|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 6:39:29 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7607
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
FreeGrace, rwe2156,
quote:
Is it God's will for us to sin?
If it is not God's will for us to sin, then how do we sin?
quote:
But, let me ask you this one question: when you are sinning, as we all do, exactly who is controlling your mind at that time?
rwe2156 has already claimed that God restrains evil. Scripture claims that is true so at least that is out of the way. I am in agreement. FreeGrace might debate it? 
The problem you both constantly try to solve is trying to distance God from sin. It is as if He was the cause of something sinful to happen you think He would be evil. Nothing is further from the truth. God is not sinful even if He causes things to take place.
My only question for you is who is pulling your strings when you sin? From your comment, it seems you think God is causing you to sin.
quote:
Put that aside for right now and go with the "God restrains evil" thought pattern.
Yes it is true....God does restrain evil. It is obvious He does not restrain all evil because it is clear that we have evil in the world.
Even this thought pattern does not distance God from evil.
Lets say you have a policeman that is fully armed.
The policeman is sitting in his squad car and notices a brute man beating and raping a small helpless girl.
The policeman is armed and as such is more powerful than the brute man.
The policeman could very easily step in to prevent (restrain) the evil brute from beating and raping the small girl.......but the policeman just sits and does nothing at all.
Would both of you claim that the policeman is guilty or innocent for his lack of action?
How do you see God in that way?
Your analogy fails for this reason. You have admitted your comfort with the "puppet analogy". Only IF the policement were causing the brute to beat the helpless girl would your analogy truly represent your theology. But, since your analogy represents full free will both on the part of the policeman and the brute, you have failed to make any point.
You are still skirting the issue: WHO IS PULLING YOUR STRINGS WHEN YOU SIN? To this point, you haven't asnwered that question.
quote:
If God has the power to restrain all evil, and He can see the little girl being beaten and raped by a brute, and He does nothing.....do you find God guilty or innocent?
Here is the real issue, KJB. If God were causing the brute to beat and rape the girl, God WOULD BE GUILTY. If the brute was acting from his own free will, God WOULD NOT BE GUILTY.
I think you need to go back to the drawing board, and figure out your own position a little more carefully.
quote:
If God has the power to restrain evil...and at times He does...isnt it up to Him if He restrains evil or not?
But that isn't the question, KJB. the question to you remains: WHO IS PULLING YOUR STRINGS WHEN YOU SIN? Your analogy failed because both the policeman and the brute had free will. The policeman was free to intervene or not, but morally and legally REQUIRED to intervene, and the brute was free to assault the girl, since he wasn't being forced to do so.
If you disagree with my assessment, please elaborate clearly as to why you do.
Anyway, thanks for a great analogy to demonstrate how free will works!
quote:
And no, He is not guilty for the beating or the rape of the little girl even though one day both the brute man and the policemen will be held by God to account for both their action and in-action in the matter.
None of your analysis is relevant. Both the policeman and the brute had free will from your own analogy. You haven't shown otherwise.
According to your theology, your analogy would have the policeman causing the brute to assault the girl. If you disagree, please explain clearly why.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 6:41:35 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2314
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
What do you suppose causes a person to turn to Jesus Christ?
well, dear KJB,
In FW and Arminianism – a person’s free will makes the choice if we eventually go to hell or to heaven.
In Calvinism- those one who are not elected to go Hell, will made to turn to Chirst
Either version can be made to sound beautiful (and the opponent's view to sound terrible), so I am not asking for pastor-ese, preaching or Piper-style here, but trying to be objective.
That is why I am asking questions that I know will be asked of me if I were to choose sides.
See, at this point, as much as I don’t understand FW or C enough, I see this –
FW makes people responsible for their damnation , and Calv makes God responsible for sending people to Hell.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 6:41:59 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7607
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
rwe2156,
quote:
Calvinism is forced to define foreknow to = foreordain,
and they box God into a one dimensional view of sovereignty,
whereby God aids and abets Satan in the orchestration of evil.
I, too, seek to understand it, and the only way I can understand
it is to choose to live in it, not camp out on one side or the other
a be content with throwing rocks at the "other side" as
some here are content to do (and are quite good at it, I might add).
Its real simple to me: If God is the cause of everything, God causes sin.
First of all I am not throwing rocks. Just to be clear on that. 
The Calvinist has a thought pattern in regard to God being sovereign and in control of His creation.
