Sin And Determinism...

[seer]

If determinism is true then how can one really be sorrowful over his sin. We had no choice in the nature that produced said sin and when we sin we are just as much in the "will" of God as when we obey. We could cry - what an horrible creature I am! But in the back of your mind you know that when you sin you are doing exactly what God wanted you to do at that moment. No genuine conviction is possible...

[micah4]

But in the back of your mind you know that when you sin you are doing exactly what God wanted you to do at that moment.

Not only that, but in the view of J. Edwards and many other determinists (some on this board have expressed the same views), sin is actually necessary to achieve the "greatest good". If man didn't sin, then the greatest good wouldn't be achieved. So even though Paul says "God forbid that we should sin so that good should abound", the determinist affirms that by our sinning good does truly abound. So as you say, any exercise in sorrow could only be "because God says we should be sorry", not because any harm or wrong comes from our sin. Ultimately the determinist must say that there exists no objective evil, and that we only think of things as evil because of our ignorance, i.e., we don't see the big picture.

[seer]

Not only that, but in the view of J. Edwards and many other determinists (some on this board have expressed the same views), sin is actually necessary to achieve the "greatest good". If man didn't sin, then the greatest good wouldn't be achieved. So even though Paul says "God forbid that we should sin so that good should abound", the determinist affirms that by our sinning good does truly abound. So as you say, any exercise in sorrow could only be "because God says we should be sorry", not because any harm or wrong comes from our sin. Ultimately the determinist must say that there exists no objective evil, and that we only think of things as evil because of our ignorance, i.e., we don't see the big picture.

That is exactly right. And one could not logically experience any genuine moral conviction in such a model. And if you think about it, it feeds into secular materialism which says that we are not volitional moral beings, but rather products of natural forces beyond our control - therfore we are not responsible.

[Xmansmommy]

If determinism is true then how can one really be sorrowful over his sin. We had no choice in the nature that produced said sin and when we sin we are just as much in the "will" of God as when we obey. We could cry - what an horrible creature I am! But in the back of your mind you know that when you sin you are doing exactly what God wanted you to do at that moment. No genuine conviction is possible...

You just described how I thought when I first became a Christian, Jim. I felt bad to some degree, but I couldn't not do what God always knew I would do or even decided I would do. But when the HS turned me from that view I was horrified at my non chalantness over sin and it's affects. I am so grateful that God seriously convicted me in my personal life, changed my mind theologically and showed me how my sin affected Him and others around me and that He didn't delight in it nor desire it.

[seer]

You just described how I thought when I first became a Christian, Jim. I felt bad to some degree, but I couldn't not do what God always knew I would do or even decided I would do. But when the HS turned me from that view I was horrified at my non chalantness over sin and it's affects. I am so grateful that God seriously convicted me in my personal life, changed my mind theologically and showed me how my sin affected Him and others around me and that He didn't delight in it nor desire it.


Amen Sis...

[smaller]

If determinism is true then how can one really be sorrowful over his sin. We had no choice in the nature that produced said sin and when we sin we are just as much in the "will" of God as when we obey. We could cry - what an horrible creature I am! But in the back of your mind you know that when you sin you are doing exactly what God wanted you to do at that moment. No genuine conviction is possible...

We've done this drill a few times now seer. It's a simple drill.

All things serve God's Purposes. Your "feelings" in this matter serve God's Purposes as well. How exactly all things serve His Purposes we cannot tell. It's a complex observation that only HE can take pleasure in.

So you say remorse in not available in determinism YET remorse exists just as confusion exists. All of these observations will still center around one fact and that fact is that all things, no matter what they are serve God's Purposes.

So you say conviction is not available under determinism and I say all things are available and allowed under determinism and Love is found to be far Superior in every case.

! !

[Nang]

If determinism is true then how can one really be sorrowful over his sin.

By God granting one repentance. (II Tim. 2:25, Acts 5:31, 11:18)


We had no choice in the nature that produced said sin

No, we inherited our sinful nature, but as soon as we leave the womb we begin to go astray. We wllfully add our own sins to the guilt we inherited from Adam.



and when we sin we are just as much in the "will" of God as when we obey.

What a strange misunderstanding you have of these things. How could God, in whom there is no sin, and who cannot even look upon sin, will that His creatures sin?

Having foreknowledge that we creatures ~would~ sin, does not equate with God ~willing~ us to sin.



We could cry - what an horrible creature I am! But in the back of your mind you know that when you sin you are doing exactly what God wanted you to do at that moment. No genuine conviction is possible...

