Sin having no purpose is ridiculous. That means everything is random. Chaos would be the result. And every human's birth and death is in man's hands instead of God's. Arminianism teaches that everyone who ends up in heaven are just there by chance. They got lucky. God never planned to save them. By their own wisdom and desires they're saved.
The Calvinist / Arminian debate is plagued with the horns of the dilemma fallacy. Primitive Baptists, for example, hold to TULIP and the Sovereignty (dominion) of God but do not believe in the absolute predestination of all things (APoaT). Arminians fail to embrace man's abject spiritual deadness (Eph 2:1). The Calvinist's APoaT makes God the author of sin, but God is not the author of confusion (I Cor 14:33) and sin is nothing if not confusion. PBs understand this - A's and C's don't.
@theearstohear - Calvinists do not believe that God is the Author of sin, nor does the Calvinistic position make God to be the Author of sin. God is ultimately RESPONSIBLE for sin, since at any time, either before or after creation, He could have eliminated it, but God does not commit sin, nor does He tempt another to sin. But He HAS foreordained that sin should exist, and that it shall work for His own glory, both in his Justice and in His Mercy.
@stegokitty - Calvinists resort to "secondary causes" to defend God against the accusation of being the author of sin. However, the Calvinist's belief in the Absolute Predestination of All Things (APoaT) undermines this defense by eliminating secondary causes. If all things are absolutely predestinated by God, there are NO secondary causes and if there are NO secondary causes then God is the immediate author of sin. Calvinists refuse to face this matter directly, resorting to antinomy.
@theearstohear - Nope. Secondary causes are actually established by God's absolute sovereignty. Unless God is sovereign, then God is not God. God MUST be in absolute control over all things, whether the greatest star in the universe, or the tiniest molecule on the other side of the universe. The god of Arminianism is a limp-wristed janitor.
@stegokitty - Calvinists conjoin sovereignty (the quality dominion) with predestination (an act stemming from dominion). If God has absolutely predestinated everything that comes to pass then there is no such thing as a secondary cause, because whatever you would call a secondary cause has God as its immediate author and predestinator. I realize that what you are saying is the WCF Calvinst's party line. I'm asserting that it is self contradictory.
@theearstohear - Wrong again. The BIBLE teaches God's absolute sovereignty over whatsoever comes to pass (try reading only the account of God sending the Assyrian king in Isaiah 10 for a tiny example), and that men are morally responsible agents. Because you aren't able to grasp it doesn't negate the fact that it is. Also, it's not my problem that you're unable to grasp an intellectually necessary condition, which I am able to grasp. Your inability doesn't negate the facts.
@stegokitty - Sovereignty is dominion. It is the absolute authority of God over all. It is not the same as predestination, which is an act of God whereby events are predetermined. You will miss much if you fail to recognize this important distinction.
@theearstohear - I haven't missed any distinction. Predestination is about the ultimate destiny of all men. Foreordination is the decree of God over whatsoever comes to pass. God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and has determined, from all eternity, the final destination of all human beings. For you, it appears that God executes his dominion by acting as a janitor. For those of us who take the Bible seriously, we agree that God governs all his creatures and all their actions.
@stegokitty - It is certainly true that God has determined those who will be saved. It is not true that God has absolutely predestined every event that comes to pass. "And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind" (Jer 32:35) There's now way to reconcile absolute predestination with this verse w/o making God a liar.
@theearstohear - Again, you show that you don't understand the necessity of God's absolute foreordination of whatsoever comes to pass, despite the fact that the Bible teaches it very plainly. And how hilarious for you to use that verse. So God never even thought of the IDEA??? Mankind thought of something that God was like "Wha...? Wow, those crafty humans really pulled a fast one on me."
NO!
God is saying it never entered His mind to tell them to DO such a thing.
@stegokitty - Clearly Jeremiah cannot be referencing God's knowledge of events - we both affirm God's omniscience. But if God absoultely predestined those actions to happen, then the statement that it "never came into my mind" is not correct in any sense.
@theearstohear - Wrong againm (and please stop confusing "predestination" with "predetermined" or "foreordained"). God is simply saying that the wicked acts that the Israelites had committed (in imitation of their pagan neighbors) was not something that God would EVER command them, nor even consider to command. That's all. It is correct in that sense, and in that sense only.
@theearstohear - It's not about what I regard, it's about what the words mean. PreDESTINATION has to do with where one is going, either Heaven, or Hell, and that God determined it before time began. Foreordination is God's decree concerning his creation. Predestination is under the rubric of Foreordination, but just as all roses are flowers, not all flowers are roses. God didn't predestine the crucifixion of Christ, but He did foreordain it.
@stegokitty - Following up on the crucifixion: Christ is described as the Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world. This would be impossible, unless sin was also foreordained from the foundation of the world. And as I've previously described as necessary, all events leading up to and including the crucifixion, where also perfectly foreordained by God, yet God did not do the sinning Himself.
God determined that wicked, sinful men WOULD crucify Christ.
@stegokitty - One cannot be the author of an event through preordination while maintaining that the event never came into their mind. This would be like having Shakespeare assert that the idea for "The Taming of the Shrew" never came into his mind. Absolute predestination of all things is Achilles heel of classical Calvinism. It makes God the author of sin, despite all the WCF hopscotch as assertions to the contrary. Adam's sin was an act of disobedience. (Rom 5:19)
@theearstohear - As I've already answered, it's not about a thing not being in the knowledge of God, but of it not being a command of God. In another example, it's along the same lines as if someone misunderstands your words, and thinks you're insulting them, and you say "It never even entered my mind to insult you." God is separated from such a wicked command, and one which He would never even consider giving to His people, though He DID give over the pagans to idols.
@theearstohear - As I've already answered, it's not about a thing not being in the knowledge of God, but of it not being a command of God. In another example, it's along the same lines as if someone misunderstands your words, and thinks you're insulting them, and you say "It never even entered my mind to insult you." God is separated from such a wicked command, and one which He would never even consider giving to His people, though He DID give over the pagans to idols.
@theearstohear - And your "sin is nothing if not confusion" is utter nonsense. There is nothing "confusing" about sin. Apparently you don't understand sin either.
@stegokitty - Brother, if sin is not the ultimate example of confusion, I can't think of a better one. Is not man very confused if he believes he can do something against the commandments of a holy God and get away with it? What could be more confused than that? WCF says that sin is any want of conformity to or transgression of the law of God. Can someone who fails to conform to God's law be in a state of understanding? Indeed not, there is none that understandeth. Sin is confusion.
@theearstohear - The Bible never describes sin as "confusion". Natural man isn't confused, he's dead. Sin is not confusion, sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the Law of God. That is rebellion, not confusion. Just as our first parents rebelled (they were not confused, but sinned purposefully), so do we. We are not confused, we're evil. Perhaps if you weren't so busy trying to make God into a janitor, you wouldn't be ascribing oddball definitions to sin.
@stegokitty - Rebellion against one's own creator is confusion. Rebels lack a proper understanding of either what is right to do or the consequences of sin. They either think they will get away with it, or that God will ignore it, or that they will be like God. All of which is confusion because it is contrary to what God said - that sin results in death. Brother - sin is rebellion and rebellion against your creator is abject confusion - the opposite of understanding.
@theearstohear - So, all we need is to have our minds unconfused? Hmmm, trying to think of a single verse saying as much. We are spiritually DEAD, not merely confused. Sinner delude themselves. Adam and Eve were not sinners. They KNOWINGLY sinned against God. They were not confused. Satan was not confused. There is no verse in the Bible supporting your notion.
@stegokitty - Even the spiritually dead sinner has natural life. In that natural life he is devoid of spiritual understanding (Rom 3:11). Anyone devoid of understanding is in confusion. I never said that man is "merely confused," but rather that sin is confusion. Foolishness is confusion and "the though of foolishness is sin." (Prov 24:9) Are you suggesting that Adam's thought which led to rebellion was not foolish? Check mate.
@theearstohear - Natural life is not spiritual life. Big difference. No amount of your shifting around is going to make sin into "confusion". Give it up. Sin is not confusion. The Bible never says so. You've failed to prove your point (again).