Good. What is the "thought pattern" of the calvinist as to WHO IS PULLING YOUR STRINGS WHEN YOU SIN?
If God is, then He is directly causing you to sin. Are you comfortable with that?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 6:44:42 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7607
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: john_mark
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
Lets say you have a policeman that is fully armed.
The policeman is sitting in his squad car and notices a brute man beating and raping a small helpless girl.
The policeman is armed and as such is more powerful than the brute man.
The policeman could very easily step in to prevent (restrain) the evil brute from beating and raping the small girl.......but the policeman just sits and does nothing at all.
Would both of you claim that the policeman is guilty or innocent for his lack of action?
How do you see God in that way?
if i could comment, this example doesnt seem to fit the picture of God that you are presenting. If God is the first cause of sin then in this scenario God would compel the brute to rape the girl while He watched and did nothing.
your example presents a view that the brute decided on his own to do evil and God chose not restrain him. your example shows the evil originating in the brute.
john_mark, your analysis is right on! KJB has unwittingly presented an example of free will in mankind. He now has quite a bit to explain, don't you think? 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 6:46:47 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7607
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
What do you suppose causes a person to turn to Jesus Christ?
well, dear KJB,
In FW and Arminianism – a person’s free will makes the choice if we eventually go to hell or to heaven.
In Calvinism- those one who are not elected to go Hell, will made to turn to Chirst
Either version can be made to sound beautiful (and the opponent's view to sound terrible), so I am not asking for pastor-ese, preaching or Piper-style here, but trying to be objective.
That is why I am asking questions that I know will be asked of me if I were to choose sides.
See, at this point, as much as I don’t understand FW or C enough, I see this –
FW makes people responsible for their damnation , and Calv makes God responsible for sending people to Hell.
Del, I don't know how anyone could say it more clearly than you did!
And KJB's newest analogy actually proves free will! Can you imagine!?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 7:18:51 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2314
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
FG- thanks, i am indeed interested in the same thing some of you guys asked about: who or what was pulling the policeman's strings? Why do we consider him responsible?
TD, would you mind the responsibility answer when you have some minutes, please?
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 7:29:38 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1589
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
john_mark,
quote:
if i could comment, this example doesnt seem to fit the picture of God that you are presenting. If God is the first cause of sin then in this scenario God would compel the brute to rape the girl while He watched and did nothing.
your example presents a view that the brute decided on his own to do evil and God chose not restrain him. your example shows the evil originating in the brute.
You make a good point and that is why I never claim that I know all the supernatural forces and powers at work at all times in all people.
I would not claim that the brute was doing anything less than his own evil desire no matter what other power or force was involved.
Scripture is clear that those with the Spirit in them have their minds under the control of God.
It does not mean that God does not leave Christians at times un-restrained to submit to their own evil desires while at the same exact time holding them under a certain amount of restraint.
It means God could certainly permit a Christian to sin while at the exact same time restrain the same Christian from other specific acts of sin.
God may also use spirits on Christians. Who is to say He cant or doesnt?
Scripture claims that God sent a spirit to cause prophets to lie.
That one text alone is enough absolute proof that men do not have free-will.
I seriously dont believe the prophets were standing there fighting to resist lying.
They were more than likely not even aware that the forces of a spirit were at work on them.
For the people in here to claim that their wills are free from any outside influence at all is tantamount to them pretending they can see all invisible and supernatural forces working everywhere.
The most they could honestly claim is that they dont know if there wills are free or not because they are incapable of seeing all the invisible powers that are working......at least then we can be honest and stop the fantasies.
Scripture is clear that God works on the human beings in all sorts of ways.
Hebrew slaves were quite confident that God could free them.
It does not matter how He chooses to do it whether it is done with forces that can be observed (like supernatural plagues and the like) or forces that cant be observed by the human being (like invisible forces).
It also does not matter if God hardened the heart of a Pharoah to consistantly resist while using a multitude of forces on the Pharoah knowing full well that He is capable of bending or breaking the Pharoah with one swift blow.
God could have ended the life of the Egyptian king with one small word.
But He didnt.
God raised up an Egyptian king for His specific purpose to show the power and glory of God........not to show the glory and power of men.
"I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
Some people think that it is unjust for God to raise up a man just to show the earth He has the power to destroy the man.
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
I dont.
If He does it and is pleased to do such a thing........far be it for me to give God my council.
