| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/07/2013 8:58:03 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 01/16/2013 8:57:49 AM PST by marshmallow
I have frequently stated that I can trace every heretical and blasphemous doctrine back to the idea of "free will". If you want to discuss the Virgin Mary, we'll hear that she freely gave of herself. If you want to talk about justification, we'll hear that we make decisions to follow Christ. If you want to talk about the end times, we'll hear that there is a cosmic struggle between good and evil because man is free. You name the heretical doctrine and just start asking "Why" to the questions. You will eventually find yourself with someone saying, "Because of man's free will."
Conversely, people no longer believe in the providence of God, predestination, election, being chosen in God, the salvation experiences of Abraham, Moses, Paul, Samuel, etc. They refuse to reconcile verses like Amos where God plainly states "I bring calamity...". They paint God as a God of love and forget about God raining fire from the sky. We no longer understand what it is to be a SLAVE to sin and and SLAVE to righteousness. All of this folly can be traced to the one idea that men are free to chose and do what they want. Surely God wouldn't do this to us? He, after all, gave us the freedom to choose, right?
What utter nonsense and crap. Yes it matters because one's whole theology is influenced by this one heretical doctrine. Augustine saw this and was so grieved that he recall his works and destroyed them. He equated it to Pelagius. And I know exactly what Augustine saw because when I discovered my error I also recanted of my foolishness.
Yes it does matter. It matters a great deal.
BTW-Just for the record I am well aware that the term "Free Will" is used in the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession. They rightfully defined what it is (there's little difference) but I wish they used a different term than "Free Will".
From the Westminster Confession of Faith
I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.
II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.
III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.
V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.
God can bring calamity whether men have free will or not. He can rain down fire whether men have free will or not. They don't have to be predestined to their actions for God to do those things.
Why wouldn't God do stuff like that to us if we had free will? How does the thought that we have the ability to choose (or not choose) how to react in situations affect God's actions?
1 Timothy 2:3-4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
If it's God's will for all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of Him, why don't they? How can God's will not be done?
Your understanding of my point is correct, dear sister in Christ!
Again, my point was that the Predestination v. Free Will issue is not an either/or. The "law of the excluded middle" does not apply to God.
That we mere mortals experience time as a directional arrow of past>present>future (people age, cars rust, entropy) does not mean that God experiences time the same way. Being inhabitants of space/time, we are part of our own observations.
God does not suffer from our observer problem. He alone sees "all that there is" all at once. And pertaining to this issue, when God declares His Name in Revelation 1:7-8, He translates for our extremely narrow mental bias as observers.
More specifically, God's Name is I AM - time is irrelevant to Him. YHwH has the same meaning, He IS or He lives.
Yet in the same passage He translates "which is, which was and which is to come" - which from our perspective of creatures "in" space/time would mean the entire timeline as far as we can imagine it in either direction, eternity past, present, eternity future. Time without limitation (eternity) is as close as most any mortal observer can get to comprehending timelessness.
And as if to emphasis that, He announces His Name Alpha and Omega. From our perspective as observers that would mean there is no one, no time and no thing before Him and there will be no one, no time and no thing after Him.
So the Scriptural fact that our names are recorded in the Book of Life of the Lamb from the foundation of the world may also be understood to mean that we are not merely His from this day forward and forever more, but that we are "in" Him and therefore timeless or if you prefer, we are His without limitation of time in any direction.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? - I Cor 6:19
God's Name is I AM.
If there is no infallible interpretation of Scripture, or no other source of certain teaching, we wouldn't have certain knowledge of Christ's teachings. IOW, we wouldn't know with certainty what to have faith in.
We can know with moral certainty, through unaided human reason, that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, because we can know with the same moral certainty that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded. Therefore, we can be morally certain that the truths of faith proposed by the Church for our belief, are worthy of our belief.
Keep in mind too that there are various degrees of Church teaching, from the lowest, theological speculation, to the highest, solemnly pronounced dogmatic teaching.
