans 9 is a deterministic reading which takes paul's words, e.g., "why have you made me this way" as meaning that God has programmed man, like a robot, to inevitably do everything which he does. If so, then we have other questions to look at. If not, then appealing to this passage would seem to have been irrelevant to the question we were discussing.

[GoBahnsen]

seer asks, "did God make Judas sin"? James answers that God doesn't even tempt men to sin. So what is actually going on, other than Judas is freely carrying out that which God planned for? And when you ask a person to explain it beyond that, you're really asking them to explain something too far beyond them. You get into the "as high as the heavens are above the earth, so are God's ways above man's...past finding out at various points.

It's simple GB. Judas, with his own free will, and with a little help from the Devil, decided to betray Christ. God knew what this free act would be long before it happened. Why is that had to understand?It doesn't develop the sovereignty of God enough. It makes God too much of an observer and not a planner.

It seems clear to me that God, in His great wisdom, wanted...in the crucifixtion of Christ, to be a betrayer involved. God could have skipped Judas, but no...God deliberately chooses him, Jesus knowing who it was that should betray Him, in order that God's plan and purpose should come to pass. Not the Devil's, not Judas' plan, but the Almighty's plan.

A little help from the Devil? The text says that Satan entered Judas, that sounds like more than a little help.

Anyway...it seems to me seer that you people just miss the majestic plan of redemption in God telling His own story. You reduce it to a God who wishes everyone would just get saved. Reformed believers are in a better position to marvel at God's plan and fear Him who does whatsoever He pleases. That's my opinion. There is a strength to the truth. It is God centered. God initiates with sinners.

You tend to have Him as the great responder in heaven, we see Him as the one who calls forth the dead. And THAT according to His plan, even using Satan to enter a man and work to the end that THAT man should betray for 30 pieces of silver. Let us fear this God with a godly fear that allows us to begin to have wisdom.

[seer]

Anyway...it seems to me seer that you people just miss the majestic plan of redemption in God telling His own story. You reduce it to a God who wishes everyone would just get saved. Reformed believers are in a better position to marvel at God's plan and fear Him who does whatsoever He pleases. That's my opinion. There is a strength to the truth. It is God centered. God initiates with sinners.

Sorry Gb, it is not that simple. If determinism is true the God alone is the author of sin. Judas is no more responsible than you or I. And on top of that God harms us for doing what He created us to to. You reduce God to an unjust, irrational deity. And I know that determinism is comforting Gb. But sometimes I think we are willing hold to a terrible view of God so that we can keep our personal sense of security...


It seems clear to me that God, in His great wisdom, wanted...in the crucifixtion of Christ, to be a betrayer involved. God could have skipped Judas, but no...God deliberately chooses him, Jesus knowing who it was that should betray Him, in order that God's plan and purpose should come to pass. Not the Devil's, not Judas' plan, but the Almighty's plan.

Where does scripture say that God chose Judas to betray Jesus rather than simply God knowing that...

[GoBahnsen]

I don't object to somebody appealing to Paul's words when appropriate- but in the context it seemed glibly dismissive rather than explanatory. The question I was asking was trying to clarify your position, because it seemed you rejected determinism in talking about robots who could disobey their programming on the one hand, but then appeal to a deterministic reading of Romans 9 on the other hand. Paul wasn't answering a question about whether GB consistently holds to indeterminism, determinism, or is inconsistent and wavers between the two, and I wasn't by any means charging God with injustice but was examining the consistency of the beliefs of those who seem to reject indeterminism.

Some questions may not be answerable; but I don't think the question of whether God holds men accountable for occurences outside of their ability to control is one of them. Just because one can't provide an answer to some question doesn't establish that an appeal to Paul's response is appropriate; it may just be that your theological position is flawed, which is of course, as boom noted, the question on the floor...

I don't mean to entirely avoid your appeal to Paul's remarks, but first I'd like to figure out whether the way you're reading Romans 9 is a deterministic reading which takes paul's words, e.g., "why have you made me this way" as meaning that God has programmed man, like a robot, to inevitably do everything which he does. If so, then we have other questions to look at. If not, then appealing to this passage would seem to have been irrelevant to the question we were discussing.Well you're obviously a smarter guy than me. Those who know me here on Tweb, know that they're not going to get to high levels of theological and philisophical discussion with me. Perhaps I was inappropriate and too dumb to see it.

I thought I was doing alright. I don't waver between the two as much as I try to hold them both in tension. You've heard that many times. God's sovereignty and man's responsibility have challenged greater minds than mine for ages. I think A W Pink does a great job of dealing with it in THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD book.