One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But 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?'
The other thing we must consider is that God tempts no one.
He does not need to.
People are tempted by their own evil desires and they have plenty.
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
Thanks for the comments!
KJB
_____________________________
Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 7:34:48 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1600
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
FG,
quote:
quote:
How can someone repent when they don't believe? How can someone turn from sin to God if they do not believe that God is the most valuable treasure - which is revealed in the gospel?
The Bible gives Cornelius as an example of an unbeliever who turned to God before he believed the gospel. Unless you don't consider reverencing God and praying to Him continually as "turning to God". But I do.
So, we at least know that it is not only possible, but people actually do it.
Cornelius is a great example of God’s work of grace working in a person. Yes, he was an unbeliever when he feared God and prayed, but how he came to this condition is not shared with us in Acts 10. So no, I don’t agree with you that a person unaided by the Holy Spirit will come to Christ. Romans 1-3 directly contradicts this concept, as does 1 Cor 1-3 and 2 Cor 4.
You or I cannot make a case one way or the other on why Cornelius feared God and prayed based upon the text of Acts 10 alone. In other words, a doctrine of free-will or of total depravity and election cannot be gleaned from Acts 10 in and of itself. This is why I have chosen not to spend much time arguing Cornelius but instead have focused upon what Paul wrote in chapter one of Romans (all fallen men suppress the truth in unrighteousness). I have not had much time to read posts or write them recently, but wanted to respond to your comment here.
grace to you,
SH
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 7:51:01 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1589
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
FreeGrace,
I really do not think you are interested in my answer.
You have already told me it is not worth reading.
If you were really interested in my answer you would have read it.
Also, my analogy does not prove free-will.
It proves that God may leave people to do their evil will.
I have also shown from Scripture proof that God may use other powers and forces to cause evil.
God may restrain evil people from doing their evil will but he is not obligated to do so.
Your concept leaves God as a mere observer of His own creation without any involvement.
KJB
_____________________________
Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 7:56:37 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7607
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
FG- thanks, i am indeed interested in the same thing some of you guys asked about: who or what was pulling the policeman's strings? Why do we consider him responsible?
I believe that is the whole issue here. It is obvious that KJB was thinking that the policeman represented God who was allowing sin to occur, yet not causing it to occur. However, he inadvertantly demonstrated that the brute actually had free will, to assaut the girl.
According to his puppetry theology, which he has admitted he is comfortable with, the policeman as God would be forcing/compelling/pulling the strings of the brute, which would clearly make God the first cause of the assault. It also makes God guilty of the sin that He is the first cause of.
Only because the brute had free will is he the first cause of his assault and sin, and rightfully, accountable for it. If God caused him to assault the girl, God would be guilty of the sin He caused to occur.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 8:16:22 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7607
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
john_mark,
quote:
if i could comment, this example doesnt seem to fit the picture of God that you are presenting. If God is the first cause of sin then in this scenario God would compel the brute to rape the girl while He watched and did nothing.
your example presents a view that the brute decided on his own to do evil and God chose not restrain him. your example shows the evil originating in the brute.
You make a good point and that is why I never claim that I know all the supernatural forces and powers at work at all times in all people.
Your answer fails to face the issue you created with your analogy. The brute was demonstating free will when he assaulted the girl. You accept the "puppet theology" analogy. If so, your "policeman" who represents God fails to demonstrate your own position, since the policeman in your analogy was allowing someone else to express their own free will.
If your "puppet theology" were correct, the policeman would be "pulling the strings" of the brute, and therefore, the "first cause" of the assault.
quote:
I would not claim that the brute was doing anything less than his own evil desire no matter what other power or force was involved.
So, who WAS pulling the strings of the brute in your own analogy? If not himself, from his own free will, then by whom?
quote:
Scripture is clear that those with the Spirit in them have their minds under the control of God.
What is more important, KJB, is that believers are commanded to be filled with the Spirit, and to walk by means of the Spirit, so that they will NOT fulfill the desires of their flesh. Furthermore, believers are commanded to stop grieving and quenching the Spirit. These commands clearly demonstrate the free will that exists in us. All believers are either filled/walking by means of the Spirit, or they are grieving/quenching the Spirit.
Also, we are commanded to "put on the new self" in Eph 4:24 and Col 3:10, after "laying aside the old self" in Eph 4:22 and Col 3:9. These are things we are commanded to do. God doesn't do them for us. It is our responsibility.
quote:
It does not mean that God does not leave Christians at times un-restrained to submit to their own evil desires while at the same exact time holding them under a certain amount of restraint.
