Posted on 02/24/2003 9:12:32 AM PST by Frumanchu
Xzins do you believe that God did not foreknow the fall? If He did ..did He make a plan to remedy it? When ?
One of the constants I see here on FR is a refusal to believe that God has any authority here on this globe..Everything is an accident outside of Gods control..
I am beginning to think that Arminians are diests at heart
The Arminian system is no different. For you guys God also is concerned with an overall 'good pleasure,' that of being loved by His creation. He tolerates the sin of the wicked to gain the love of His elect, right? The big problem you have logically is that you never consistently differentiate between the immediate and the overall. You can't seem to deal with God working something immediate that He takes no pleasure in for the purpose of His overall pleasure. You also don't seem to have a consistent concept of how God works in His restraint of evil. Whether He restrains it or not, He is not the author of it.
I'm still waiting for your answer on whether you agree that man's will chooses according to desire.
Rn, I don't see any difference between what you're saying here and what Arminians teach. Perhaps you didn't say it the way you wanted to.
There is a very large difference xzins . You will grant God some foreknowlege..but you do not allow Him to have authority over it..man is sovereign..Gods hands are bound by the will of man..God must work within the system , design and desires of HIS creation..
BTW Most Wesleyans do not even grant Him foreknowlege..at least they are consistant..because for God to foreknow something is the same as predestination..
At least they do not try to have it both ways..
Your understanding of Calvinism is correct then at it's initial point. Your second statement shows the problem in your understanding. It would be correct if you said "it means God decides what sins He will allow people to commit and follows through on permitting them to do so." God doesn't have to author sin in man at all...man quite ably does so himself. God's omniscience allows Him to both restrain specific acts of evil and actively allow others, both according to His purpose.
Again, if you would return to the discussion at hand regarding man's will and how choices are made, I could better explain why Calvinists can believe in the above statement without man being an automaton and God being a sinner. It seems to me that it's only your obstinate refusal to discuss this rationally that's keeping you from at least having a proper understanding of Calvinism. Whether or not you agree with it is another matter, but at least you'll have a correct understanding of it. You seem to have no interest in even trying to understand Calvinism at this point, which makes your outright denunciation of it rather rediculous. I can't speak to the effectiveness or patience in other Calvinists who've attempted to 'answer your questions' but I can offer my willingness to do so as long as your actually interested in understanding the position and not just determined to refute anything I say simply because it's "Calvinism."
Some advocate viewpoints that I see as inadequate
One viewpoint has God authoring this plan as if He doesn't have foreknowledge. To them it is just straight-up decisiveness. It's 100% decree.
Another is that God authors this plan as if He isn't reflective. To them He simply knows everything and based his decisions on other people's future decisions.
I believe his foreknowledge, reflection, and decisiveness worked in concert.
Xzins absolute foreknowlege IS Predestiantion.
The problem is that most look at God like he is a man and not the author of all events.
God can prohibit any event that is outside of His plan. If he did not want Corins daughter to become pregnant (as in his example) she would not become pregnant..If God did no plan to have the twin towers destroyed they would not have been..
Even the sinful acts of men are subject to His authority
I agree with that. You agree with that. I'm not sure OP & Jean would.
I think that's a fairly accurate position. I think God's foreknowledge works on different levels. Obviously unless one is an open theist it is agree that God knows everything that is going to happen from creation to judgement (not just what could, but what IS). That overall foreknowledge encompasses both God's actions and ours. God knows what He's going to do and what we are going to do. God's foreknowledge also works at lower levels. God knows that you will act a certain way when He does a certain thing (not just if, but WHEN). It is this knowledge that allows Him to act sovereignly within the universe without being the author of evil. "You meant it for evil but I meant it for good." This speaks to me a great deal regarding how limited our vision and perception is in what we do. Clearly in the statement God's intentions and our intentions are at odds, and yet look whose intentions ultimately win out. Also to note is that it doesn't say that He 'allowed' it for good, but that He 'meant' it for good. This goes back to what I said earlier about active permission versus passive permission.
This speaks to me a great deal regarding how limited our vision and perception is in what we do. Clearly in the statement God's intentions and our intentions are at odds, and yet look whose intentions ultimately win out. God's intentions MUST win out or omnipotence means nothing.
Also to note is that it doesn't say that He 'allowed' it for good, but that He 'meant' it for good. This goes back to what I said earlier about active permission versus passive permission. This goes back to "allowance" versus "appointment." As a reflective being God will have appointed some events for specific intentions and will have allowed some events for specific intentions.
Are you just being deliberately obtuse, or don't you get it? You know very well what I'm saying, and you also know that Calvinists don't believe that God is the originator and author of sin. You know that! You have a hatred in your heart for the Calvinist position that tells me that you've been burned by someone of the Calvinist persuasion, and now you're out to cause any Calvinist you meet as much trouble as you can. Is that what Jesus would do? Your posts back to us drip of hatred and strife. You aren't interested in debating or learning anything, you just want to disrupt. I can't stop you from doing so, but I can point it out when I see it.
Nice rant. But you don't know me well enough to level those charges. If I really wanted to disrupt, I assure you, you would know it. I have witnesses.
For the record, I wasn't burned by Calvinism. I had the good sense to get out. But I saw it destroy a young family. The wife, a new believer, was told her husband was not one of the elect. When they were having marital troubles, she wasn't counseled, just told she couldn't sing with the praise and worship team, so she left. They haven't been back in a church, any church in over four years. He forbids her to go or to take their two children.
But even that isn't the point.
I'm stuck on what Calvinism tells me. I'm sorry you don't like it. That's not my problem.
And yeah, Jesus pointed out the shortcomings of the religious leaders. They didn't like him either.
So if you can't post to me without being snippy, don't bother. I'm off to watch the war.
What you have here is quite obviously something that never should have happened, done by some little pinhead of a preacher that is completely out of step with the Word, and God. You blame the entire Calvinist theology for the stupid actions of one idiot who never should have been put into the ministry. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I wasn't trying to be snippy, just trying to get to the root of your attitude. If you want to engage in serious discussion, with a view to truly understanding, I am happy to oblige, as well as many others. If it's just going to be more inflammatory Calvinist-baiting to derail discussion, I want no part of it. You have your opinion, and I have mine, and we both know what opinions are like. I have been blasted by some Calvinists for not being Calvinist enough, but I am still here. The truth always wins out in the end.
If you define strongest inclination as your choice, then your conclusion becomes simply a restatement of your premise.
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.