Posted on 06/14/2002 7:52:48 AM PDT by Matchett-PI
It is very difficult to believe that Calvinists are not aware of their obfuscations. You never answered the questions posted by winstonchurchill, then demand that he find the answers in the non-answers you posted.
Please understand that there are two who are aware of your dissimulation, and you are one of them. The other is not I.
Hank
Should obfuscators have a legitimate right to believe that their opinions (especially about who else is an obfuscator) should be taken seriously by intellectually honest people?
You wrote: "You never answered the questions posted by winstonchurchill, then demand that he find the answers in the non-answers you posted."
I was merely emulating Jesus' example:
And the Pharisee said to Jesus, "Why are you doing what is unlawful ...?"
And Jesus (wondering why he was asking a question that he already had the answer to) said, "Have you never read what [was previously written]?". [Luke 6: 2-3]
You con't... "Please understand that there are two who are aware of your dissimulation, and you are one of them. The other is not I."
And the Pharisee said to Jesus: "Please understand that there are two who are aware of your dissimulation, and you are one of them."
Getting back to *the subject* (what Luther believed), he understood that either God is sovereign over all things which comes to pass, or He is not sovereign at all.
If you believe that, would you like to explain how it is possible for God to maintain sovereignty over election yet not over reprobation?
(The Potter just kept pounding, squeezing and molding the clay.)
Yup, but no potter ever, ever sent his son to die for the clay. As I have said before, I would give my own life for my wife, my children or my grandchildren, but not for my erector set.
Jesus Christ didn't die to bring salvation to determinist robots reading scripts.
BTW, your robot language is really clever. (Reminds me of the rhetoric of Johnny Cochran or James Carville.) Think it will impress lurkers?
I believe God is sovereign over both. I believe God determines both who will be saved and who will be lost, and He decideds how He will accomplish this, not Calvin, and He has chosen to make some of his created beings rational/volitions agents (for example, humans and angels) and as such, they are judged according to their choices within the limits of whatever ability the sovereign God has chosen to give them, and He uses that choice to determine who will be saved and who will be lost, and only those who limit God deny Him that power.
Since this is the clear Biblical teaching of how God operates, those who do not like it, and want to limit God to some pagan philosophical ideas of what God can and cannot do derived from Augustine by way of Calvin, Luther, Wesley, and others, need to be reminded God does not need to answer to Calvinists why He didn't use Calvin's scheme in dealing with men. Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, why hast Thou made me thus?
Hank
The creation questioning the creator.I've been there.Not a good place to be. I wouldn't recommend anyone attemp it.
You replied: "I believe God is sovereign over both. ... his created beings ... are judged according to their choices ... and He uses *that choice* to determine who will be saved and who will be lost and only those who limit God deny Him that power."
Do you give Him the sovereignty / power to elect some or all of the unborn who die in the womb, infants who die soon after birth, children who die at a young age, those who are born mentally retarded, those who become mentally incompetent (through accident or health problems) as adults?
Do you deny Him the sovereignty / power to elect such as those above who haven't "made a choice"?
For instance, are all unborn babies and other incompetents consigned to hell?
You lost me. Do you think I'm not?
Nah, rdb's post was pure encouragement, brother.
Don't let the spiritual combat-zone give you the "thousand yard stare", friend.
Rdb ain't criticizing; he's commending you for holding the line. ;-)
This extends far beyond the Calvinist/Arminian paradigm.
There are only two ways to answer the question: Yes or no.
Anything outside of this is pure conjecture. Therefore, I encourage you to stick to your guns.
Right. The Mormons have their "pre-existent spirits" and their "after-death Second Chances"...
... but among orthodox Christians, it's a yes-or-no thing, period.
Thanks! That's how I took it on first reading, then decided not to assume anything and thought I'd better ask. :D
If man makes his own choice of salvation, how do infants and the mentally handicapped choose salvation? Does God step in and make the decision for them?
Seems like a pretty strong precedent to set.
Certainly not! At least there is no Scriptural basis for supposing they are.
Hank
Election took place before time began. Election is not necessary outside of the context of fallen man since the elect are being elected to salvation, and of course salvation requires something to be saved from. There is an absolute need of man for salvation from the moment of birth since he is under the imputation of Adam's sin.
To summarize, God knew before creating Adam that, given free will, he would sin. God knew the implications of this from that point on for any descendent of Adam. God chose to create him anyway, knowing that he would sin, and thus that any human created as a descendent of Adam would be under that penalty. Knowing that, he viewed all of us as sinners. His election is in light of that knowledge. His election of Adam's descendents prior to creating Adam does not remove the possibility of Adam having free will. Just because He knows Adam will sin doesn't mean He made him do it.
The point is, when confronted with Adam, the construct makers had a big problem. They couldn't say Adam had a free will without trying (unsuccessfully) to explain why God would give one man a free will and not all. But they couldn't say he was predestined for sin without God being the author of sin and evil -- and, of course, punishing him for the imputed sin he hadn't yet committed.
There is no need to construct a means of explaining why our will is not the same as Adam's at his creation. It's clearly explained Biblically. Our wills are enslaved to sin. We do not have free will in the same sense Adam had it prior to his fall. If we did, then it would be possible for us to not sin at all. We are inclined inevitably toward sin because that is the consequence of original sin. Adam was not predestined to sin, but God certainly knew that he would, and His election is in light of that knowledge.
You replied: "Certainly not! At least there is no Scriptural basis for supposing they are."
How can you have it both ways? Didn't you previously say that God decides who will be saved based upon their "choice" to allow him to save them?
You're now agreeing with these Scriptures, then?:
"Yet before the twins were even born, or had done anything good or bad -- in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works [making a "choice"] but by him who calls ...".
"I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."
"It does not, therefore depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy."
Are you now admitting then, that God (the potter) does have the perogative to take his lump of clay and to elect (make) some of it for a noble purpose and some of it for common use?
"Does not the potter *have the right* to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? ...who are you, O man to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'why did you make me like this?"
[Romans 9: 11-24]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.