Your answer fails to deal with the issue you created. The brute had free will to do what he wanted to do. Since you view the policeman as God, who is the puller of strings, your analogy fails to support your own view. Only if the policeman forced/compelled the brute to commit the assault would he be the first cause of the assault. As your own analogy demonstrates quite well, the brute was the first cause of the assault. And the responsibility and accountability falls completely and solely on the brute, not the policeman. However, legally, the policeman, as upholder of the law, would be considered an accessory to the crime for not performing his legal duties to prevent and stop crime. That would make him guilty as well.
So, your analogy fails on all counts. You have unwittingly proved free will. Thank you.
quote:
It means God could certainly permit a Christian to sin while at the exact same time restrain the same Christian from other specific acts of sin.
so, when the Christian is "permitted" to sin, who is pulling the strings?
quote:
That one text alone is enough absolute proof that men do not have free-will.
A rather odd statement considering that your analogy actually proves free will!
quote:
For the people in here to claim that their wills are free from any outside influence at all is tantamount to them pretending they can see all invisible and supernatural forces working everywhere.
Since none of the "people in here" have claimed anything close to that, I suggest you read our posts more closely. Free will is nothing more than choosing between available options. Do you want to deny that?
quote:
The most they could honestly claim is that they dont know if there wills are free or not because they are incapable of seeing all the invisible powers that are working......at least then we can be honest and stop the fantasies.
The only fantasy here is your distorted view of what you think my view is.
quote:
Scripture is clear that God works on the human beings in all sorts of ways.
That is totally true, and no one has denied this. What is your point here?
quote:
The other thing we must consider is that God tempts no one.
Quite true. So, puppet, who is pulling your strings when you sin"
quote:
He does not need to.
No, because He created mankind with a free will to choose to sin or not.
quote:
People are tempted by their own evil desires and they have plenty.
Yes, there are a lot of sins and evils to choose from. But the fact remains: we all choose our own sins. Do you deny this?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 8:17:14 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1600
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
rwe,
I have been out of town and am just getting back to respond to your last post to me. I had started responding a few days ago and have finally gotten around to compete what I had started. KJB has already stated much of what I had begun with concerning sin and the will of God, but I thought the repetition wouldn’t be to detrimental (although KJB probably states it more clearly than I can).
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
Please tell me how we can be commanded to do something we are unable to do.
God commands us to love Him with every fiber of our being.
AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’ (Mark 12:30 NASB95)
We are unable to obey this command because we are unwilling to obey.
Exactly my point.
I am not sure I understand your point.
I was answering your question concerning “how we can be commanded to do something we are unable to do.” My point was that God commands us to do that which we are unable to do (morally unable).
They who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” But He said, “The things that are impossible with people are possible with God.” (Luke 18:26-27 NASB95)
God commands the impossible and then enlightens and empowers us to fulfill the command.
quote:
quote:
RWE: Please explain to me why God would desire something he is the cause of?
SH: Last I knew God was the cause of all things.
Including evil?
This is a great mystery. God does no evil, but created all things knowing beforehand that evil would be manifested in His creation. He could have chosen to create the universe with no evil – heaven will have no evil – but instead He knew full well that evil would be manifested in His creation and created it with that understanding. God is the cause of all things, but does no evil, and yet created the world knowing that there would be evil.
These two things are true and do not contradict each other: 1.) Sin is evil and is against the will of God. On the other hand, 2.) God permits sin and thus sin is within the will of God. Man is morally and fully responsible for sin, but God has allowed sin by His design, and thus, in that sense, has willed sin to exist. If sin was ultimately contrary to His will He would not have permitted it. That which God permits He has willed that it be allowed in His creation.
The sin of crucifying the Lord Jesus Christ was evil and the men involved are responsible for their sin. On the other hand, the evil done was purposed and predestined by God and is good in the eyes of God – for it glorifies God by exalting His nature, character and attributes.
Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. (Acts 2:22-23 NASB95)
quote:
quote:
For the LORD of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it?
And as for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back? (Isaiah 14:27 NASB95)
But as for Israel He says, " ALL THE DAY LONG I HAVE STRETCHED
OUT MY HANDS TO A DISOBEDIENT AND OBSTINATE PEOPLE." Rom 10:21.