Yet even his wordy answers leave me with less than I want to find. I'm locked out of God's secret chambers. And I think the indeterminist realizes that he is locked out, but his solution is to turn to pure freewill, with God just sort of watching.

God becomes too much like a man in that scheme. Earthly judges have no involvement in the case before them. They seek to execute justice according to the evidence. God is the perfect judge, but He also is the Potter of the clay and that complicates things, in my view. Especially the way Paul brashly (I think), just tells his opponent "you're out of your league, be careful what you say to God." He is God after all and we don't know what that really means, entirely, we see through a glass darkly.

[GoBahnsen]

Anyway...it seems to me seer that you people just miss the majestic plan of redemption in God telling His own story. You reduce it to a God who wishes everyone would just get saved. Reformed believers are in a better position to marvel at God's plan and fear Him who does whatsoever He pleases. That's my opinion. There is a strength to the truth. It is God centered. God initiates with sinners.

Sorry Gb, it is not that simple. If determinism is true the God alone is the author of sin. Judas is no more responsible than you or I. And on top of that God harms us for doing what He created us to to. You reduce God to an unjust, irrational deity. And I know that determinism is comforting Gb. But sometimes I think we are willing hold to a terrible view of God so that we can keep our personal sense of security...


It seems clear to me that God, in His great wisdom, wanted...in the crucifixtion of Christ, to be a betrayer involved. God could have skipped Judas, but no...God deliberately chooses him, Jesus knowing who it was that should betray Him, in order that God's plan and purpose should come to pass. Not the Devil's, not Judas' plan, but the Almighty's plan.

Where does scripture say that God chose Judas to betray Jesus rather than simply God knowing that...Don't make me look it up, but it's when Jesus is selecting the 12. Jesus even telling them that He chose them and right there the text makes a seperate remark about Judas as well. Jesus, God in the flesh, chose a devil for a disciple, in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.

[GoBahnsen]

Opps...I missed this in the last post and decided to do an illegal back to back, because I thought you might miss an "edit in".

Sorry Gb, it is not that simple. If determinism is true the God alone is the author of sin. That sin should enter the creation was authored by God, yes. Yet God Himself commits no sin. If you let a man rape a woman, you sin, but God cannot be held accountable. Explain that.

Judas is no more responsible than you or I. And on top of that God harms us for doing what He created us to to. Well you're just botching this up because you want it all to fit into your kindergarten head. That's not a slam, it's just that you and I don't know much and neither did Edwards.

You reduce God to an unjust, irrational deity. And I know that determinism is comforting Gb. Comforting? It's terrifying. It invokes fear. I'm out of control of my destiny! Your's is the attempt at comfort babe.



But sometimes I think we are willing hold to a terrible view of God so that we can keep our personal sense of security...
My security is to cast myself at God's feet and beg for mercy in Christ Jesus.

[seer]

Don't make me look it up, but it's when Jesus is selecting the 12. Jesus even telling them that He chose them and right there the text makes a seperate remark about Judas as well. Jesus, God in the flesh, chose a devil for a disciple, in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.

Jesus chose one that He KNEW would betray Him. It does not say that He caused Him to betray Him. Or that He was created to betray Him. Foreknowledge alone Gb - which upholds God's good and just nature...

[GoBahnsen]

Don't make me look it up, but it's when Jesus is selecting the 12. Jesus even telling them that He chose them and right there the text makes a seperate remark about Judas as well. Jesus, God in the flesh, chose a devil for a disciple, in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.

Jesus chose one that He KNEW would betray Him. It does not say that He caused Him to betray Him. Or that He was created to betray Him. Foreknowledge alone Gb - which upholds God's good and just nature...I'm not saying God caused Judas to betray, I said God planned it. What you say is that Judas planned it and God had to live with it.

[seer]

I'm not saying God caused Judas to betray, I said God planned it. What you say is that Judas planned it and God had to live with it.

Gb, if God planned it then He would have necessarily created or induced Judas to act in such a fashion. And once agan - it's out of Judas' hands. No moral responsibility. And yes, God foreknew what Judas would do, and like a wise chessmaster, included that act in His overall plan. I simple thing for God really...