@stegokitty - I believe it was that very distinction between natural and spiritual life that I was drawing out. Natural life is devoid of spiritual understanding. That is precisely my point. Sin is rebellion. Rebellion against God is foolish. Foolishness is lack of understanding. Lack of understanding is confusion. Proof.
@theearstohear - And never have I denied that. But you keep insisting that spiritual awakening from the dead IS salvation. It is not. It is included IN salvation. Salvation is being saved FROM the wrath of God, from the corruption of this world, from the dominion of sin, and being saved UNTO God in Christ, through adoption and sanctification. No one who is made spiritually alive fails to repent and believe, to persevere in the faith to the end, and to be glorified.
@stegokitty - It is salvation in that once one is regenerated God has begun a good work in you and thus one is in possession of eternal life and cannot lose it. If one defines salvation as including EVERYTHING then none of us are saved because none of us are glorified. So in the realm of our human experience, man's salvation begins at regeneration.
@theearstohear - When you were born and breathed your first breath, was that enough? You were alive, but if you stopped breathing, what would happen? The same is with us. IF it were possible for the elect to actually stop believing, they would die again spiritually. But the Spirit is always actively working in and through us via repentance and faith, repentance and faith. Yes, salvation BEGINS at regeneration. It doesn't stop there. Now, perhaps you'll get off the Arminian accusations?
@stegokitty - It was enough to establish that I was alive. Likewise one who is regenerated is alive in Christ and shall never perish whether he ever exercises evangelical faith or not. This is what WCF 10.3 teaches - else you consign the idiot and the imbecile to hell. To save them requires the admission that repentance and faith are not requirements of eternal salvation but provisions of the covenant whereby we "walk" (i.e. live) in this life, not effectuating requirements of eternal life.
@stegokitty - "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman BEING DECEIVED was in the transgression." (I Tim 2:14) Is someone who is deceived in confusion? Clearly yes. And that confusion was "in the transgression." Any rebellious thought against God is foolish. And foolishness is the absence of understanding; also known as confusion.
@stegokitty - Why do you assume that someone who does not agree with your take on theology is "trying to make God a janitor" or one that "doesn't take the bible seriously?" Those are pretty bombastic assertions.
@theearstohear - If God has not foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, then the only other option is that God is the great cosmic janitor. How else to you explain the existence of sin, and the NECESSITY of sin in the plan of God? God foreordained the crucifixion of Christ. It was NECESSARY that sinful men kill the Son of God. And God did't suddenly get in there and play puppetmaster. No, all things lead up to that event, and all things after.
@stegokitty - This is a false dichotomy. The existence of sin is explained through a willful act of prideful rebellion on the part of Satan (Is 14:13). It entered humanity through an act of human DISOBEDIENCE (Rom 5:19). The necessity is accomodated by God's perfect knowledge, not by foreordaining every single thing. Perfect knowledge is sufficent surity that when the Son of God was delivered into the raging river of a sinful world, he would most certainly be taken over the falls.
@theearstohear - God cannot foreknow that which is not certain. And if it is certain, it cannot be changed. And if it it certain, and cannot be changed, and God is sovereign, then it is foreordained. Otherwise, God is merely a good guesser. God could not guarantee that Christ would be crucified at all (much less "at the right time") unless He had orchestrated all things (ALL THINGS!) prior to it. Real men, with real personalities had to reject Christ and kill Him, in acts of their wills.
@stegokitty - God's foreknowledge of events is certain. It follows that the acts of men introduce no variance into the equation so far as God is concerned. Thus foreknowledge is as certain for the unordained acts as for the ordained else God is not omniscient. God is not a good guesser, he's an all-knower. He can guarantee everything based on the testimony of his perfect knowledge. Omniscience is precisely why absolute predestination is not required for absolute certainty.
@theearstohear - Um, the acts of men are the means by which God does His will. You don't see giant hands coming down out of Heaven to do things. Therefore God ordains the circumstances under which all men are born, and their personalities, etc., which lead them to do what they do. This is nonsensical "Omniscience is precisely why absolute predestination is not required for absolute certainty." How does one even address such an absolutely (pardon me) stupid comment?
@stegokitty - There's nothing nonsensical about that statement. If God has perfect knowledge of all things, then the future is every bit as certain to God as if it had been foreordained. That is the logical consequence of the perfect knowledge of all things, in spite of your vitriolic and insulting demeanor.
@theearstohear - It most certainly is nonsensical. It'd be so good to actually speak to you face to face, because this is ridiculous. It is utterly impossible, the thing you are suggesting. You treat "foreknowledge" as if it's a mere idea, and nothing concrete.
God cannot have perfect knowledge of an unfixed future.
There is no unfixed future.
That is impossible.
Your despising God's sovereignty doesn't change anything either.
@stegokitty - There is no conflict between man's choice and God's perfect knowledge of what he will choose. I do not deny that it is a difficult thing to wrap one's mind around or that I may do a poor job at imparting this truth, but perfect knowledge means that events are certain in the mind of God apart from an absolute decree, because what will be cannot be other than God's perfect knowledge of what will be. That is a rational statement that is non-contradictory.
@stegokitty - It is notable that you characterize my position as God "playing puppetmaster" at the crucifixion. The position of absolute predestination that you take makes God the absolute puppetmaster of all events from eternity past.
@theearstohear - If you'll go back and look, I never said your position was one of "puppetmaster", but rather that is what would be required UNLESS God had foreordained all things leading up to the crucifixion. Otherwise He could not guarantee it would happen. And saying "God has perfect foreknowledge" doesn't help your position, for God cannot KNOW that which is not CERTAIN.
@stegokitty - God's knows all things. The future is part of all things. God's knowledge is perfect. It follows that God's knowledge of the future is perfect and that the future is as certain as God's perfect knowledge of it. Proof.
@theearstohear - Then all is foreordained. God cannot know that which is not certain. If it is certain, it is fixed, and therefore foreordained. There is not "open" end to history. History is moved primarily by God, and secondarily by men, and by crises in nature. These are all orchestrated by God, both good and bad.
Saying the word "proof" after speaking nonsense doesn't help your credibility.
Once again, please provide an example of how God can sovereignly rule without foreordination.
@stegokitty - No, foreknowledge is not predestination or foreordination. Certain knowledge of future events is not the same as actively authoring events. You've spent a lot of time pondering predestination and foreordination, but you should spend time considering the real ramifications of perfect foreknowledge that undermine the necessity of absolute predestination for God's plan to come to pass.
@theearstohear - I've spent years pondering all of the above, which is why I can say without one inch of hesitation that God cannot know that which is not certain.
Nothing undermines absolute foreordination and predestination.
That is impossible.
God cannot know that which is not certain.
That which is known is not some nebulous "something" which is disconnected from reality, and the actions of men, etc.
The actions of men are part of the foreknowledge of God, and are fixed.
@stegokitty - I'd tred lightly around making an assertion based on the years spent investigating it. That you have come to the proper conclusion simply does not follow - that is the fallacy of false cause. If God's foreordination of the raping of children is the same as his foreordination that you would be fed today, then the distinction between good and evil is destroyed. That is the ugly issue that Calvinists refuse to look at. They have roped that room off as if to say Don't go in there!
@stegokitty - "For where envying and strife is, there is CONFUSION and every evil work." (James 3:16) The bible clearly identifies sin with confusion.
@theearstohear - Identifying sin WITH confusion and AS confusion are two different things. Other translations have the word as "disorder", which is actually more correct. As well, in the translation you're using, it says that God "creates evil". Which way do you want it?
@stegokitty - I don't deny that there are secondary causes through which sin comes about and through which it can be said that God creates evil. God's sovereignty requires that evil is under His dominion. What I'm saying is that Calvinist's assertion of both secondary causes and absolute predestination is self contradictory; because any meaningful definition of the former is utterly obliterated by the latter.
@theearstohear - In what way is evil "under His dominion"? Give me a REAL way, in you thinking, that God is sovereignly ruling over evil?
Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery. Their acts were wicked. Yet, even Joseph recognized and declared "You meant it for evil, but God MEANT it for good, so save many lives." God foreordained that his brothers would sell him into slavery, a wicked act, SO THAT good would come from it. THAT is sovereignty.