Both are true and do not contradict each other – God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.
quote:
quote:
RWE: Why would God rejoice over something he caused a person to do?
SH: Because He rejoices in the manifestation of His work.
So the man he enables to be saved he delights. Great.
What about the ones he does not enable?
Oh, that's right, they get what they had coming to them.
God is both glorified in the judment of sinners (His righteousness is vindicated) and in the salvation of the repentant. God rejoices in the manifestation of His work of judment and redemption.
Why do you think God created the universe and mankind, knowing full well that man would sin and most would end in hell? Why do you think that, even though God knew most would suffer eternally, He created the universe as He did? God knows what a person will do before He creates him, yet God still creates him, even though He knows the person He creates will end in Hell. It is a mystery, but true just the same.
quote:
quote:
RWE: Why would God wait for a man to respond if he is unable?
SH: First: Man’s inability is not that he does not have a will that could choose Him.
Are you saying man does have a will that could choose God?
I am saying that man’s inability is not found in his will, but found in his heart. Fallen man is able to choose whatever he desires. The problem with fallen man is that he does not desire God; but quite the opposite, he hates God.
quote:
quote:
Man’s inability is a moral inability – natural man does not want God.
Man is morally unable because he is steadfastly unwilling.
I thought is was the condition of his heart?
Exactly.
quote:
What do you think of Isa 55:7?
God commands all to repent. Man’s responsibility does not contradict God’s sovereignty. It may in our created minds, but not in the mind of God.
quote:
quote:
Third: God gives His Spirit to natural man in order for Him to
understand the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2).
So we are saved before we believe?
The natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually appraised. When God gives His Spirit to man he can understand that which he did not understand before (1 Cor 2). Believing is needed in order to be saved, but God enables us to believe by giving us light to see the glory of the God in the face of Christ Jesus.
quote:
quote:
God does not wait for natural man to respond;
God initiates by giving His Spirit (1 Cor 2).
But Scripture says he does wait (2 Pet 3:9; Rev 2:21)
Yes, quite true. On one level God waits and on another God initiates. Both are true and do not contradict each other.
quote:
quote:
God is patient and kind – He does not give His people what they deserve.
You mean "his chosen people" don't you?
Yes, those whom He chose before the foundation of the world; those whom he foreknew, predestined, called, justified and glorified.
quote:
quote:
God is gracious – He gives His people the exact opposite of what they deserve.
Grace is getting something we don't deserve.
Mercy is not getting what we do deserve.
I am joyful for grace, I am relieved by mercy.
It all opens up when man understands his condition and repents.
I would say that God opens it up by giving light in our hearts in order that we would repent from our God dishonoring attitudes, thoughts and actions and fly to Him whom we now see is of ultimate value.
For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:6 NASB95)
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 8:35:50 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7607
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
FG,
quote:
quote:
How can someone repent when they don't believe? How can someone turn from sin to God if they do not believe that God is the most valuable treasure - which is revealed in the gospel?
The Bible gives Cornelius as an example of an unbeliever who turned to God before he believed the gospel. Unless you don't consider reverencing God and praying to Him continually as "turning to God". But I do.
So, we at least know that it is not only possible, but people actually do it.
Cornelius is a great example of God’s work of grace working in a person. Yes, he was an unbeliever when he feared God and prayed, but how he came to this condition is not shared with us in Acts 10. So no, I don’t agree with you that a person unaided by the Holy Spirit will come to Christ. Romans 1-3 directly contradicts this concept, as does 1 Cor 1-3 and 2 Cor 4.
Why would you consider the fact stated in Romans 1 that "everything that is known about God" has been made evident by Him wouldn't be the "aid of the Holy Spirit"? We know one of the ministries of the Holy Spirit is to reveal God and Christ. We undeniably know that God has made evident what is known about God to mankind. Why don't you consider this "act" to be by the Holy Spirit? As such, this demonstrates that God has already made the "first move" as the reformed like to think. Then man is faced with a choice; what to do with this evidence. He can either reject it (suppression of truth), as fools do, or he can accept it by recognizing God and reverencing Him, and seeking Him. Why would you disagree with any of this?
quote:
You or I cannot make a case one way or the other on why Cornelius feared God and prayed based upon the text of Acts 10 alone.
If you think I can't, why not answer those 5 very simple straight forward questions about Cornelius I asked of KJB in post 30512?
