David's Census

[RBerman]

Except that now you're trying to have it both ways. That's not at all the system you espoused with Pharaoh. With Pharaoh, you stated that God didn't change his heart or in any way reverse-sanctify him. Rather, you stated that God merely set up a scenario where he knew Pharaoh would freely choose to harden his heart. With Christians, you're taking the opposite position and saying that God actually changes their hearts directly. Most people would describe your view of how God treats Christians as basically a lack of true free will, and most people would describe your view of how God treated Pharaoh as ordinary, run-of-the-mill free will. That's how different the two concepts are.

Of course, you could theoretically hold two different concepts. You could hold that God acted differently with Christians than with Pharaoh -- except that Calvinists use Pharaoh as one of their main proof-texts for how God deals with Christians!

I did not say that God did not change Pharaoh's heart. I said that it was true both that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. I said that this was typical of the ancient (and correct) view of everything that happens as being under God's control, even if it occurs through secondary means such as the wills of men, acts of nature, apparent accidents, etc.

As for free will, most people have either a fuzzy or incorrect notion of what the term means and do not base their ideas on the way God and man are described in Scripture. They often end up saying something like, "God is sovereign over everything... except human free will." Wrong. God is sovereign over everything, period. As Lee has shown, the Bible contains numerous examples of God's sovereignty over human decisions.

[Obsidian]

Lee might be calling it "sovereignty" in order to match your terminology, but he's basically stating that God merely lets people choose for themselves and then takes credit for their choices. That's not the same sovereignty you're arguing for.

I did not say that God did not change Pharaoh's heart.

Oh really? Well then what is this:

I said that this was typical of the ancient (and correct) view of everything that happens as being under God's control, even if it occurs through secondary means such as the wills of men, acts of nature, apparent accidents, etc.

God elects Obsidian, because God knows that Obsidian's natural will is such that Obsidian will Persevere until the end and not sin very much. In fact, Obsidian freely chooses not to sin just as God foreknew, and thus "God" has "preserved" Obsidian's sanctity.

But of course, there is no legalism in that whatsoever... It's just a...paradox, or something.

You have to pick one or the other. Something can't be based on Obsidian's works and God's works in the same way. You could have it be 50% Obsidian's works and 50% God's, but it can't be 100% Obsidian's and 100% God's -- because if it's 100% Obsidian's then you may as well just say that God's intervention is irrelevant.

Likewise, you can't say that Pharaoh's sin was 100% Pharaoh's and 100% God's. It could've been partly his own and partly the result of God's judgment, as my interpretation alleged. But if you try to say it was 100% of both then you just make the "God" part meaningless.

[RBerman]

Lee might be calling it "sovereignty" in order to match your terminology, but he's basically stating that God merely lets people choose for themselves and then takes credit for their choices. That's not the same sovereignty you're arguing for.

I'll let Lee respond to that. You have misunderstood me on several points, and you may misunderstand him as well.

I did not say that God did not change Pharaoh's heart.

Oh really? Well then what is this:

I said that this was typical of the ancient (and correct) view of everything that happens as being under God's control, even if it occurs through secondary means such as the wills of men, acts of nature, apparent accidents, etc.

God elects Obsidian, because God knows that Obsidian's natural will is such that Obsidian will Persevere until the end and not sin very much. In fact, Obsidian freely chooses not to sin just as God foreknew, and thus "God" has "preserved" Obsidian's sanctity.

But of course, there is no legalism in that whatsoever... It's just a...paradox, or something.

You have to pick one or the other. Something can't be based on Obsidian's works and God's works in the same way. You could have it be 50% Obsidian's works and 50% God's, but it can't be 100% Obsidian's and 100% God's -- because if it's 100% Obsidian's then you may as well just say that God's intervention is irrelevant.

Likewise, you can't say that Pharaoh's sin was 100% Pharaoh's and 100% God's. It could've been partly his own and partly the result of God's judgment, as my interpretation alleged. But if you try to say it was 100% of both then you just make the "God" part meaningless.

God does not elect because of anything foreseen in the sinner. God elects because He wants to. That's what "sovereign" means. It's more than just simple foresight, in which God knows what you're going to do. The reason you're going to do it is that your doing it (whatever "it" might be in some situation) is part of God's eternal plan for the world. And your reasons for doing it and God's reasons for having you do it may be completely different.

You are correct that "Something can't be based on Obsidian's works and God's works in the same way." God ordained that I would wear this shirt this morning, but I'm the one who put it on. Refer back to the analogy of the soldier. The bullet was 100% the reason that the man died. But the bullet owed its action to the action of the gun.