[GoBahnsen]

Gb, if God planned it then He would have necessarily created or induced Judas to act in such a fashion. And once agan - it's out of Judas' hands. No moral responsibility. And yes, God foreknew what Judas would do, and like a wise chessmaster, included that act in His overall plan. I simple thing for God really...A chessmaster plays against an opponent who puts his pants on one leg at a time too. Human versus human. God has no one to play chess with. God would need other gods out there for some competition. No, Judas didn't cook up the betrayal, he merely carried it out. Again, you fail to realize that though Jesus knew he would betray, he picks him anyway. In that sense, Jesus wanted to be betrayed. I don't think you see that or can fathom that. Think of all the glory that has come to God through His wisdom in carrying out His redemptive plan. How many saints of God have received comfort when betrayed by a friend, knowing their own Master endured the same?

You know, the problem seer, is that this low view of God that you have (in my opinion) leads to low worship as well. Your view of God is that He's just a nice, fair guy. Somewhere along the way that needs to get stepped up a few notches. To me, this is what the Reformers captured, the awesome power and sovereignty of God, while not neglecting the love of God.

In good Reformed worship services, you get a much more reverent approach to worship of God than you do at a typical freewill service. The freewillers are generally shallow. Their theology is shallow. Sorry if I sound ad hom. I like ya seer, you know that, but I don't think you got the real goods and I just need to keep trying to demonstrate that.

And am not trying to Ormly ya either. I might be wrong, but if I am, a tremendous cloud of witnesses before me goes down as well. And the RCC can make the same appeal, yet I think they lack very much in having many good guys in their history, guys that weren't trying to reform her anyway. Now she is a rotton mess. And Arminianism is a step back, toward Rome.

[yxboom]

When did I tell micah4 to shut up?
I never said you did.

I simply pointed him to place in Scripture where "like" questions as his got answered with that response, in so many words.

that is what I was referring to. I never claimed you directly told micah to shut up. What you did was use Paul's words to tell him to shut up. Which I said was totally flawed because you assume Paul is arguing in your favor.


I agree, I do not have the right to tell members to shut up, but I can remind them of where an Apostle did that to what I consider, a similar question. And yes, that's just my opinion and interpretation, I may be wrong.
Thats the whole problem. You interpret Paul to be addressing a similar question and then appeal to Paul when what is on the table is the validity of your interpretation of what Paul said and not Paul's statement itself. So for you to say Paul said this in response to this is wrong. You havent validated your interpretation that Paul said exactly what you are proposing he did.

[seer]

You know, the problem seer, is that this low view of God that you have (in my opinion) leads to low worship as well. Your view of God is that He's just a nice, fair guy. Somewhere along the way that needs to get stepped up a few notches. To me, this is what the Reformers captured, the awesome power and sovereignty of God, while not neglecting the love of God.

A low view of God GB? How can your view be any lower? God eternally harms men for doing what He created them to do. How irrational and unjust. That He has to be a mere puppet master - that He couldn't handle genuine human freedom. That my friend is a low view of God...

[yxboom]

You know, the problem seer, is that this low view of God that you have (in my opinion) leads to low worship as well. Your view of God is that He's just a nice, fair guy. Somewhere along the way that needs to get stepped up a few notches. To me, this is what the Reformers captured, the awesome power and sovereignty of God, while not neglecting the love of God.
Let's weigh this. How well do you honestly answer these questions: Do you pray because of a commandment or because of an invitation to pray? Does your prayers affect God in any meaningful way?

[GoBahnsen]

You know, the problem seer, is that this low view of God that you have (in my opinion) leads to low worship as well. Your view of God is that He's just a nice, fair guy. Somewhere along the way that needs to get stepped up a few notches. To me, this is what the Reformers captured, the awesome power and sovereignty of God, while not neglecting the love of God.

A low view of God GB? How can your view be any lower? God eternally harms men for doing what He created them to do. How irrational and unjust. That He has to be a mere puppet master - that He couldn't handle genuine human freedom. That my friend is a low view of God...I guess it's just a curious thing to me, that in my experience, Arminian type Churches are prone to a sort of irreverence. A casualness about their services. I don't think this was as prevalent in the early methodists, but then they were fresh out of the Presbyterian dominance that preceded them.

Today, I think we are seeing more of the fruit of where Arminianism leads to and it's as shallow as it's view of God's sovereignty over all things.

I don't like your use of the word "harm". It's pathetic really. Yet, it isn't surprising, since you have such a distorted view of Reformation theology. You treat it like Chappie does, recklessly. As if the giants of the faith who have penned so many thousands of commentaries and set up ophanages, hospitals and universites, where a bunch of cruel idiots who can't see how they make God look bad.