Here they are again:
Do you disagree that Cornelius was unregenerate and an unbeliever at the beginning of acts 10?
Do you disagree that he reverenced God and prayed continually?
Do you disagree that God heard his prayers?
Do you disagree that, based on his prayers, God sent Peter with the gospel?
Do you disagree that when he believed the gospel that God saved him?
quote:
In other words, a doctrine of free-will or of total depravity and election cannot be gleaned from Acts 10 in and of itself.
I've never posited such. I have linked the life of Cornelius to the principle in Romans 1:18-24. That is, since God has made evident to mankind "everything that is known about God", so that no one has an excuse for not recognizing and honoring God, Cornelius demonstrates an unbeliever who did recognize and honor God.
Or, do you disagree that Cornelius recognized God as Creator?
Do you disagree that Cornelius honored (reverenced) God?
According to Romans 1, did Cornelius have any excuse if he had not recognized and honored God?
Does the fool have any excuse for saying in his foolish heart, there is no God?
Do you disagree that the fool who says there is no God is suppressing the truth of the evidence that God has made evident to mankind?
Now, I've asked you 4 more very straight forward questions. I hope you will take the time to answer each one, which is based on what I read in Romans 1.
quote:
This is why I have chosen not to spend much time arguing Cornelius but instead have focused upon what Paul wrote in chapter one of Romans (all fallen men suppress the truth in unrighteousness).
Then please explain to me how Cornelius suppressed the truth that God gave him. I do not see it.
quote:
I have not had much time to read posts or write them recently, but wanted to respond to your comment here.
Thank you. Please answer my questions. I think they will reveal the link between Acts 10 and Romans 1.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 8:46:05 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 7607
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
FreeGrace,
I really do not think you are interested in my answer.
You think wrongly, then. 
quote:
You have already told me it is not worth reading.
giving me a link to a very long document known as WCF as an answer to my 5 very simple and straight forward questions most surely was not worth reading. All I asked for was 5 yes or no answers, not a long winded document.
[qutoe]If you were really interested in my answer you would have read it.
Quit hiding behind long winded documents. If you afraid to give me simple yes or no answers, why? the SCF doesn't answer my questions. To even suggest it does is absurd.
quote:
Also, my analogy does not prove free-will.
Really!! In your analogy, who does the policeman represent? Remember, your theology has God as the first cause of everything.
quote:
It proves that God may leave people to do their evil will.
I have also shown from Scripture proof that God may use other powers and forces to cause evil.
OK, so in your own analogy, who was causing the assault to occur? If you say the brute, you have proven free will. But, your theology which is likened to puppetry has God as the first cause of everything. Yet your own analogy fails to demonstrate God as the first cause of the assault, unless you are suggesting that God is a brute, which I know you aren't. So, who is God in your own analogy? If the policeman, he wasn't causing the assault. He was permitting it, even though he has a moral and definitely a legal responsbility to stop it. So, your own analogy falls flat. The brute was free to do his own thing. The policeman allowed the brute the freedom to do it. You've not proved otherwise.
quote:
God may restrain evil people from doing their evil will but he is not obligated to do so.
You are failing to see the reality of the analogy that you created. Evil comes from free will, as your own analogy clearly demonstrates.
quote:
Your concept leaves God as a mere observer of His own creation without any involvement.
Actually, it is your own analogy that "leaves God (the policeman) as a mere observer of His own creation (laws of the land) without any inolvement". I'm truly amazed that you don't even see it. LOL
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 8:53:23 PM
|
|
|
john_mark
Posts: 516
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
It means God could certainly permit a Christian to sin while at the exact same time restrain the same Christian from other specific acts of sin.
would it not be more to correct to say that God ordains/compels the christian to sin as opposed to allow/permit his sin. to allow or permit the sin means that the idea originates outside of God and God decides whether or not to permit/allow the action.
quote:
For the people in here to claim that their wills are free from any outside influence at all is tantamount to them pretending they can see all invisible and supernatural forces working everywhere.