@stegokitty - God knows what will happen and also what circumstance need to be brought to bear on any situation to turn it as he will without having to predestine sin. In the case of Joseph's sale, God knew this would happen and it was also in keeping with God's plan to save lives via Joseph an deliver his people into slavery from which he would deliver them. Absolute sovereignty does NOT require absolute predestination of all things.
@theearstohear - Impossible. God cannot know that which is not certain. No one can. If it is not CERTAIN (and therefore foreordained) then it is not knowable. God doesn't merely know all possible futures. God has determined what the future shall be. This is proven by the mere fact of prophecy.
And NO! NO! NO! God did not merely "know" that it would "happen" to Joseph. God MEANT it for good. There is NOTHING in the Bible about God merely "knowing" but that God DOES all His will.
@stegokitty - God knows the future. The future will not deviate from his knowledge of it. Therefore the future is certain. I don't believe in "all possible futures," I believe in one certain future that is perfectly known by God, not absolutely ordained by God. God's plan includes both knowledge of non-ordained events as well as ordained events. He is WORKING his plan as a divine combination of foreknown and foreordained events.
@theearstohear - That is utter nonsense. God cannot know that which is not certain. There isn't a nebulous "future" out there, it is a FIXED future, just as there is a fixed number of precise people who are elect unto salvation, and neither can be diminished nor increased. This is the same for ALL of creation, from the smallest molecule to the greatest star. ALL is foreordained and therefore known. No such thing as a non-ordained event. If it's not ordained, it's not known.
@stegokitty - The future is not nebulous to God, it is known. Knowledge is not foreordination but it does ensure God's perfect ability to work his plan.
Dr. Olson: "In Arminian theology, sin has no purpose". Thus, Dr. Olson's theodicy is no different from that of the dualists. If one's theodicy doesn not include God's decree that evil would corrupt His creation (and all of Adam's progeny), then one is truly left with a dualistic view (similar to that of the Zoroastrians, et. al..) of sine, and evil.
Olson's view: "if God has a purpose for evil, then He is a moral monster...therefore, God only ever reacts to the evil which infects His creation".
Dr. Olson's "theology" (which is really only his human philosophy dictating his theology) is dualistic in nature. And this is one of the primary failures of any synergistic system: on the question of theodicy, the logical conclusion is either dualism, or, worse, deism.
@R1K2G3 His theology is the theology of the early church and insults the REAL human philosophy called Calvinism or Reformed Theology. If you would call one's surrendering to God and His saving them from hell because of it (Rom. 10:9) "synergistic", then go right ahead. We call it the Gospel-as did the early church. No dualism or deism here at all. Dr, Olson simply refuses to limit God's omnipotence by putting him in a "logical" box like many reformers and the one's who crucified Jesus.
@rtgray7 Interesting that you mention Olson's as "the theology of the early church", when Jesus, John, Paul, and the rest of the N.T. authors knew, and taught the 100% efficacy of God's grace to save His elect.
Dr. Olson (as with all synergists) does not hold that God's grace actually saves anyone; rather, something must be added to God's work by fallen human beings , without which God cannot save anyone.
The logical argument comes from Rom. 8:28-30, for example.
@R1K2G3 John Paul and the N.T, authors stressed grace to stiff-necked, Jewish legalistic and those under their influence for centuries. Grace without works was a tough sell to them. They tried to add works to it and even influence Gentile Christians that they had to do the same. So 100% grace had to be stressed. But even they realized one would have to surrender to God's drawing. Human freewill and 100% efficacy of grace co-existing may not seem logical but neither did the virgin birth.
@rtgray7 said, "Human freewill and 100% efficacy of grace co-existing may not seem logical but neither did the virgin birth." Please define "Human freewill".
If you are saying that without "human freewill", God's grace fails to accomplish that for which it was/is intended, then Reformed churches deny this idea.
If you mean that when God bestows His grace upon a fallen sinner, it then RESULTS IN their coming to saving faith (willingly), then the Reformed churches affirm.
@R1K2G3 I understand the Reformed Church teaches that human beings have freewill but can not make a freewill decision toward God (because they are spiritually dead) unless He makes them with "irresistible grace". So God "allows/determines" them to go to hell. Some Calvinist admit this. Others, perhaps seeking to be more pc, come form a "soft" deterministic viewpoint. Either way, this teaching goes beyond the Biblical teaching of God saving ANYONE who surrenders to his gracious drawing.
@rtgray7 You still have not defined what you mean by "freewill".
Of course, when non-Reformed people say that in Calvinism God "makes, forces, coerces, or compels" sinners to come to saving faith in Christ, the Calvinist rightly says, "No! Irresistible Grace results in a divine MIRACLE! Nothing less".
We are most certainly "Divine Determinists". Anything less leads to dualism, or, deism.
Does Grace ACTUALLY, or only POTENTIALLY save, in your system?
@R1K2G3 I see you have all the Calvinist talking points covered. No need in either of us wasting the others time. I define freewill in a simple manner regarding the ability to choose as a free agent. You shoot back with first cause arguments and off we go. The miracles is that God gives us freewill and still has all things in his control. I wish you would take Him out of the logical box many stick him in. God's Sovereignty is not threatened my freewill.
@rtgray7 said, "I define freewill in a simple manner regarding the ability to choose as a free agent".
Of course, fallen sinners can only choose to reject the gospel proclamation.
Most synergists (such as yourself) define "freewill" as:
1) The power of contrary choice; or,,
2) The ability to choose otherwise.
John, Jesus, and Paul reject this type of freewill, and claim that the unregenerate do not have the ability to choose to repent and believe (Jn.6:44; Rom.8:7-8).
@R1K2G3 Ability to choose implies contrary choice to all but Calvinist. That's what I mean when I say your "Calvinist talking points". You've been taught how to overcome objections to the Reformed philosophy-even obvious proof text. Also you've been trained to pick several text and by reading into them and taking them out of context(eisegesis) you make the Bible fit your philosophy. John 6:44 is not teaching unconditional election. Read the verses before it for context. Read ch.12:32.
1) Free will is NOT mentioned in the Bible (except for the "freewill offerings" in the O.T., which have nothing to do with your philosophical view of freewill. It is up to you to define it.
2) The proper, Biblical concept of freewill would be: a. The ability to do God's will perfectly; and, b. The INABILITY to fall short of doing God's will perfectly.
This happens at glorification only.
Do you want to be glorified when Christ returns? Soli Deo Gloria!
@R1K2G3 Exactly. Freewill is not mentioned in a philosophical context AT ALL in the Bible. Neither is air, or dirt because they are just there and it's so obvious why they exist. I'd like the chapter and verse that gives your definition of freewill. Unless of course this is from your Calvinist library. Is it the same book that came up with "Divine Determinism"? Because that was the best euphemism since "exterminate with extreme prejudice" back in WWII.
@R1K2G3 I don't think either of us will sin in our changed glorified state. What a wonderful thing our Father will do for us. But before my glorification, while in the saving and sanctification stages, I have, can and do-although hopeful less as time passes. The essence of any relationship is the ability to freely love someone. My wife has blessed me and given me many gifts since I married her. God has too and one day he will give me that glorified, sinless body.
@rtgray7 So my point is that the synergistic view of "free will" (that is, "the power of contrary choice", or, "the ability to do otherwise") is NOT the Biblical definition of what it means to have true freewill.
True, Biblical, and Godly freewill means:
1) The ability to do God' prescriptive will perfectly; and,
2) The INABILITY to fall short of doing God's prescriptive will perfectly.
This is what Glorification of the saints will entail.
@R1K2G3 Rom 8: 7 is simply speaking of someone unsaved. It has nothing to do with soteriology. Is verse 10 saying that once you are saved you will physically die? It's all about context.
@rtgray7 Yes, Rom.8:7-8 is speaking about what the "fleshly man" cannot do.
"it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom.8:7-8, ESV). Now, unless you are asserting that the unregenerate man actually CAN do "what is pleasing to God" (ie. repent & believe), then you must affirm that regeneration must precede repentance and faith, since these things are pleasing to God.
@R1K2G3 Of course it is speaking of fleshly man and his inability please God. That is the context-not soteriology. Paul was not trying explain how one is saved here but that one MUST be saved. Again, the Calvinist in you causes you to approach this text with blinders. Paul was not attempting to explain "total depravity" here. This verse was simply a means to an end(see verses 12,13). Once you are saved, then you can please God; Not through the flesh or by the law.