You are spouting the philosophy of "fatalism."

And determinists are not fatalists.

What keeps the Christian determinist from being merely "fatalistic?"

His faith in Jesus Christ, who demonstrated both Divine Sovereignty as well as perfect human responsibility in His God/Man Personhood.

These truths only reconcile in Him, and teach us God's sovereign will was done so that man's will can be freed from bondage to the inescapable fate of sin, death, and the devil.

Only when freed from enslavement to wickedness, does the soul grasp the horror and enormity of the law of sin that he is susceptible to in the flesh.

Jesus Christ has redeemed His people from the power of sin and an inescapable fate, by taking their sins upon His body in crucifixion and suffering their fate on their behalf.

God determined to do so, before creation.

Nang

[seer]

What a strange misunderstanding you have of these things. How could God, in whom there is no sin, and who cannot even look upon sin, will that His creatures sin?

Having foreknowledge that we creatures ~would~ sin, does not equate with God ~willing~ us to sin.

So Nang, when we sin we are outside the will of God? Good - we agree...

[Nang]

[i]

So Nang, when we sin we are outside the will of God? Good - we agree...

What will count on Judgment Day, is whether we sinners are in Christ Jesus, or not. Whether we are known by God, or not. Whether Jesus has justified (forgiven) all our sins; past, present, and future, or not.

For our Savior never functioned apart from the will of the Father, and He represented His elect in that faithful capacity in a vicarious mode; even unto death.

It is more important to focus on being victors over sin (I Cor. 15:57); safe and redeemed within Christ, by the work of His Holy Spirit and faith, than focusing on our sinful failure to do God's will.

Nang

[GoBahnsen]

By God granting one repentance. (II Tim. 2:25, Acts 5:31, 11:18)




No, we inherited our sinful nature, but as soon as we leave the womb we begin to go astray. We wllfully add our own sins to the guilt we inherited from Adam.





What a strange misunderstanding you have of these things. How could God, in whom there is no sin, and who cannot even look upon sin, will that His creatures sin?

Having foreknowledge that we creatures ~would~ sin, does not equate with God ~willing~ us to sin.




You are spouting the philosophy of "fatalism."

And determinists are not fatalists.

What keeps the Christian determinist from being merely "fatalistic?"

His faith in Jesus Christ, who demonstrated both Divine Sovereignty as well as perfect human responsibility in His God/Man Personhood.

These truths only reconcile in Him, and teach us God's sovereign will was done so that man's will can be freed from bondage to the inescapable fate of sin, death, and the devil.

Only when freed from enslavement to wickedness, does the soul grasp the horror and enormity of the law of sin that he is susceptible to in the flesh.

Jesus Christ has redeemed His people from the power of sin and an inescapable fate, by taking their sins upon His body in crucifixion and suffering their fate on their behalf.

God determined to do so, before creation.

NangNang writes like a Calvinistic devotionalist. She fires me up with the truths she reminds me of, but she also writes in a style that attempts to be more of a setting forth of a truth, rather than the defending of it.

I enjoy it, but I'm the choir. I'm not saying I defend Reformed thought better, I don't, but I have observed that Nang is better at preaching to the choir than to those who oppose her or her beliefs.

I just wrote this for what ever it's worth to Nang or opponents of Reformed theology. And it isn't to say that Nang never goes beyond assertion, she does, but her strength is in declaring truth , rather than defending it. Just an observation. It blesses me, and for that I'm thankful.


Thanks Nang, keep posting.

[Nang]

I just wrote this for what ever it's worth to Nang or opponents of Reformed theology. And it isn't to say that Nang never goes beyond assertion, she does, but her strength is in declaring truth , rather than defending it. Just an observation. It blesses me, and for that I'm thankful.


Thanks Nang, keep posting.

Thanks. Astute observation.

For my answers are deliberately chosen to reiterate the truth, rather than defend against lies. (At least I try. I may falter often, but that is my heart motive and prayers before the Lord as I witness.)

Because to debate lies, the lies have to be repeated, and to fall into that trap (which is usually set against us) very easily degenerates into intellectual and religious bog.

Jesus Christ spoke only truth, and argued only with Godly truth (Matthew 4:4), which Word of truth, of course, holds all authority and power and needs no real defense.

I seek to emulate Him and keep myself focused on what God emphasizes in His Word, rather than arguing the silly and unending deviations and oppositions of men.

Nang

[GoBahnsen]

Thanks. Astute observation.