The most they could honestly claim is that they dont know if there wills are free or not because they are incapable of seeing all the invisible powers that are working......at least then we can be honest and stop the fantasies.
i would agree whole-heartly with this if it included people on both sides of the debate. this position is closest to my own, as you say we are all incapable of seeing all the invisible powers of God. would you not agree?
quote:
It also does not matter if God hardened the heart of a Pharoah to consistantly resist while using a multitude of forces on the Pharoah knowing full well that He is capable of bending or breaking the Pharoah with one swift blow.
in light of what is being talked about, God being the first cause and so on...
scripture says that God hardened pharoah's heart. would it seem right to say that without God's hardening, pharoah's actions could have gone either way. what i am driving at is that even though pharoah was unsaved, for God's purpose to be fulfilled God had to intervene/compel pharoah's actions, his sin nature in and of itself was not sufficent to guarentee his rebellion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 9:29:01 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1589
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
FreeGrace,
quote:
Your answer fails to face the issue you created with your analogy. The brute was demonstating free will when he assaulted the girl.
The answer fails nothing. The man was clearly demonstrating evil.
It does not conclude one way or another that he was able to resist his own evil will and desires. It does not conclude he was free from the power of satan, God, spirits, and he was absolutely not free from his own sinful nature.
quote:
You accept the "puppet theology" analogy.
Yes, I do. You are the one of the main persons in this forum that constantly and consistantly push the puppet theology concept on the Calvinists in here. You do this even though we have constantly and consistantly told you that we understand people are people and not puppets. The thing is you do not let up and you do not cease to push puppet theology on us. So ok...I will live with it. I wont even fight it anymore!
Just call me Mr. Puppet! (Please dont call me late for dinner)
Puppet theology may not be perfect, but it is much better than your alternative.
quote:
If so, your "policeman" who represents God fails to demonstrate your own position, since the policeman in your analogy was allowing someone else to express their own free will.
If the policeman in my analogy represents God, an Armininan or free-will thought pattern cannot escape the fact that God stood still and did nothing when He had the power and could of stopped the evil. The Arminian or free-willer has to come up with an answer as to why He did not save the little girl when He could have.
It leaves them in the same boat as a Calvinist thought pattern which means if you are going to call someone guilty for causing evil, it is just as proper to call someone guilty for having the power to stop evil but not stopping it. It just leaves both sides in the same boat regarding evil and trying to blame God for it.
Let me be clear, I dont blame God for evil.
Look at the human family. If a mother sees severe physical abuse going on in her house for years as her husband constantly beats his children, and she does nothing at all about it.....she is guilty.
The Bible is clear on that; Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.
If the policeman in the same analogy represents God, a Calvinistic thought pattern does not conclude that the man has free-will. Any question on free-will is not even answered in the analogy. The only thing you can see is that a man is doing evil and God still did not step in to stop the evil.
So the Calvinist is stuck with the same sort of question. Why does God permit evil?
My point in the analogy was to show that even a free-will point of view does not distance God from evil.
Somehow....the Arminian, the Calvinist, and the free-willer must at least come to the same conclusion.
Evil exists because God has decreed it to exist. You cannot escape that.
quote:
If your "puppet theology" were correct, the policeman would be "pulling the strings" of the brute, and therefore, the "first cause" of the assault.
That is not true. You need to read more of my posts and attempt to understand them.
quote:
So, who WAS pulling the strings of the brute in your own analogy? If not himself, from his own free will, then by whom?
You should have noticed that the analogy did not answer that. The only thing you could see is that a brute was doing evil. See, it looks as if invisible and hidden things are impossible for you to observe.
quote:
Your answer fails to deal with the issue you created. The brute had free will to do what he wanted to do. Since you view the policeman as God, who is the puller of strings, your analogy fails to support your own view. Only if the policeman forced/compelled the brute to commit the assault would he be the first cause of the assault. As your own analogy demonstrates quite well, the brute was the first cause of the assault. And the responsibility and accountability falls completely and solely on the brute, not the policeman. However, legally, the policeman, as upholder of the law, would be considered an accessory to the crime for not performing his legal duties to prevent and stop crime. That would make him guilty as well.
That is the main point of the analogy. How does the Arminian or free-willer remove God from guilt when He could have stepped in and saved the little helpless girl?
The point is that God must be involved with evil in some way in any system.
The only way to totally distance God from all evil would be to remove Him from all of creation and render Him helpless.
Calvinists do not blame God and nor do they say He is guilty even if He was to cause something evil.
quote:
Since none of the "people in here" have claimed anything close to that, I suggest you read our posts more closely. Free will is nothing more than choosing between available options. Do you want to deny that?
Like the lying prophets?
quote:
Quite true. So, puppet, who is pulling your strings when you sin"
Man that is so cute!