@R1K2G3 Regeneration preceding repentance makes since only to a Calvinist. I will not give you a list of proof text showing the correct order.I realize there are a few "seemingly" proof text you might have in mind. All humans have been given enough light to acknowledge God(Rom. 1:18-20). Most choose to suppress this knowledge. Many, like Peter when he was sinking into the water, cry "save me" Lord.
@rtgray7 Rom.1:18-20 is talking about the "general revelation" of God as Creator, even to the reprobate. This general revelation is given to all, including the reprobate, so that on the day of judgment they are "without a defense" (Gk. anapologētous; ἀναπολογήτους).
Even Arminians cannot deny the difference between the "general", and, "special" revelation of God (special revelation being that which is only found in Scripture; & the illumination of the Holy Spirit).
@R1K2G3 More terms: "general" and "special" revelation. Whew!... How nice that God gave those reprobates a "general" knowledge to justify "passing over them" and sending them to hell....
@rtgray7 God did not give the reprobates general revelation in order to "be nice", but so that they would be "without a defense" (Rom.1:20); and, ultimately: "He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles" (Rom.9:23-24, NASB).
And, of course, to demonstrate His terrible (awesome) justice.
@R1K2G3 "Without defense" simply means they'll have no excuse for suppressing the knowledge of God. Grace, in the "New Covenant" sense, wasn't even at the forefront here. "Men suppressing the truth in unrighteousness will have no excuse" is what is being stressed here. What God demonstrated was his love for the ungodly(Rom. 5:8). Brother please lose the Calvinist infatuation with God's sovereignty. That's just one awesome 'attribute" of God. "...God is love.."(1John 4:8)
@rtgray7 That they (the reprobate) will be "without a defense" in the eschatological judgment is the very reason God has, "made it evident to them" (Rom.1:19) that He is the Creator! To read this text in any other way is to abuse God's Word. Rom.5:8 is speaking to, and about the elect!
Notice the pronouns: "us", "we", "us"? Why twist this text into saying that it is speaking of every, single, individual human being w/o distinction?!? Eisegesis, and tradition, my friend.
@R1K2G3 Of course Paul used pronouns because of who he was writing to. You won't find "The Book Of Reprobates" anywhere. Had Paul been writing to the lost, he would have used different pronouns and terminology. Obviously Romans was directed at the Church there and God used the Bible as part of training His called men to preach to the lost. Paul used the pronoun "us" does not defend your position. I would say you are bound by Reformed tradition causing you to read into the text.
@rtgray7 said, "Paul used the pronoun "us" does not defend your position. I would say you are bound by Reformed tradition causing you to read into the text"
To whom was Paul writing in Rome? BELIEVERS!
I have engaged in the exegesis of the text (Rom.5:8) which you utilized as a proof text for "the universal love of God".
@R1K2G3 You accused me of being bound by tradition before I said you were. I would say that I refuted your position. You accuse me of immature argumentation yet you have chosen the "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude. I'm sorry. I apologize for my tone. Your position on the subject here is so offensive to God in my opinion that I get heated and don't act like a Christian at all. I've got to get back to work but I can honestly say I love you and I think I'll see you in Heaven :)
So, look at the next verse, please: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that WE might live through him" (ESV).
To whom is the apostle writing?
The "beloved", not "the many false prophets" (v.1);
The "Little children", not "them" (v.4); Not "they (v.5), but "we" (v.6).
Who does God LOVE? The "Beloved" (v.7)...the saints, His elect...not the antichrists!
@R1K2G3 See previous thread.(Obviously God is writing to Christians) You are still left with the fact that GOD IS LOVE. That doesn't make me a liberal brother. You are taking common sense out of the equation as happens with reformed thinking. The Bible itself is much simpler than Reformed Theology. Il believe in "Transformed Theology" the Bible teaches. I do appreciate that you admit consistent Calvinism teaches God only truly loves the elect.
@R1K2G3 I appreciate it also though a bigger part of me feels that we could be wasting a lot of time and energy that we could use elsewhere for the Lord.
I'm curious. Would you admit that all of these are double predestination when you peel back all the layers of "'Supra", "Ultra", "Infra", "consistent"...?
@R1K2G3 Ok, so you are a "soft" determinist I would say. If I am not elect-no matter when God decreed it-is their anything I can do to be saved? No, I'm assuming you reply.? If I am elect-no matter when God decreed it-did I have any choice in the matter? No, I again assume you'd reply.? So God COULD have saved me, but He didn't. He did, however, graciously choose you. You spend eternity with God and I spend eternity in eternal torment. Why was born? Ah.for His glorification..
@R1K2G3 This is why 15 syllable words are needed to defend Calvinism brother. All the euphemisms simply disguise the bottom line. Can you imagine how many people have become atheist as a result of this view of God? " Oh He didn't send them to hell. He just created a situation where they would choose freely to sin and then He chose not to save them from hell". You see, God couldn't be sovereign in a true freewill environment. Why, that would defy logic and take a miracle". :)
@R1K2G3 We both know that we can continue this and debate foreknowledge, "synergism -vs- monergism", soteriology, Sola Gratia, efficacy, "compels -vs- coerces" and many other favorite Calvinist terms and phrases-but I have no desire. I hope to influence the lost and please the Lord. Keep defending your Reformed Theology and make ole Jehan Cauvin proud!
Sin having no purpose is ridiculous. That means everything is random. Chaos would be the result. And every human's birth and death is in man's hands instead of God's. Arminianism teaches that everyone who ends up in heaven are just there by chance. They got lucky. God never planned to save them. By their own wisdom and desires they're saved.
ETHANGELIST 1 day ago
The Calvinist / Arminian debate is plagued with the horns of the dilemma fallacy. Primitive Baptists, for example, hold to TULIP and the Sovereignty (dominion) of God but do not believe in the absolute predestination of all things (APoaT). Arminians fail to embrace man's abject spiritual deadness (Eph 2:1). The Calvinist's APoaT makes God the author of sin, but God is not the author of confusion (I Cor 14:33) and sin is nothing if not confusion. PBs understand this - A's and C's don't.
theearstohear 1 month ago
@theearstohear - Calvinists do not believe that God is the Author of sin, nor does the Calvinistic position make God to be the Author of sin. God is ultimately RESPONSIBLE for sin, since at any time, either before or after creation, He could have eliminated it, but God does not commit sin, nor does He tempt another to sin. But He HAS foreordained that sin should exist, and that it shall work for His own glory, both in his Justice and in His Mercy.
stegokitty 2 days ago
@stegokitty - Calvinists resort to "secondary causes" to defend God against the accusation of being the author of sin. However, the Calvinist's belief in the Absolute Predestination of All Things (APoaT) undermines this defense by eliminating secondary causes. If all things are absolutely predestinated by God, there are NO secondary causes and if there are NO secondary causes then God is the immediate author of sin. Calvinists refuse to face this matter directly, resorting to antinomy.
theearstohear 1 day ago
@theearstohear - Nope. Secondary causes are actually established by God's absolute sovereignty. Unless God is sovereign, then God is not God. God MUST be in absolute control over all things, whether the greatest star in the universe, or the tiniest molecule on the other side of the universe. The god of Arminianism is a limp-wristed janitor.
stegokitty 1 day ago
@stegokitty - Calvinists conjoin sovereignty (the quality dominion) with predestination (an act stemming from dominion). If God has absolutely predestinated everything that comes to pass then there is no such thing as a secondary cause, because whatever you would call a secondary cause has God as its immediate author and predestinator. I realize that what you are saying is the WCF Calvinst's party line. I'm asserting that it is self contradictory.
theearstohear 1 day ago
@theearstohear - Wrong again. The BIBLE teaches God's absolute sovereignty over whatsoever comes to pass (try reading only the account of God sending the Assyrian king in Isaiah 10 for a tiny example), and that men are morally responsible agents. Because you aren't able to grasp it doesn't negate the fact that it is. Also, it's not my problem that you're unable to grasp an intellectually necessary condition, which I am able to grasp. Your inability doesn't negate the facts.
stegokitty 1 day ago
@stegokitty - Sovereignty is dominion. It is the absolute authority of God over all. It is not the same as predestination, which is an act of God whereby events are predetermined. You will miss much if you fail to recognize this important distinction.
theearstohear 1 day ago
@theearstohear - I haven't missed any distinction. Predestination is about the ultimate destiny of all men. Foreordination is the decree of God over whatsoever comes to pass. God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and has determined, from all eternity, the final destination of all human beings. For you, it appears that God executes his dominion by acting as a janitor. For those of us who take the Bible seriously, we agree that God governs all his creatures and all their actions.
stegokitty 1 day ago
@stegokitty - It is certainly true that God has determined those who will be saved. It is not true that God has absolutely predestined every event that comes to pass. "And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind" (Jer 32:35) There's now way to reconcile absolute predestination with this verse w/o making God a liar.
theearstohear 1 day ago
@theearstohear - Again, you show that you don't understand the necessity of God's absolute foreordination of whatsoever comes to pass, despite the fact that the Bible teaches it very plainly. And how hilarious for you to use that verse. So God never even thought of the IDEA??? Mankind thought of something that God was like "Wha...? Wow, those crafty humans really pulled a fast one on me."