For my answers are deliberately chosen to reiterate the truth, rather than defend against lies. (At least I try. I may falter often, but that is my heart motive and prayers before the Lord as I witness.)

Because to debate lies, the lies have to be repeated, and to fall into that trap (which is usually set against us) very easily degenerates into intellectual and religious bog.

Jesus Christ spoke only truth, and argued only with Godly truth (Matthew 4:4), which Word of truth, of course, holds all authority and power and needs no real defense.

I seek to emulate Him and keep myself focused on what God emphasizes in His Word, rather than arguing the silly and unending deviations and oppositions of men.

NangThat's very profound friend. I think you have a gift and are exercising it well. You make people angry with your dogmatism and ridgidness, but if you're right (content-wise) in what you proclaim, Jesus did use much the same style.

He just spoke forth truth without much defense of it. He was simply amazing, as we would expect. I love the way He handled Himself. Let us hope we are speaking forth that same truth in a spirit of love and humility.


Press on then, GB

[Spiderman&Co.]

That's very profound friend. I think you have a gift and are exercising it well. You make people angry with your dogmatism and ridgidness, but if you're right (content-wise) in what you proclaim, Jesus did use much the same style.

He just spoke forth truth without much defense of it. He was simply amazing, as we would expect. I love the way He handled Himself. Let us hope we are speaking forth that same truth in a spirit of love and humility.


Press on then, GB

However, Jesus was never exclusive on the doctrines of which Nang is so exclusive. Jesus never proposed that a particular view of Providence was necessary for savlation, or for inclusion into the group of twelve disciples, or even for fellowship with other Believers. Jesus never made the disciples sign off on the Synod of Dort or the 5 points of Calvin. This is not to say that Jesus did not have strong beliefs about predestination, foreknowledge, etc. In fact, he even taught as much (See John 6 "No one comes unless the Father draws"). But he never sought to divide believers in the way Nang continually does. They seem to me as though they are looking for ways to divide. That is not to say that they don't have a strong philosophical belief system that they believe is importatnt - I don't want to undermine the intellectual side of the coin - but at the same time it is hard to read some of the posts without thinking, "Man, Jesus NEVER sought to divide Christians over such debates."

If you can show me an example where Jesus sought to divide over your version of providence, then I will stand corrected.

And, by the way, I'm a member of the choir (Calvinistic in theology) who does not appreciate Nang's divisive posts. Not because I disagree on the theology, but because I disagree with the lack of charity. I do not think Nang possesses "love and humility." At least, not when she is posting on TWeb.

Finally, I am not oppossed to the debate. Just the attitude that says, "Calvinists/Arminians are not Christians because they believe in Predestination/Free Will." Read my prior posts and you will see that I love debate.

[yxboom]

Thanks. Astute observation.

For my answers are deliberately chosen to reiterate the truth, rather than defend against lies. (At least I try. I may falter often, but that is my heart motive and prayers before the Lord as I witness.)

Because to debate lies, the lies have to be repeated, and to fall into that trap (which is usually set against us) very easily degenerates into intellectual and religious bog.

Jesus Christ spoke only truth, and argued only with Godly truth (Matthew 4:4), which Word of truth, of course, holds all authority and power and needs no real defense.

I seek to emulate Him and keep myself focused on what God emphasizes in His Word, rather than arguing the silly and unending deviations and oppositions of men.

Nang
the only problem is that jesus never spoke by unfounded assertion. he spoke truth. i have yet to see you say anything that is not pure assertion.

[David G]

The discussions of Open views of the future vs Reformed theology that have spawned discussions of determinism, free will, and the like are important to challenge our thinking on our consideration of the moral attributes of God, and his divine attributes, and the implications of problems that arise from certain positions. Those problems are centuries old, and will not be resolved conclusively on this or any other board, but they are valuble discussions nonetheless.

Our positions need to leave God with all of his divine attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, all sovereign) and moral attributes (God of love, mercy justice) intact, with man bearing all responsibility for moral failure and it’s consequences.

And there’s the rub - that the classical theists say that the OVTers leave God as having less than omnipotent and sovereign control, and the OVTers say that the classic theists’ definitions of omniscience, foreknowledge, sovereignty, etc. do damage to the moral attributes of God, leaving him less than loving, merciful, or just; thus rendering him less than worthy of worship and allegiance.

My contention as an OVTer is that an incredible amount of scripture is being thrown into the anthropomorphic catagory, along with unanswered questions thrown into the “mystery” catagory. I’m not buying that, but I am open to my questions being responded to in real and informed ways.

I presently think if one were to adjust their view of reality, and it’s implications on time and the future, then a lot would be solved on it’s own.