As usual, I get about 95% of what you write.
The rest makes my brain hurt.
But it’s good anyway, and I always learn something or get a new prespective on it. Thanks.
Sure we would because we have Scripture. There doesn't NEED to be infallible teaching on Scripture.
Besides, who is going to interpret THAT and how do you prevent fallible humans from misinterpreting infallible teaching on Scripture if they can't be kept from misinterpreting infallible Scripture?
Don't you need someone to infallibly interpret the infallible interpretation?
And so on, ad nauseum?
Having perfectly correct doctrine is not a requirement for salvation. Receiving, IOW believing in his name, Jesus is.
John 1:12-13 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
The word translated *right* can also be translated *authority*.
Here, if you want to look it up.
Getting saved is simple. Staying saved is easier, because God guarantees it with the Holy Spirit.
Catholicism makes it too difficult with all the rules and regs and all the theology they claim you have to have nailed down just right or you're labeled as some kind of -ist heretic.
Joh 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
God has mercy upon certain people. Why is a complete and utter mystery because none of us deserves it. Christians only need to look around and ask themselves why Joe next door doesn't see God and they do? It's like the guards on the Damascus road who could see the light of God but ONLY Paul could hear the voice of God. If God wanted ALL men to be saved wouldn't that have been a perfect opportunity? Why could only Paul hear the voice?
While this view might seem harsh to some, Christians need to understand the implications. God is in total control. God will save those who He has mercy on according to His grace. All we do is abide in Christ being faithful to preaching the word and good works. We may see thousands saved or we may see no one. We don't need to be in a "numbers" game because God will draw all men to Himself-those that are His sheep. Whether we see anyone come to God through our preaching doesn't matter. God just wants us to be faithful to Him.
2) As Christians it should be our goal to give up ourselves to be under His wing.
I apologize for all my failures to communicate. Truly, we Christians don't require a scientifically or mathematically defensible understanding of time or energy/momentum, etc.
Today's Oswald Chambers' devotional brought that point to my heart when I read this: "Paul was devoted to a Person, not to a cause."
It's all about Him, the rest is just details.
As our dear brother in Christ, HarleyD, put it in his post 109:
2) As Christians it should be our goal to give up ourselves to be under His wing.
The implications of Scripture to math, philosophy, etc. may be interesting to some of us - and may be relevant in a debate - but not to one's profession of faith.
For example, there are just a few paragraphs in Genesis 1 describing Creation week. How individual Christians understand those paragraphs - or "fill in the blanks" - is relevant in a crevo debate, but not to his being our brother in Christ.
God's Name is I AM.
-— Sure we would because we have Scripture. ——
The canon of Scripture that you use is Martin Luther’s. Was he infallible?
If you can’t be certain of the Canon of Scripture, how can Scripture be the sole rule of faith?
Catholics can trust the Canon of Scripture because it was given to us by Christ’s Church.
We know that the Church that determined the Canon of Scripture is Christ’s Church because of Her continuous existence, non-contradictory body of formal teaching, and the continuous succession in office of Petrine successors.
Historically, there is no comparable institution. The existence of this incomparable institution confirms Christ’s promise regarding His Church, and with moral certainty confirms Christ’s divine nature.
Because the Bible is the best attested document of antiquity, we can know with moral certainty that Christ existed, and spoke the prophecy attested to Him regarding His Church.
In reconciling these facts, we can say with moral certainty that Christ is divine, that He founded a Church, and that the Catholic Church is His Church.
We can therefore trust the Canon of Scripture given us by His Church.
Or you can trust Martin Luther.
I believe I am beginning to see your point...
We are here, but not here. Life is important, but it is not important. God is everywhere and nowhere. He knows all but He doesn’t know all. God controls all men but He controls no men.
This is what Paul meant in Eph 1 & Rom. 9.
Thanks for sharing.
Hey, boatbums, time for your stuff on Scripture, canon, and Luther.....again......