NO!
God is saying it never entered His mind to tell them to DO such a thing.
Epic fail.
stegokitty 1 day ago
@stegokitty - Clearly Jeremiah cannot be referencing God's knowledge of events - we both affirm God's omniscience. But if God absoultely predestined those actions to happen, then the statement that it "never came into my mind" is not correct in any sense.
theearstohear 21 hours ago
@theearstohear - Wrong againm (and please stop confusing "predestination" with "predetermined" or "foreordained"). God is simply saying that the wicked acts that the Israelites had committed (in imitation of their pagan neighbors) was not something that God would EVER command them, nor even consider to command. That's all. It is correct in that sense, and in that sense only.
stegokitty 11 hours ago
@stegokitty - What do you regard as the difference between predestination and foreordination?
theearstohear 11 hours ago
@theearstohear - It's not about what I regard, it's about what the words mean. PreDESTINATION has to do with where one is going, either Heaven, or Hell, and that God determined it before time began. Foreordination is God's decree concerning his creation. Predestination is under the rubric of Foreordination, but just as all roses are flowers, not all flowers are roses. God didn't predestine the crucifixion of Christ, but He did foreordain it.
stegokitty 11 hours ago
@stegokitty - Following up on the crucifixion: Christ is described as the Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world. This would be impossible, unless sin was also foreordained from the foundation of the world. And as I've previously described as necessary, all events leading up to and including the crucifixion, where also perfectly foreordained by God, yet God did not do the sinning Himself.
God determined that wicked, sinful men WOULD crucify Christ.
stegokitty 10 hours ago
@stegokitty - One cannot be the author of an event through preordination while maintaining that the event never came into their mind. This would be like having Shakespeare assert that the idea for "The Taming of the Shrew" never came into his mind. Absolute predestination of all things is Achilles heel of classical Calvinism. It makes God the author of sin, despite all the WCF hopscotch as assertions to the contrary. Adam's sin was an act of disobedience. (Rom 5:19)
theearstohear 21 hours ago
@theearstohear - As I've already answered, it's not about a thing not being in the knowledge of God, but of it not being a command of God. In another example, it's along the same lines as if someone misunderstands your words, and thinks you're insulting them, and you say "It never even entered my mind to insult you." God is separated from such a wicked command, and one which He would never even consider giving to His people, though He DID give over the pagans to idols.
stegokitty 11 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theearstohear - As I've already answered, it's not about a thing not being in the knowledge of God, but of it not being a command of God. In another example, it's along the same lines as if someone misunderstands your words, and thinks you're insulting them, and you say "It never even entered my mind to insult you." God is separated from such a wicked command, and one which He would never even consider giving to His people, though He DID give over the pagans to idols.
stegokitty 11 hours ago
@theearstohear - And your "sin is nothing if not confusion" is utter nonsense. There is nothing "confusing" about sin. Apparently you don't understand sin either.
stegokitty 1 day ago
@stegokitty - Brother, if sin is not the ultimate example of confusion, I can't think of a better one. Is not man very confused if he believes he can do something against the commandments of a holy God and get away with it? What could be more confused than that? WCF says that sin is any want of conformity to or transgression of the law of God. Can someone who fails to conform to God's law be in a state of understanding? Indeed not, there is none that understandeth. Sin is confusion.
theearstohear 1 day ago
@theearstohear - The Bible never describes sin as "confusion". Natural man isn't confused, he's dead. Sin is not confusion, sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the Law of God. That is rebellion, not confusion. Just as our first parents rebelled (they were not confused, but sinned purposefully), so do we. We are not confused, we're evil. Perhaps if you weren't so busy trying to make God into a janitor, you wouldn't be ascribing oddball definitions to sin.
stegokitty 1 day ago
@stegokitty - Rebellion against one's own creator is confusion. Rebels lack a proper understanding of either what is right to do or the consequences of sin. They either think they will get away with it, or that God will ignore it, or that they will be like God. All of which is confusion because it is contrary to what God said - that sin results in death. Brother - sin is rebellion and rebellion against your creator is abject confusion - the opposite of understanding.
theearstohear 1 day ago
@theearstohear - So, all we need is to have our minds unconfused? Hmmm, trying to think of a single verse saying as much. We are spiritually DEAD, not merely confused. Sinner delude themselves. Adam and Eve were not sinners. They KNOWINGLY sinned against God. They were not confused. Satan was not confused. There is no verse in the Bible supporting your notion.
stegokitty 1 day ago
@stegokitty - Even the spiritually dead sinner has natural life. In that natural life he is devoid of spiritual understanding (Rom 3:11). Anyone devoid of understanding is in confusion. I never said that man is "merely confused," but rather that sin is confusion. Foolishness is confusion and "the though of foolishness is sin." (Prov 24:9) Are you suggesting that Adam's thought which led to rebellion was not foolish? Check mate.
theearstohear 21 hours ago
@theearstohear - Natural life is not spiritual life. Big difference. No amount of your shifting around is going to make sin into "confusion". Give it up. Sin is not confusion. The Bible never says so. You've failed to prove your point (again).
stegokitty 11 hours ago
@stegokitty - I believe it was that very distinction between natural and spiritual life that I was drawing out. Natural life is devoid of spiritual understanding. That is precisely my point. Sin is rebellion. Rebellion against God is foolish. Foolishness is lack of understanding. Lack of understanding is confusion. Proof.
theearstohear 10 hours ago
@theearstohear - And never have I denied that. But you keep insisting that spiritual awakening from the dead IS salvation. It is not. It is included IN salvation. Salvation is being saved FROM the wrath of God, from the corruption of this world, from the dominion of sin, and being saved UNTO God in Christ, through adoption and sanctification. No one who is made spiritually alive fails to repent and believe, to persevere in the faith to the end, and to be glorified.
stegokitty 10 hours ago
@stegokitty - It is salvation in that once one is regenerated God has begun a good work in you and thus one is in possession of eternal life and cannot lose it. If one defines salvation as including EVERYTHING then none of us are saved because none of us are glorified. So in the realm of our human experience, man's salvation begins at regeneration.
theearstohear 9 hours ago
@theearstohear - When you were born and breathed your first breath, was that enough? You were alive, but if you stopped breathing, what would happen? The same is with us. IF it were possible for the elect to actually stop believing, they would die again spiritually. But the Spirit is always actively working in and through us via repentance and faith, repentance and faith. Yes, salvation BEGINS at regeneration. It doesn't stop there. Now, perhaps you'll get off the Arminian accusations?
stegokitty 9 hours ago
@stegokitty - It was enough to establish that I was alive. Likewise one who is regenerated is alive in Christ and shall never perish whether he ever exercises evangelical faith or not. This is what WCF 10.3 teaches - else you consign the idiot and the imbecile to hell. To save them requires the admission that repentance and faith are not requirements of eternal salvation but provisions of the covenant whereby we "walk" (i.e. live) in this life, not effectuating requirements of eternal life.