God handles genuine human freedom just fine, to the point that no human ever frustrates Him or carries out any more evil or good than God purposed that they should. Then He judges and rewards them accordingly.

[GoBahnsen]

Let's weigh this. How well do you honestly answer these questions: Do you pray because of a commandment or because of an invitation to pray?Both and because I want to and know I need to. It's about God's Spirit prompting us and moving us along.


Does your prayers affect God in any meaningful way?
If you're asking me, do I believe I get God doing my will, then I answer no. Prayer is all about God moving His people to petition Him for what He knows He is going to do. Whether we pray or not, God will accomplish His plan. If we fail to pray we miss out on being a part of what God is doing, and our failure to pray was taken into account before creation. We miss out and God knew it, He even chastens us and rebukes us for our sloth and gets us praying again.

[seer]

God handles genuine human freedom just fine, to the point that no human ever frustrates Him or carries out any more evil or good than God purposed that they should. Then He judges and rewards them accordingly.

Good, so you agree that men have genuine freedom in the libertarian sense. So what are we debating?

[yxboom]

Both and because I want to and know I need to. It's about God's Spirit prompting us and moving us along.
hello. Do you command your child to take out the trash and then offer it as a welcomed suggestion?

If you're asking me, do I believe I get God doing my will, then I answer no.
Do you think Joshua actually got God to do his will by stopping the sun from setting in the sky?

Prayer is all about God moving His people to petition Him for what He knows He is going to do.
So if an elect person prays their child to be healed and the child dies is that the failure of God's spirit to move properly or is the elect person attempting to thwart God's will?

Whether we pray or not, God will accomplish His plan. If we fail to pray we miss out on being a part of what God is doing, and our failure to pray was taken into account before creation. We miss out and God knew it, He even chastens us and rebukes us for our sloth and gets us praying again.
What is "our part" in what God is doing? asking God for what He made us ask?

[GoBahnsen]

hello. Do you command your child to take out the trash and then offer it as a welcomed suggestion? What's that got to do with your question. You just changed the language on me to "suggestion" and then spanked me for nothing.


Do you think Joshua actually got God to do his will by stopping the sun from setting in the sky?
No, God got Joshua to pray according to His (God's) will. Think about how God must have already had the brakes applied before He brought the earth to a halt on her axis. When Joshua prayed God was already in process or do you think God brought her to a screeching halt?


So if an elect person prays their child to be healed and the child dies is that the failure of God's spirit to move properly or is the elect person attempting to thwart God's will?
Why the Sunday school quiz? Sometimes God answer with a "no".



What is "our part" in what God is doing? asking God for what He made us ask?
Not "made", but moved us to. You non Reformed can't stop using, words like force, make, coerce. You can't conceive of how a Being like God can work upon hearts in such a way that a person is unaware of God even working. He works by His Spirit, but none of us comprehends what that actually looks like.

[GoBahnsen]

God handles genuine human freedom just fine, to the point that no human ever frustrates Him or carries out any more evil or good than God purposed that they should. Then He judges and rewards them accordingly.

Good, so you agree that men have genuine freedom in the libertarian sense. So what are we debating?I believe men are free to follow their natures. Free to be godless. I'm not a Pelagian, so if God does not graciously change a man's heart by His sovereign power, then that man is only free to continue on his path to hell. He's free to do what he wants and sin is what he wants. His will is in bondage to sin and the Devil. He is a captive, a slave to his own lust.

I don't believe in the Arminian kind of freewill. I guess to you that is genuine human freedom. I believe that only God can make a man free. Why God has decided to not liberate every sinner is none of my business. He has His purpose in leaving many to themselves. He could have left you and me there as well. Oh to grace, what a debtors we are!

[seer]

I believe men are free to follow their natures. Free to be godless. I'm not a Pelagian, so if God does not graciously change a man's heart by His sovereign power, then that man is only free to continue on his path to hell. He's free to do what he wants and sin is what he wants. His will is in bondage to sin and the Devil. He is a captive, a slave to his own lust.

Well just where did we get this god hating nature?

[micah4]

Not "made", but moved us to. You non Reformed can't stop using, words like force, make, coerce.


That's because the Reformed folk can't seem to provide a definition of force or coercion which their scenario doesn't fit. Does God "move" a person to regenerate themselves?


You can't conceive of how a Being like God can work upon hearts in such a way that a person is unaware of God even working.

Being unaware of a working is not the same as being free from coercion. If I knocked you out with cloroform while you slept and implanted a device in your brain that made you embrace arminianism from henceforth, you wouldn't be aware that I was working, but i