I do NOT follow Luther. Catholics have a real mental block concerning the concept that Christians don't follow people.
Luther did not write Scripture. Scripture was recognized as such before the Catholic church came into existence and compiled the Scripture into one, handy, convenient book. That's ALL they did and anyone could have done THAT. There's no credit to be given or taken for that action.
Catholics can trust the Canon of Scripture because it was given to us by Christ’s Church.
Anyone can trust Scripture because it was breathed out by the Holy Spirit and is therefore truth.
We know that the Church that determined the Canon of Scripture is Christ’s Church because of Her continuous existence, non-contradictory body of formal teaching, and the continuous succession in office of Petrine successors.
History does not bear out a continuous succession of popes. What about the times there was controversy and more than one *pope* at a time?
And Catholic teaching has certainly changed over the years. It is not non-contradictory. Just look at the teachings of there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. Do you need to see the posts from YOUR popes, spoken ex cathedra AGAIN?
Historically, there is no comparable institution. The existence of this incomparable institution confirms Christ’s promise regarding His Church, and with moral certainty confirms Christ’s divine nature.
Longevity means nothing. I would submit that rather than how long an organization has been around validating it's mission and existence, one look at the adherence to its alleged teachings, and looking at the moral failures of the Catholic church in both sexual immorality among its clergy, and its abominable participation in the Inquisition, one can hardly say the church as a whole has lived up to the teachings of Jesus.
The moral failures of the Church alone are enough to discredit it. After all, when people sinned, Jesus told them to go and sin no more.
The Catholic church throughout history has not represented Christ in that way.
In reconciling these facts, we can say with moral certainty that Christ is divine, that He founded a Church, and that the Catholic Church is His Church.
Not with its history it isn't. Christ would NEVER have approved of the moral failures of that organization.
We can therefore trust the Canon of Scripture given us by His Church. Or you can trust Martin Luther.
What book in the *Protestant* Bible is not in the *Catholic* Bible?
LOL!!!! :O)
Briefly put, God is the Creator ex nihilo which means He created "all that there is" out of no thing.
Space/time does not pre-exist but is created as the universe expands (energy/momentum). Cosmic Microwave Background measurements since the 1960's all agree on that point meaning there was a beginning of real space and real time. That is the most theological statement ever to come out of modern science. (Jastrow)
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. - John 10:17-18
Dear Alamo-Girl (you always use that appellation, except on me. Hmmm.), I clearly understand Ex Nihilo (read The Most Real Being - Jack Crabtree), I routinely describe God as outside of Space/time continuum (He owns a flux-capacitor), I recognize the timelessness of "I Am who I Am" and "...before Abraham was, I AM" (I will accept the pat on the head and the kick in the butt).
The point the Scriptures make with these matters, however, is that while God is not stuck in them, we ARE stuck in them. There are things which happened to us yesterday. There is a tomorrow in which things have not yet happened to us. The Scriptures describe the events of "tomorrows" to impress us with God's foreknowledge AND control of tomorrow. Prophecy is there to tell us He will make it come to pass because He can make it come to pass.
Prophecy tells us that God is managing tomorrow, so don't be afraid. And tomorrow has not actually happened...yet. So, isn't God amazing? If you then say, but don't get the idea God is actually controlling any of the men who are going to invade your tomorrow, can you see how dissonant this sounds to the immature believer? It does not cause him to say, "Wow, I really admire God now! Let's all sing, 'He's got the whole world, in His hands, He has absolutely nothing, in His hands.'" It causes a confusion of reality.
Rather than growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus, the person tends to say, "Well, I just have Jesus and all this stuff is too complicated, except for Alamo-Girl". It causes a retreat from the truth, not a hand up to maturity.