theearstohear 8 hours ago
@stegokitty - "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman BEING DECEIVED was in the transgression." (I Tim 2:14) Is someone who is deceived in confusion? Clearly yes. And that confusion was "in the transgression." Any rebellious thought against God is foolish. And foolishness is the absence of understanding; also known as confusion.
theearstohear 21 hours ago
@theearstohear - This is such a big yawn. Sin is not confusion. No matter how much you try to make it so.
stegokitty 11 hours ago
@stegokitty - Why do you assume that someone who does not agree with your take on theology is "trying to make God a janitor" or one that "doesn't take the bible seriously?" Those are pretty bombastic assertions.
theearstohear 1 day ago
@theearstohear - If God has not foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, then the only other option is that God is the great cosmic janitor. How else to you explain the existence of sin, and the NECESSITY of sin in the plan of God? God foreordained the crucifixion of Christ. It was NECESSARY that sinful men kill the Son of God. And God did't suddenly get in there and play puppetmaster. No, all things lead up to that event, and all things after.
stegokitty 1 day ago
@stegokitty - This is a false dichotomy. The existence of sin is explained through a willful act of prideful rebellion on the part of Satan (Is 14:13). It entered humanity through an act of human DISOBEDIENCE (Rom 5:19). The necessity is accomodated by God's perfect knowledge, not by foreordaining every single thing. Perfect knowledge is sufficent surity that when the Son of God was delivered into the raging river of a sinful world, he would most certainly be taken over the falls.
theearstohear 21 hours ago
@theearstohear - God cannot foreknow that which is not certain. And if it is certain, it cannot be changed. And if it it certain, and cannot be changed, and God is sovereign, then it is foreordained. Otherwise, God is merely a good guesser. God could not guarantee that Christ would be crucified at all (much less "at the right time") unless He had orchestrated all things (ALL THINGS!) prior to it. Real men, with real personalities had to reject Christ and kill Him, in acts of their wills.
stegokitty 11 hours ago
@stegokitty - God's foreknowledge of events is certain. It follows that the acts of men introduce no variance into the equation so far as God is concerned. Thus foreknowledge is as certain for the unordained acts as for the ordained else God is not omniscient. God is not a good guesser, he's an all-knower. He can guarantee everything based on the testimony of his perfect knowledge. Omniscience is precisely why absolute predestination is not required for absolute certainty.
theearstohear 10 hours ago
@theearstohear - Um, the acts of men are the means by which God does His will. You don't see giant hands coming down out of Heaven to do things. Therefore God ordains the circumstances under which all men are born, and their personalities, etc., which lead them to do what they do. This is nonsensical "Omniscience is precisely why absolute predestination is not required for absolute certainty." How does one even address such an absolutely (pardon me) stupid comment?
stegokitty 10 hours ago
@stegokitty - There's nothing nonsensical about that statement. If God has perfect knowledge of all things, then the future is every bit as certain to God as if it had been foreordained. That is the logical consequence of the perfect knowledge of all things, in spite of your vitriolic and insulting demeanor.
theearstohear 9 hours ago
@theearstohear - It most certainly is nonsensical. It'd be so good to actually speak to you face to face, because this is ridiculous. It is utterly impossible, the thing you are suggesting. You treat "foreknowledge" as if it's a mere idea, and nothing concrete.
God cannot have perfect knowledge of an unfixed future.
There is no unfixed future.
That is impossible.
Your despising God's sovereignty doesn't change anything either.
stegokitty 9 hours ago
@stegokitty - There is no conflict between man's choice and God's perfect knowledge of what he will choose. I do not deny that it is a difficult thing to wrap one's mind around or that I may do a poor job at imparting this truth, but perfect knowledge means that events are certain in the mind of God apart from an absolute decree, because what will be cannot be other than God's perfect knowledge of what will be. That is a rational statement that is non-contradictory.
theearstohear 8 hours ago
@stegokitty - It is notable that you characterize my position as God "playing puppetmaster" at the crucifixion. The position of absolute predestination that you take makes God the absolute puppetmaster of all events from eternity past.
theearstohear 21 hours ago
@theearstohear - If you'll go back and look, I never said your position was one of "puppetmaster", but rather that is what would be required UNLESS God had foreordained all things leading up to the crucifixion. Otherwise He could not guarantee it would happen. And saying "God has perfect foreknowledge" doesn't help your position, for God cannot KNOW that which is not CERTAIN.
stegokitty 11 hours ago
@stegokitty - God's knows all things. The future is part of all things. God's knowledge is perfect. It follows that God's knowledge of the future is perfect and that the future is as certain as God's perfect knowledge of it. Proof.
theearstohear 10 hours ago
@theearstohear - Then all is foreordained. God cannot know that which is not certain. If it is certain, it is fixed, and therefore foreordained. There is not "open" end to history. History is moved primarily by God, and secondarily by men, and by crises in nature. These are all orchestrated by God, both good and bad.
Saying the word "proof" after speaking nonsense doesn't help your credibility.
Once again, please provide an example of how God can sovereignly rule without foreordination.
stegokitty 9 hours ago
@stegokitty - No, foreknowledge is not predestination or foreordination. Certain knowledge of future events is not the same as actively authoring events. You've spent a lot of time pondering predestination and foreordination, but you should spend time considering the real ramifications of perfect foreknowledge that undermine the necessity of absolute predestination for God's plan to come to pass.
theearstohear 9 hours ago
@theearstohear - I've spent years pondering all of the above, which is why I can say without one inch of hesitation that God cannot know that which is not certain.
Nothing undermines absolute foreordination and predestination.
That is impossible.
God cannot know that which is not certain.
That which is known is not some nebulous "something" which is disconnected from reality, and the actions of men, etc.
The actions of men are part of the foreknowledge of God, and are fixed.
Foreordained.
stegokitty 9 hours ago
@stegokitty - I'd tred lightly around making an assertion based on the years spent investigating it. That you have come to the proper conclusion simply does not follow - that is the fallacy of false cause. If God's foreordination of the raping of children is the same as his foreordination that you would be fed today, then the distinction between good and evil is destroyed. That is the ugly issue that Calvinists refuse to look at. They have roped that room off as if to say Don't go in there!
theearstohear 8 hours ago
@stegokitty - "For where envying and strife is, there is CONFUSION and every evil work." (James 3:16) The bible clearly identifies sin with confusion.
theearstohear 1 day ago
@theearstohear - Identifying sin WITH confusion and AS confusion are two different things. Other translations have the word as "disorder", which is actually more correct. As well, in the translation you're using, it says that God "creates evil". Which way do you want it?
stegokitty 1 day ago
@stegokitty - I don't deny that there are secondary causes through which sin comes about and through which it can be said that God creates evil. God's sovereignty requires that evil is under His dominion. What I'm saying is that Calvinist's assertion of both secondary causes and absolute predestination is self contradictory; because any meaningful definition of the former is utterly obliterated by the latter.
theearstohear 21 hours ago
@theearstohear - In what way is evil "under His dominion"? Give me a REAL way, in you thinking, that God is sovereignly ruling over evil?
Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery. Their acts were wicked. Yet, even Joseph recognized and declared "You meant it for evil, but God MEANT it for good, so save many lives." God foreordained that his brothers would sell him into slavery, a wicked act, SO THAT good would come from it. THAT is sovereignty.
The crucifixion is the most glaring example.
stegokitty 11 hours ago
@stegokitty - God knows what will happen and also what circumstance need to be brought to bear on any situation to turn it as he will without having to predestine sin. In the case of Joseph's sale, God knew this would happen and it was also in keeping with God's plan to save lives via Joseph an deliver his people into slavery from which he would deliver them. Absolute sovereignty does NOT require absolute predestination of all things.
theearstohear 10 hours ago
@theearstohear - Impossible. God cannot know that which is not certain. No one can. If it is not CERTAIN (and therefore foreordained) then it is not knowable. God doesn't merely know all possible futures. God has determined what the future shall be. This is proven by the mere fact of prophecy.