[Chappie]

As Lee has shown, the Bible contains numerous examples of God's sovereignty over human decisions.

The bible also contains many more examples where God's sovereignty remains intact, but he allows man to exercise his own volition. You see a few cases where God does impose his will and you use the few to usurp the integrity of the many. RF depends on a system of theological exaggerations to support its doctrines.

For once RB, I would like to see you apply the word true to what it really means, and how the word can be applied reasonably and logically within the reality in which we live. The word Sovereignty is passive, it places no demands on the one possessing it; and takes no actions without first being personally by the one possessing it. Sovereignty/independence: the right to self-government without interference from outside. Ergo God is without restriction as to how he must act. If he intervenes in one passage, he remains free to not intervene in others. There is no mandate that he exhaustively control everything. And one passage where he does intervene in this way does not demand that he do the same in a hundred others where he chooses not to.

Every act of disobedience listed in the bible is an example where one has chosen not to act in concert with the word of God. If disobedience is God’s will (Sneakily/deception-ally brought about through secondary causes) the word disobedience becomes nothing but a farce, a deception…

You see the word sovereignty and then you say, aaaaah, God has to exercise dictatorial powers over everything. The word makes no such assertion... Neither does its definition allow for such an interpretation... I have brought this up to you before, but you have refused to see it or even address it. It would be easy to research the word and find this out for yourself.

[Chappie]

I'll let Lee respond to that. You have misunderstood me on several points, and you may misunderstand him as well.

God does not elect because of anything foreseen in the sinner..

Then what does he elect based upon. Whatever he chooses based upon, it has to be found in what is elected. If it is found only in God, then logically he can only elect himself...

[RBerman]

Then what does he elect based upon.

His own good pleasure, naturally.

[Chappie]

His own good pleasure, naturally.

That is ridiculous. Still, if his good pleasure is found only within himself; logically he can choose only himself. You have already admitted that this is an inexplicable mystery for RF. Why not just admit that there is no logical explanation for this conclusion in the reality that we inhabit.

[RBerman]

That is ridiculous. Still, if his good pleasure is found only within himself; logically he can choose only himself. You have already admitted that this is an inexplicable mystery for RF. Why not just admit that there is no logical explanation for this conclusion in the reality that we inhabit.

I will say that God has not revealed his reasons for choosing me in particular, and I would not presume to read his mind. I am glad he chose me, though!

[Chappie]

I will say that God has not revealed his reasons for choosing me in particular, and I would not presume to read his mind. I am glad he chose me, though!

Is this your straw man?
You have no reasonable or logical explanation for your theory, and being that what you suggest is not clearly stated in the bible, but rather is obtained through vague inferences; there is no way that you can reasonably escape the demands of logic and reason in reaching your conclusion...

Still love you though..
~Chappie

[RBerman]

Is this your straw man?
You have no reasonable or logical explanation for your theory, and being that what you suggest is not clearly stated in the bible, but rather is obtained through vague inferences; there is no way that you can reasonably escape the demands of logic and reason in reaching your conclusion...

Still love you though..
~Chappie

Don't know what you mean by "straw man" since I'm describing my own position. My position is that "Why did God choose those particular people" is not a topic that the Bible addresses, so I agree with your observation that it's not clearly stated in the Bible. It's not stated at all in the Bible! In the absence of data, there's no substrate upon which to perform "the demands of logic and reason." We're left with faith that God knows what He is doing.

[Chappie]

Don't know what you mean by "straw man" since I'm describing my own position. My position is that "Why did God choose those particular people" is not a topic that the Bible addresses, so I agree with your observation that it's not clearly stated in the Bible. It's not stated at all in the Bible! In the absence of data, there's no substrate upon which to perform "the demands of logic and reason." We're left with faith that God knows what He is doing.

By straw man I mean an evasive attempt to avoid answering something for which one has no answer. You do not want to admit that your response has no quantitative merit, is actually is without substance, but doggedly you want to hold on to it anyway. IOW, reason be damned, so the bridge is out ahead, full speed ahead.

And without said substance, any exegetical extrapolations must be based on following the tenets of reason or logic; otherwise you do not have a leg to stand up on.

And it is not reasonable to say that you do not know why, but you know that God chose you. And this is not a statement that you ascertain through evidence, but you apprehend it through/by faith. Your faith is the only evidence that you have that God has chosen you. Tenuous at best: For in that day, many that call him Lord will be told to depart from me, for I never knew you....

