Posted on 02/24/2003 9:12:32 AM PST by Frumanchu
I do not think Poly would give this place the time of day:>)
You tell me, dec. You can't nail down any definition of what man's 'will' is and how it even works! Any time I ask a question about it that whose answer only serves to solidify point, you evade and/or redefine. One minute 'will' is governed by desire, the next it operates completely independent and uninfluenced by it. One minute the 'will' is influenced by external factors, the next it is not. One minute it's moved by external power, the next it's not.
You have yet to put forth any consistent explanation of the will of man, the entire point of this thread. You instead harp away at questions like "So if you choose to sin is it God's will?" or grand comments about how Calvinism is mysticism and we can't read a Bible. Or you whine about proof-texting when you yourself haven't referenced more than about a half-dozen passages in all your replies.
Well, then your term permissive will is, as are most Calvinist terms, misleading. Why do you use the term 'permissive' when God is not permitting anything?
Misleading why? Because it doesn't line up with your preconceived notion of a passively permissive God? Sorry to 'mislead' you then. The converse of the passively permissive will is the ACTIVELY permissive will. It involves prior realization of an outcome and the choice to permit that outcome to come about. It is tied inescapably to omniscience since a non-omniscient being could not foresee with absolute certainty the outcome beforehand. Man cannot be actively permissive in the context of any thing or situation containing variability because of our lack of omniscience.
Your god is simply to small to be the God of the Bible!
And again...I'm the one making all the grand rhetorical statements?
I've not really been following this thread, but I've never met a Calvinist who could explain that.
A lot of you think you've explained it. But you never really do (can?).
This is my understanding and we will be co-creators in the world to come. The theology is explained in the book of Hebrews.
I've been too busy to repond in depth the past few days, but will respond in depth when I return home on Thursday. To answer your question, the last paragraph of my post #69 is what I want you to address. The reason being that if you actually do believe that unregenerate man cannot choose God apart from God's intervention (as you have agreed with more than once), then you are holding contradictory views about the nature of the relationship between God and man vis-a-vis the will, and the Justice and Righteousness of God with regard to sin and God's Election and Predestination, all of which are Biblical concepts.
I will await your reply, and tomorrow I will address your question.
First, there is no reason why God cannot give man the ability to choose, after shedding light into his soul. (2Cor.4:4).
Thus, grace can be rejected as well as accepted.
Predestination and election are Biblical terms which no one is rejecting, we reject the way the Calvinists have defined them.
Nowhere in Scripture is it said that a man is predestinated to go to hell.
Predestination is used four times in the New Testament, referring each time to the future of the Church age believer (adoption as sons and being conformed to Christ's image).
This is a result of salvation, not the cause of it.
As for election, we accept unconditional election as it pertains to certain tasks that the Lord may have (Cyrus, Israel, Christ Himself) but not to salvation, which is a conditional election, based on a willing response to the Gospel (Rom.10:17)
Quite amazing.
I would ask my Arminian brethren for an objective evaluation for my position and my tone.
What you do not like is that there is an alternative view that has Biblical support, not the nonBiblical views that you continually try to label the Arminian view with.
I stand open to rebuke from any of my non-Calvinist brethren if I have distorted any fact, twisted anything or made any false arguments.
That is a very nice attempt to get God 'off the hook' but the fact is if circumstances are determining the outcome and it is God is the author of the circumstances, then it is God who is determining the outcome!
Moreover, as for man's nature, since it is God who willed man to sin, that nature becomes part of God's will also, unless you want to say that a creature resisted God's directive will and God allowed that.
It is very nice and comfortable not to have to think out the logical consquences of your stance and stop one step short of where it all logically ends up in Calvinism, with God Himself, and this is for the 'Hyer' or 'moderate'.
I see no reason you need to back down from anything. You have made statements that challenge Calvinism and in their little world, that is simply not to be tolerated...