And NO! NO! NO! God did not merely "know" that it would "happen" to Joseph. God MEANT it for good. There is NOTHING in the Bible about God merely "knowing" but that God DOES all His will.
stegokitty 10 hours ago
@stegokitty - God knows the future. The future will not deviate from his knowledge of it. Therefore the future is certain. I don't believe in "all possible futures," I believe in one certain future that is perfectly known by God, not absolutely ordained by God. God's plan includes both knowledge of non-ordained events as well as ordained events. He is WORKING his plan as a divine combination of foreknown and foreordained events.
theearstohear 9 hours ago
@theearstohear - That is utter nonsense. God cannot know that which is not certain. There isn't a nebulous "future" out there, it is a FIXED future, just as there is a fixed number of precise people who are elect unto salvation, and neither can be diminished nor increased. This is the same for ALL of creation, from the smallest molecule to the greatest star. ALL is foreordained and therefore known. No such thing as a non-ordained event. If it's not ordained, it's not known.
stegokitty 9 hours ago
@stegokitty - The future is not nebulous to God, it is known. Knowledge is not foreordination but it does ensure God's perfect ability to work his plan.
theearstohear 8 hours ago
Dr. Olson: "In Arminian theology, sin has no purpose". Thus, Dr. Olson's theodicy is no different from that of the dualists. If one's theodicy doesn not include God's decree that evil would corrupt His creation (and all of Adam's progeny), then one is truly left with a dualistic view (similar to that of the Zoroastrians, et. al..) of sine, and evil.
R1K2G3 1 month ago
I wish Olsen would just debate James White
usedtobeifb 2 months ago
Olson's view: "if God has a purpose for evil, then He is a moral monster...therefore, God only ever reacts to the evil which infects His creation".
Dr. Olson's "theology" (which is really only his human philosophy dictating his theology) is dualistic in nature. And this is one of the primary failures of any synergistic system: on the question of theodicy, the logical conclusion is either dualism, or, worse, deism.
R1K2G3 4 months ago
@R1K2G3 His theology is the theology of the early church and insults the REAL human philosophy called Calvinism or Reformed Theology. If you would call one's surrendering to God and His saving them from hell because of it (Rom. 10:9) "synergistic", then go right ahead. We call it the Gospel-as did the early church. No dualism or deism here at all. Dr, Olson simply refuses to limit God's omnipotence by putting him in a "logical" box like many reformers and the one's who crucified Jesus.
rtgray7 2 months ago
@rtgray7 Interesting that you mention Olson's as "the theology of the early church", when Jesus, John, Paul, and the rest of the N.T. authors knew, and taught the 100% efficacy of God's grace to save His elect.
Dr. Olson (as with all synergists) does not hold that God's grace actually saves anyone; rather, something must be added to God's work by fallen human beings , without which God cannot save anyone.
The logical argument comes from Rom. 8:28-30, for example.
R1K2G3 2 months ago
@R1K2G3 John Paul and the N.T, authors stressed grace to stiff-necked, Jewish legalistic and those under their influence for centuries. Grace without works was a tough sell to them. They tried to add works to it and even influence Gentile Christians that they had to do the same. So 100% grace had to be stressed. But even they realized one would have to surrender to God's drawing. Human freewill and 100% efficacy of grace co-existing may not seem logical but neither did the virgin birth.
rtgray7 1 month ago
@rtgray7 said, "Human freewill and 100% efficacy of grace co-existing may not seem logical but neither did the virgin birth." Please define "Human freewill".
If you are saying that without "human freewill", God's grace fails to accomplish that for which it was/is intended, then Reformed churches deny this idea.
If you mean that when God bestows His grace upon a fallen sinner, it then RESULTS IN their coming to saving faith (willingly), then the Reformed churches affirm.
R1K2G3 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 I understand the Reformed Church teaches that human beings have freewill but can not make a freewill decision toward God (because they are spiritually dead) unless He makes them with "irresistible grace". So God "allows/determines" them to go to hell. Some Calvinist admit this. Others, perhaps seeking to be more pc, come form a "soft" deterministic viewpoint. Either way, this teaching goes beyond the Biblical teaching of God saving ANYONE who surrenders to his gracious drawing.
rtgray7 1 month ago
@rtgray7 You still have not defined what you mean by "freewill".
Of course, when non-Reformed people say that in Calvinism God "makes, forces, coerces, or compels" sinners to come to saving faith in Christ, the Calvinist rightly says, "No! Irresistible Grace results in a divine MIRACLE! Nothing less".
We are most certainly "Divine Determinists". Anything less leads to dualism, or, deism.
Does Grace ACTUALLY, or only POTENTIALLY save, in your system?
"Sola Gratia", or, no?
R1K2G3 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 I see you have all the Calvinist talking points covered. No need in either of us wasting the others time. I define freewill in a simple manner regarding the ability to choose as a free agent. You shoot back with first cause arguments and off we go. The miracles is that God gives us freewill and still has all things in his control. I wish you would take Him out of the logical box many stick him in. God's Sovereignty is not threatened my freewill.
rtgray7 1 month ago
@rtgray7 said, "I define freewill in a simple manner regarding the ability to choose as a free agent".
Of course, fallen sinners can only choose to reject the gospel proclamation.
Most synergists (such as yourself) define "freewill" as:
1) The power of contrary choice; or,,
2) The ability to choose otherwise.
John, Jesus, and Paul reject this type of freewill, and claim that the unregenerate do not have the ability to choose to repent and believe (Jn.6:44; Rom.8:7-8).
R1K2G3 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 Ability to choose implies contrary choice to all but Calvinist. That's what I mean when I say your "Calvinist talking points". You've been taught how to overcome objections to the Reformed philosophy-even obvious proof text. Also you've been trained to pick several text and by reading into them and taking them out of context(eisegesis) you make the Bible fit your philosophy. John 6:44 is not teaching unconditional election. Read the verses before it for context. Read ch.12:32.
rtgray7 1 month ago
@rtgray7
1) Free will is NOT mentioned in the Bible (except for the "freewill offerings" in the O.T., which have nothing to do with your philosophical view of freewill. It is up to you to define it.
2) The proper, Biblical concept of freewill would be: a. The ability to do God's will perfectly; and, b. The INABILITY to fall short of doing God's will perfectly.
This happens at glorification only.
Do you want to be glorified when Christ returns? Soli Deo Gloria!
R1K2G3 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 Exactly. Freewill is not mentioned in a philosophical context AT ALL in the Bible. Neither is air, or dirt because they are just there and it's so obvious why they exist. I'd like the chapter and verse that gives your definition of freewill. Unless of course this is from your Calvinist library. Is it the same book that came up with "Divine Determinism"? Because that was the best euphemism since "exterminate with extreme prejudice" back in WWII.
rtgray7 1 month ago
@rtgray7 said, "I'd like the chapter and verse that gives your definition of freewill".
1 Cor. 15:51-56 tells us of the change that will take place [in the saints] in the eschaton.
1) Immortality: not subject to death, or decay.
Sine the "wages of sin is death" (Rom.6:23), the saints will have no ability to sin. (cf. the "eternal life" passages imply this as well).
2) Since the saints will be "imperishable", they will have no ability to sin, or "perish" as a result.
Simple enough? :)
R1K2G3 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 I don't think either of us will sin in our changed glorified state. What a wonderful thing our Father will do for us. But before my glorification, while in the saving and sanctification stages, I have, can and do-although hopeful less as time passes. The essence of any relationship is the ability to freely love someone. My wife has blessed me and given me many gifts since I married her. God has too and one day he will give me that glorified, sinless body.
rtgray7 1 month ago
@rtgray7 So my point is that the synergistic view of "free will" (that is, "the power of contrary choice", or, "the ability to do otherwise") is NOT the Biblical definition of what it means to have true freewill.
True, Biblical, and Godly freewill means:
1) The ability to do God' prescriptive will perfectly; and,
2) The INABILITY to fall short of doing God's prescriptive will perfectly.
This is what Glorification of the saints will entail.
Soli Deo Gloria!
R1K2G3 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 Rom 8: 7 is simply speaking of someone unsaved. It has nothing to do with soteriology. Is verse 10 saying that once you are saved you will physically die? It's all about context.
rtgray7 1 month ago
@rtgray7 Yes, Rom.8:7-8 is speaking about what the "fleshly man" cannot do.
"it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom.8:7-8, ESV). Now, unless you are asserting that the unregenerate man actually CAN do "what is pleasing to God" (ie. repent & believe), then you must affirm that regeneration must precede repentance and faith, since these things are pleasing to God.