This is why I will never say to another, I received grace, but you got justice. You deserve to be consigned to the bowels of hell. By faith I do not believe that I am going to hell, but I have not seen my name in the book of life: Shucks RB, I have not even seen the book. Ergo, I would never be so arrogant as to say that another person does deserve it...

We do agree, God knows what he is doing, but it's you and me that I am worried about. If I am saved, I am humbly saved: I am not saved to the point of arrogance...

[lee_merrill]

Not sure that I understand you Lee: The best way that I can think of to say this is to say: God has complete authority, and the power to insert his will whenever, and where he chooses. When and where is a decision that God makes depending on the circumstances.

I was after a different point, if the only real freedom to choose is within God's will, then God remains in control, and yet there is real freedom...

Determinism, compatabalism are not in harmony with a preponderance of scripture.

Certainly determinism is not. But compatibilism might be, though I disagree with it.

Just as God declared all men under sin because of Adam, he here declares all that is not of faith sin. It is not the sin that condemns them; it's God's declaration... There is a certain amount of hyperbole in the passage added for significance...

That's getting away from the plain meaning here, my friend.

"And without faith it is impossible to please God..." (Heb 11:6 NIV)

Well, even those that coined the phrase admit that it needs a quantifier for clarity...

I agree that Total Depravity is not a good choice of words! Total corruption, maybe, is more along the lines of what this means.

Well, it could mean that God ordained the death of the incarnate Christ as necessary for the remission of sin. It could mean that God ordained the sacrifice without necessarily ordaining the sin and evil associated with it...

I would say the killing of the Son of God would be a sin, in any variation of the actual details of the event. There would be no way to do this without injustice.

Were not those actively responsible for the events of the day not volitionally guilty of anything? Was it all God?

No, it's like Judas. Judas' deed was predicted in Scripture, he was going to do it regardless, and was still condemned.

"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." (Mat 26:24 NIV)

Blessings,
Lee

[RBerman]

By straw man I mean an evasive attempt to avoid answering something for which one has no answer.

That is not what a straw man is, though. A straw man is an unfair characterization of an opponent's position. I was giving my own view (or rather, admitting that I cannot have a view on a matter on which Scripture is silent), so that's not a straw man.

And it is not reasonable to say that you do not know why, but you know that God chose you. And this is not a statement that you ascertain through evidence, but you apprehend it through/by faith. Your faith is the only evidence that you have that God has chosen you. Tenuous at best: For in that day, many that call him Lord will be told to depart from me, for I never knew you....

All true. I throw myself on God's mercy. His will be done.

This is why I will never say to another, I received grace, but you got justice. You deserve to be consigned to the bowels of hell. By faith I do not believe that I am going to hell, but I have not seen my name in the book of life: Shucks RB, I have not even seen the book. Ergo, I would never be so arrogant as to say that another person does deserve it...

I don't know anyone who deserves eternal life. We all deserve hell. God offers that through faith in Christ, we can receive the life we don't deserve, because Christ died a death for us which he did not deserve. That is the gospel.

[Obsidian]

God does not elect because of anything foreseen in the sinner. God elects because He wants to. That's what "sovereign" means. It's more than just simple foresight, in which God knows what you're going to do.
. . . .
You are correct that "Something can't be based on Obsidian's works and God's works in the same way." God ordained that I would wear this shirt this morning, but I'm the one who put it on. Refer back to the analogy of the soldier.

So are you saying that God chooses your clothing? If God did not directly intervene in the physics/metaphysics of the universe, would you still pick the same clothes, or would you pick different ones?

The bullet was 100% the reason that the man died. But the bullet owed its action to the action of the gun.

A rather unuseful analogy, as bullets do not have free will

if the only real freedom to choose is within God's will, then God remains in control, and yet there is real freedom...

Same question to you: Did God directly intervene in the physics/metaphysics of the universe directly prior to Pharaoh's hardening of his heart? (Turning the stick to a snake and speaking to Moses earlier do not count)

If God had not intervened, would Pharaoh's decision have been different?

I would say the killing of the Son of God would be a sin, in any variation of the actual details of the event. There would be no way to do this without injustice.

I don't think I particularly agree with that. Maybe it was only a sin because it wasn't done in faith.

[Chappie]

Originally posted by Chappie
Not sure that I understand you Lee: The best way that I can think of to say this is to say: God has complete authority, and the power to insert his will whenever, and where he chooses. When and where is a decision that God makes depending on the circumstances.

Lee
I was after a different point, if the only real freedom to choose is within God's will, then God remains in control, and yet there is real freedom...

If the only real freedom to choose is within God's will, then disobedience becomes nothing more than a useless word. You also have to place sin & evil within the proactive will of God. Not good theology.