[yxboom]

The discussions of Open views of the future vs Reformed theology that have spawned discussions of determinism, free will, and the like are important to challenge our thinking on our consideration of the moral attributes of God, and his divine attributes, and the implications of problems that arise from certain positions. Those problems are centuries old, and will not be resolved conclusively on this or any other board, but they are valuble discussions nonetheless.

Our positions need to leave God with all of his divine attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, all sovereign) and moral attributes (God of love, mercy justice) intact, with man bearing all responsibility for moral failure and it’s consequences.

And there’s the rub - that the classical theists say that the OVTers leave God as having less than omnipotent and sovereign control, and the OVTers say that the classic theists’ definitions of omniscience, foreknowledge, sovereignty, etc. do damage to the moral attributes of God, leaving him less than loving, merciful, or just; thus rendering him less than worthy of worship and allegiance.

My contention as an OVTer is that an incredible amount of scripture is being thrown into the anthropomorphic catagory, along with unanswered questions thrown into the “mystery” catagory. I’m not buying that, but I am open to my questions being responded to in real and informed ways.

I presently think if one were to adjust their view of reality, and it’s implications on time and the future, then a lot would be solved on it’s own.
welcome to theologyweb Dave G

[infide]

Welcome David,

The discussions of Open views of the future vs Reformed theology that have spawned discussions of determinism, free will, and the like are important to challenge our thinking on our consideration of the moral attributes of God, and his divine attributes, and the implications of problems that arise from certain positions. Those problems are centuries old, and will not be resolved conclusively on this or any other board, but they are valuble discussions nonetheless.

agreed, but just so you know, it isnt just OVT vs. RT. There is SFK Arminianism, and Molinism, which are against the others. (And some other views, like Universalism a la Smaller, and others).

Our positions need to leave God with all of his divine attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, all sovereign) and moral attributes (God of love, mercy justice) intact, with man bearing all responsibility for moral failure and it’s consequences.

And there’s the rub - that the classical theists say that the OVTers leave God as having less than omnipotent and sovereign control, and the OVTers say that the classic theists’ definitions of omniscience, foreknowledge, sovereignty, etc. do damage to the moral attributes of God, leaving him less than loving, merciful, or just; thus rendering him less than worthy of worship and allegiance.

My contention as an OVTer is that an incredible amount of scripture is being thrown into the anthropomorphic catagory, along with unanswered questions thrown into the “mystery” catagory. I’m not buying that, but I am open to my questions being responded to in real and informed ways.

I presently think if one were to adjust their view of reality, and it’s implications on time and the future, then a lot would be solved on it’s own.

but there are reasons to not accept the prima facie meaning of every text of Scripture and to think that some things in Scripture are anthropomorphic in nature. To not consider this is to disregard the kind of literature we are dealing with in Scriptural texts.

So, no, it is not necessarily fruitful to simply "adjust our view of reality and the future" in order to solve the issues Scriptural interpretation. That is one way to do it, one that I find completely naive and ad hoc. But there are other possibilities (that have been taught by prominent Church leaders throughout Church History, and no, you cant disregard all of Church history as being "infiltrated by Greek philosophy").

peace,
jd

[john-philip]

I think if an anthropomorphic interpretation is possible, and leads to a view of scripture that is wholly compatible with itself, then it should be taken. :shrug:

[Nang]

the only problem is that jesus never spoke by unfounded assertion. he spoke truth. i have yet to see you say anything that is not pure assertion.

That is why I try to quote the truth of Scripture as my authority, in order to demonstrate I do not speak from my mind, but from the mind of Jesus Christ. (I Cor. 2:16)

However, I am most often shot down by your bunch, with the accusation of "prooftexting," resulting in God's truthful authority being trashed and ignored.

Do you have suggestions for earnest contributors to this website, as to how they can share Godly "truth" and discuss theology, apart from the Bible, that is acceptable but not personally assertive . . . in your estimation?

Nang

[Colossians]

Seer,

If determinism is true then how can one really be sorrowful over his sin.
Because our sorrow is also determined. (Funny about that hey.)


You need to read Romans 9:19, and then realise that you are playing the part of the hypothetical antagonist Paul proposes in that verse. Rom 9:19 was specifically written for you fellows.

[seer]

Seer,

If determinism is true then how can one really be sorrowful over his sin.
Because our sorrow is also determined. (Funny about that hey.)

Lol, So Colossians, God makes you feel bad over something you had no choice in or no control over? It's all a game isn't it...