Follow?
R1K2G3 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 Of course it is speaking of fleshly man and his inability please God. That is the context-not soteriology. Paul was not trying explain how one is saved here but that one MUST be saved. Again, the Calvinist in you causes you to approach this text with blinders. Paul was not attempting to explain "total depravity" here. This verse was simply a means to an end(see verses 12,13). Once you are saved, then you can please God; Not through the flesh or by the law.
rtgray7 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 Regeneration preceding repentance makes since only to a Calvinist. I will not give you a list of proof text showing the correct order.I realize there are a few "seemingly" proof text you might have in mind. All humans have been given enough light to acknowledge God(Rom. 1:18-20). Most choose to suppress this knowledge. Many, like Peter when he was sinking into the water, cry "save me" Lord.
rtgray7 1 month ago
@rtgray7 Rom.1:18-20 is talking about the "general revelation" of God as Creator, even to the reprobate. This general revelation is given to all, including the reprobate, so that on the day of judgment they are "without a defense" (Gk. anapologētous; ἀναπολογήτους).
Even Arminians cannot deny the difference between the "general", and, "special" revelation of God (special revelation being that which is only found in Scripture; & the illumination of the Holy Spirit).
R1K2G3 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 More terms: "general" and "special" revelation. Whew!... How nice that God gave those reprobates a "general" knowledge to justify "passing over them" and sending them to hell....
rtgray7 1 month ago
@rtgray7 God did not give the reprobates general revelation in order to "be nice", but so that they would be "without a defense" (Rom.1:20); and, ultimately: "He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles" (Rom.9:23-24, NASB).
And, of course, to demonstrate His terrible (awesome) justice.
Simple enough? :)
R1K2G3 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 "Without defense" simply means they'll have no excuse for suppressing the knowledge of God. Grace, in the "New Covenant" sense, wasn't even at the forefront here. "Men suppressing the truth in unrighteousness will have no excuse" is what is being stressed here. What God demonstrated was his love for the ungodly(Rom. 5:8). Brother please lose the Calvinist infatuation with God's sovereignty. That's just one awesome 'attribute" of God. "...God is love.."(1John 4:8)
rtgray7 1 month ago
@rtgray7 That they (the reprobate) will be "without a defense" in the eschatological judgment is the very reason God has, "made it evident to them" (Rom.1:19) that He is the Creator! To read this text in any other way is to abuse God's Word. Rom.5:8 is speaking to, and about the elect!
Notice the pronouns: "us", "we", "us"? Why twist this text into saying that it is speaking of every, single, individual human being w/o distinction?!? Eisegesis, and tradition, my friend.
R1K2G3 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 Of course Paul used pronouns because of who he was writing to. You won't find "The Book Of Reprobates" anywhere. Had Paul been writing to the lost, he would have used different pronouns and terminology. Obviously Romans was directed at the Church there and God used the Bible as part of training His called men to preach to the lost. Paul used the pronoun "us" does not defend your position. I would say you are bound by Reformed tradition causing you to read into the text.
rtgray7 1 month ago
@rtgray7 said, "Paul used the pronoun "us" does not defend your position. I would say you are bound by Reformed tradition causing you to read into the text"
To whom was Paul writing in Rome? BELIEVERS!
I have engaged in the exegesis of the text (Rom.5:8) which you utilized as a proof text for "the universal love of God".
You have been refuted.
You are beginning to use immature argumentation.
I will not enable you to do it anymore.
R1K2G3 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 You accused me of being bound by tradition before I said you were. I would say that I refuted your position. You accuse me of immature argumentation yet you have chosen the "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude. I'm sorry. I apologize for my tone. Your position on the subject here is so offensive to God in my opinion that I get heated and don't act like a Christian at all. I've got to get back to work but I can honestly say I love you and I think I'll see you in Heaven :)
rtgray7 1 month ago
@rtgray7 said, "God is love (1Jn.4:8)".
So, look at the next verse, please: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that WE might live through him" (ESV).
To whom is the apostle writing?
The "beloved", not "the many false prophets" (v.1);
The "Little children", not "them" (v.4); Not "they (v.5), but "we" (v.6).
Who does God LOVE? The "Beloved" (v.7)...the saints, His elect...not the antichrists!
R1K2G3 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 See previous thread.(Obviously God is writing to Christians) You are still left with the fact that GOD IS LOVE. That doesn't make me a liberal brother. You are taking common sense out of the equation as happens with reformed thinking. The Bible itself is much simpler than Reformed Theology. Il believe in "Transformed Theology" the Bible teaches. I do appreciate that you admit consistent Calvinism teaches God only truly loves the elect.
rtgray7 1 month ago
@rtgray7 said, "Regeneration preceding repentance makes since only to a Calvinist".
Seems to have made sense to Jesus as well (Jn.6:44; Mt.11:25; Lk.10:21).
And, of course, repentance and faith preceding regeneration only makes sense to a semi-Pelagian.
Are you a semi-Pelagian, or an Arminian (if I may ask)?
R1K2G3 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 Don't usually answer rhetorical questions but, I'm neither. I would be closer to what Arminius ACTUALLY taught than any of the Reformers.
Do you hold to a Supralapsarian view, or would infralapsarianism better describe your take on how God saves some and condems others to hell?
rtgray7 1 month ago
@rtgray7 Thanks for asking (and, I really do appreciate our conversation, btw, even though we may disagree on some issues).
There are three main Reformed schemes regarding the pre-creative decrees of God:
1) "Inconsistent Supralapsarianism".
2) "Infralapsarianism" (utilizing the historical principle). This is the view most Calvinists have taken throughout the history of the discussion.
3) "Consistent Supralapsarianism".
I hold the third view ;)
R1K2G3 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 I appreciate it also though a bigger part of me feels that we could be wasting a lot of time and energy that we could use elsewhere for the Lord.
I'm curious. Would you admit that all of these are double predestination when you peel back all the layers of "'Supra", "Ultra", "Infra", "consistent"...?
rtgray7 1 month ago
@rtgray7 All consistent Calvinists believe in "Double predestination".
Most, however, make a strong distinction between predestination unto LIFE, and predestination unto eternal DEATH.
God's predestining the elect unto life entails the working out of the entire 'Ordo Salutis';
Whereas predestination unto damnation involves no action [in time] on God's part.
What I am talking about, here, is the avoidance (and rebuke) of the error of "Equal Ultimacy".
R1K2G3 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 Ok, so you are a "soft" determinist I would say. If I am not elect-no matter when God decreed it-is their anything I can do to be saved? No, I'm assuming you reply.? If I am elect-no matter when God decreed it-did I have any choice in the matter? No, I again assume you'd reply.? So God COULD have saved me, but He didn't. He did, however, graciously choose you. You spend eternity with God and I spend eternity in eternal torment. Why was born? Ah.for His glorification..
rtgray7 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 This is why 15 syllable words are needed to defend Calvinism brother. All the euphemisms simply disguise the bottom line. Can you imagine how many people have become atheist as a result of this view of God? " Oh He didn't send them to hell. He just created a situation where they would choose freely to sin and then He chose not to save them from hell". You see, God couldn't be sovereign in a true freewill environment. Why, that would defy logic and take a miracle". :)
rtgray7 1 month ago
@rtgray7 Of course, there is no such thing as an atheist, if you believe what the Scriptures teach in Rom.1:18-32 (which I do).
And why should a Christian be concerned with what God-haters think about God's doctrine, anyway? I've never understood that.
Professing atheists need to hear about the powerful TRIUNE GOD of the Bible;
not some "beggar" god, who is just trying, and trying to get someone to worship him.
R1K2G3 1 month ago
@R1K2G3 We both know that we can continue this and debate foreknowledge, "synergism -vs- monergism", soteriology, Sola Gratia, efficacy, "compels -vs- coerces" and many other favorite Calvinist terms and phrases-but I have no desire. I hope to influence the lost and please the Lord. Keep defending your Reformed Theology and make ole Jehan Cauvin proud!
rtgray7 1 month ago
mr. olson sounds ignorant, as if stumbling over these questions for the first time.
philagon 4 months ago
Thanks!
MrG1203 4 months ago