What will you tell another when they ask what it is that the Bible says to believe? Is it a little bit of both? Do you say with regard to salvation, "Trust Jesus and you will be saved and safe, Dutchie, all your sins past, present, future will be forgiven and you will be safe in Jesus, but because God is not in a space/time contiuum and it is all very complicated, there is a possibilty that you can be lost again." Now, that is good news! You may believe these, "little bit of both" ideas are comforting and biblical. I believe they are not. And it appears to me that Paul wanted to dispel these "little bits of both". He wanted to tell believers, "Here is the truth. You may step down on it."
But, here is the "little bit of both" Gospel:
God has elected His children. This actually happened before the world began. By the way, you weren't there. Isn't that fantastic? Before the twins did anything good or evil, God selected one whom He would love and one whom He would hate. That is how powerful He is. So then, it does not depend upon the man who wills (chooses) or the man who runs (acts), but upon God.
Except in certain cases, any man can come to Jesus if he really decides (or decides not to), because God is not caught in a space/time continuum and therefore He did not mean that just He is in control of men's destinies. (I missed this part in Romans)
But, don't worry, He will draw to Himself all of those whom He has chosen. Without fail, without exception. If you are among the elect, God will make you alive from the dead, adopt you as His child, and infuse you with faith, a trust in Him.
Except, because God is not in space/time contiuum He allows men to run wild and make their own decisions to run into the street even though He asked them not to. This after all is fair and He wants to be fair. That requires Him to give everyone an equal shot. Like the guy living in India and the fellow next to the believer in America. They both can choose and God is waiting to see who will step up to the plate. The one (or both) who choose, deserve eternal life. (I missed that part, too)
He is managing His universe in exquisite detail because He created everything Ex Nihilo and, therefore, "...Apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." including evil, the Devil, the bad guys, the troubles you will experience. The reason you need not fear is precisely because He is managing you, me, that guy, that girl, this storm. If you are among the elect, He will take you home, in spite of yourself.
Except, He gave commands to men and the only way a command can be understood is that it must be completely open to the person it has been given to. If they could not do it, it would not be fair. And, we know that God is fair the way we define fair. So, both must be true...God's full control & God's absolutely hands off men. (I really missed that part.)
End of Gospel. The reason you don't actually believe there is "no law of the excluded middle for God" is because you claim what you are saying is "true". Is your claim that there is no law of the excluded middle for God both true and false at the same time? Are you absolutely sure that it does not apply to just predestination and "free will"? Are you certain?
You have a very kind delivery, Alamo-Girl. Much kinder sounding than mine. And, it appears to me that you sincerely wish to strenghten believers. But, you are wrong-headed about this matter and it has implications which are enormous. Nevertheless, God is managing you right this minute, too.
There’s a difference between being able to stand outside something and see it happen and come in at any point along that timeline, and orchestrating it.
God IS in control, but it really doesn’t matter if something happens because God made it happen, or He lets it happen. He is still in control.
Scripture tells us that it’s God’s will that all be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. He even goes as far as commanding all men everywhere to repent. Jesus lamented over Jerusalem that He longed to gather them under His wings as a hen gathers her chicks and they WOULD NOT.
If God so desires that all be saved, then by the reasoning of the total sovereignty of God theology, they will be. But all men aren’t saved. That’s what throws a monkey wrench in that theology.
Now, don’t get me wrong by thinking that I don’t think God is in control, or that we can ever act independently of Him. That definition of free will is useless because it cannot be applied to anyone in this universe, so it’s purporting a set of conditions that cannot exist. IOW, it’s a waste of time even considering it because it’s only good in theory, sort of.
If God manages everything down to the last detail, then man is not responsible for his rejection of God, because created him incapable of it and there’s the situation where God is commanding people to do something He created them incapable of doing.
Additionally, that would leave God being the author of evil because people who murder and rape and shoot up schools are only doing what God predestined them to do. That’s not acceptable either.
It also reduces us to puppets on a string, mere pawns in some cosmic whatever.
Love is given from the heart. It cannot be forced. If it’s programmed into one, then it’s instinct, not love.
I don’t for one minute believe that man can come to God without God’s Spirit drawing him and convicting him and enabling him but I think God’s grace can be refused. A gift offered does not have to be accepted.