I simply cannot accept a "theology" that tells me:
- God wanted the events of 9/11 to happen
- God wanted 30 million babies to be sucked into a sink
- God wanted 6 million Jews to die in the Holocaust
- God wanted Andrea Yates to drown her children
- God wanted 600,000 boys to die in the American Civil War.
I could go on, but I won't.
After months of arguments, I cannot see how Calvinism teaches anything else.
Why is it that you refuse to except the fact that an 'influence' is not a 'control'?
As believers we are now influenced by two forces, God and our own flesh, and we make decisions every day to accept one and reject the other and love the one and hate the other.
Both influences are real, both are powerful and the final arbitator is not God but our own will that allows God to have control or resists God in that walk. (Eph.4:30)
You have yet to put forth any consistent explanation of the will of man, the entire point of this thread. You instead harp away at questions like "So if you choose to sin is it God's will?" or grand comments about how Calvinism is mysticism and we can't read a Bible. Or you whine about proof-texting when you yourself haven't referenced more than about a half-dozen passages in all your replies.
I could have referenced many more, but that was not the point.
I did not want to overwhelm you with proof-texts.
Some of which, I have yet to receive any answer on, such as Rom.5:18 and Heb.10:39
We were discussing the logic of the Calvinist position and its attempts to on the one hand make man responsible, yet, on the other, give God total control over the circumstances (which according to you) govern the will and still make God not the author of that which He hates, sin.
Well, then your term permissive will is, as are most Calvinist terms, misleading. Why do you use the term 'permissive' when God is not permitting anything? Misleading why? Because it doesn't line up with your preconceived notion of a passively permissive God? Sorry to 'mislead' you then. The converse of the passively permissive will is the ACTIVELY permissive will.
Note the typical Calvinist (and I am not saying this to be harsh) addition to words.
We are discussing 'permissive' vs 'directive' will and now it becomes an 'active' permissive will vs a 'passive' will.
Calvinist's have to constantly redefine terms to fit their own system and then state that it is we (non-Calvinists) are illogical for accepting their own synthetic terms.
It involves prior realization of an outcome and the choice to permit that outcome to come about. It is tied inescapably to omniscience since a non-omniscient being could not foresee with absolute certainty the outcome beforehand.
I accept that, the question is it going against what God wants and is God just allowing it despite that, or is God controlling the actions via the control of circumstances?
Man cannot be actively permissive in the context of any thing or situation containing variability because of our lack of omniscience.
What does out not having Omniscience have to do with being able to make a choice between alternatives.
You either obey God or do not.
Adam had a choice in the Garden and he chose to disobey God, that was permitted by God, not controlled via circumstances.
The circumstances do not justify the rejection of God's command, nor are they the cause of anything, the will of Adam was the cause of sin.
Your god is simply to small to be the God of the Bible! And again...I'm the one making all the grand rhetorical statements?
I never stated that you were the only one making 'grand rehetorical statements' I said that the logic of Calvinism is rehetorical.
Amen.
Having said that, I have seen absolutely zero change in the arguments of Calvinists over the last 7-8 months since I've left the forum as an active poster. I see a lot of condescending comments and outright insults, though I haven't seen any as bad as the one that caused me to leave.
Here's a question, then--if God actually does control everything actively, does that mean he's a sports fan? a cock-fighting fan? a terrorist? We're supposed to worship a terrorist?
I could go on, but I won't.
I suppose you skip all the parts in the Old Testament where God directs the Israelites to utterly destroy men, women, children and animals. I'm sure you have a wonderfully tame, politically correct explanation for such things.
I myself cannot accept the "theology" of someone who can't stomach the Word of God.
Have a nice day, Corin:)
You seem to have swallowed Calvinism without any digestive issues.
What is nauseating is that you would compare September 11, abortion and the Holocaust to God's leading His chosen people. By doing so, you put Hitler on the same plane as Moses.
After all, according to Calvinism, and you apparently, both were in the center of God's will.
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.