I actually think that’s the extent of free will man has, to say yes or no to God when He is putting pressure to bear on that individual. God’s word is replete with commands to choose. I think He allows that in His permissive will.
The Church was already established by the Council of Jerusalem. Many books of the New Testament were not yet in existence. The Church preceded the writing and canonization of the New Testament.
The Church first formally determined the Canon of Scripture at several local north african councils around A.D. 300.
Luther defined his canon of Scripture in the late 1400s. His justification for his determination was the so-called Jewish "Council of Jamnia," which occurred in the Christian Age. The so-called council had no standing within Judaism or Christianity.
Luther had no basis or authority for his determination of the canon of Scripture, other than his own opinion. His motivation was that he wanted to remove the Book of Maccabees from the OT, because it contained a clear reference to Purgatory. (2 Macc 12:45)
Sorry, metmom, your view is incorrect. Man IS responsible because God decided that he would be responsible. It is not because God gave an order to a created being and then waited to see if the absolutely free being would obey it or not. Of course they could not obey. That was the way it was planned.
Esau was condemned and Jacob blessed, even while both were still in the womb. They had done nothing "good or evil". But, God decides to hate Esau & love Jacob. The Scriptural point here is that He wants the "choice to be His not man's. Rom. 9
"Additionally, that would leave God being the author of evil because people who murder and rape and shoot up schools are only doing what God predestined them to do. That’s not acceptable either."
Not acceptable? To whom? You? Alamo-Girl? The Roman Catholics? It certainly is acceptable to those of us who let the Scriptures teach us, and not the other way round. Check out this link...
http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/authorsin.pdf
"It also reduces us to puppets on a string, mere pawns in some cosmic whatever."
No, it doesn't. Puppets and pawns are made of wood. You are flesh and blood and made to watch, notice, feel, observe what is going on around you and in you. You are to participate in the world RECOGNIZING that you are being managed by a loving God who is in complete control of His universe...including you. Ask a puppet if he has had this experience.
"Love is given from the heart. It cannot be forced. If it’s programmed into one, then it’s instinct, not love."
Ahh, now we get to the "heart" of it. Here is that very complicated theology of which you wanted no part...but you somehow sorted out enough of the pieces to create your own answer: If we don't bring something to the party of our own, without God's work, He gets no value added. We are just a bunch of intinctive animals.
Notice your underlying claim: Love is only valuable to God if the love we give had absolutely nothing to do with Him causing it. This is patently incorrect according to Paul:
"Work out your own salvation, with FEAR & TREMBLING for it is (ACTUALLY) God at work in you BOTH to will (choose) and to work (perform/act/do) for His good pleasure." Phil. 2:12,13
We love Him because He is working love in us. There is nothing produced in His children that is not the product of His Spirit.
But, our love is not a needed component of God's life. The Godhead was perfect before the creation of anything. He wanted for nothing. He had all the love, fellowship, beauty, honor, glory that He needed. He was without want. He was, and is, the Great I AM. Ask Alamo-Girl. Remember, the no space/time continuum?
The drama of rebellion that God instituted (first among 1/3 of the beings created in Heaven, but spread to 100% of beings on earth) was simply a means to give created beings an opportunity to observe His glory, His grace, His Majesty. The little skirmish in creation could have been (or could be and will be) snuffed by a word...except it serves His purpose for now.
Everything is from Him...He does not need your love to feel anything. Any love you might bring is generated by Him to help you realize what it is to enjoy what He is like. He enjoys seeing His creation be brought to see His perfection.
"Scripture tells us that it’s God’s will that all be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth."
This comes from I Tim. 2:1-4. I'll address it at another time, but clearly Paul is not telling Timothy what you are reading into it. Just like John 3:16 does not contain an "offer", but a statement. More later.
Grace to you, my sister.
Inanimate puppets actually appear to have a much better deal than the living breathing non-elect and the eternity of hell they face under the dictates of your theology.
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.