If you really wanted the answer you would pay attention to the posts.
You have already made it clear to me that the answer I give is no good.......even though you dont remember where to look. For some reason I dont think you really want answers and you certainly dont want mine. You are more interested in teaching all about your powerful will and the powerful will of men.
KJB
_____________________________
Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 9:33:29 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1600
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
FG,
quote:
Why would you consider the fact stated in Romans 1 that "everything that is known about God" has been made evident by Him wouldn't be the "aid of the Holy Spirit"?
Because what the scriptures says is that men are responsible to God and deserve His wrath because they have suppressed the truth of Him found in creation.
quote:
Do you disagree that Cornelius was unregenerate and an unbeliever at the beginning of acts 10?
Do you disagree that he reverenced God and prayed continually?
Do you disagree that God heard his prayers?
Do you disagree that, based on his prayers, God sent Peter with the gospel?
Do you disagree that when he believed the gospel that God saved him?
Cornelius was unregenerate at the beginning of Acts 10
Cornelius "feared God" and "prayed"
God heard the prayers of Cornelius
I do not think the determining cause of God answering the prayers of Cornelius was Cornelius' prayers. God's gracious work in a person will inspire him to pray and He graciously answers.
By the evidence of the Holy Spirit falling upon Cornelius we know that he believed and was saved
quote:
quote:
In other words, a doctrine of free-will or of total depravity and election cannot be gleaned from Acts 10 in and of itself.
I've never posited such. I have linked the life of Cornelius to the principle in Romans 1:18-24. That is, since God has made evident to mankind "everything that is known about God", so that no one has an excuse for not recognizing and honoring God, Cornelius demonstrates an unbeliever who did recognize and honor God.
Because Romans 1:18-24 is directly tied to Romans 1:16-17 my conclusion is different than yours. Cornelius like all of mankind in and of himself suppressed the truth in unrighteousness (unrighteousness in itself is a suppression of the truth).
quote:
Or, do you disagree that Cornelius recognized God as Creator?
Do you disagree that Cornelius honored (reverenced) God?
Whether Cornelius honored God or not is not the fundamental issue, which in my mind is Romans 1:16-24. Since all have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness and Cornelius is a part of the all, then Cornelius suppressed the truth in unrighteousness also. How did he come to fear God and pray? There are scriptures that answer that question, but Romans 1 and Acts 10 do not.
quote:
According to Romans 1, did Cornelius have any excuse if he had not recognized and honored God?
According to Romans 1 Cornelius had no excuse for suppressing the truth. He needed mercy as all others who reject the light found in creation. In other words, Cornelius fearing God and praying does not negate the fact that all, including Cornelius, have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness.
quote:
Does the fool have any excuse for saying in his foolish heart, there is no God?
All have suppressed the truth, not only a group out of all sinners called fools.
quote:
Do you disagree that the fool who says there is no God is suppressing the truth of the evidence that God has made evident to mankind?
I agree, but also would add those who may acknowledge the existence of God, yet do not honor Him as God or give thanks. Not honoring God as God and not giving thanks does not mean a person denies the existence of God.
quote:
quote:
This is why I have chosen not to spend much time arguing Cornelius but instead have focused upon what Paul wrote in chapter one of Romans (all fallen men suppress the truth in unrighteousness).
Then please explain to me how Cornelius suppressed the truth that God gave him. I do not see it.
What is fundamental is that all suppress the truth in unrighteousness according to Romans 1. Why Cornelius stopped suppressing the truth is not found in Romans 1 or Acts 10. 1 Cor 2 and 2 Cor 4:4-6 shows us that God brings light by His Spirit to the unregenerate heart, thus enabling him to see the ultimate value of Christ.
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 9:47:03 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1589
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
SureHope,
quote:
I have been out of town and am just getting back to respond to your last post to me. I had started responding a few days ago and have finally gotten around to compete what I had started. KJB has already stated much of what I had begun with concerning sin and the will of God, but I thought the repetition wouldn’t be to detrimental (although KJB probably states it more clearly than I can).
I was thinking exactly opposite.
I thought you stated things clearer than I did.
quote:
I am saying that man’s inability is not found in his will, but found in his heart. Fallen man is able to choose whatever he desires. The problem with fallen man is that he does not desire God; but quite the opposite, he hates God.
Aint that the truth!
quote:
The natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually appraised. When God gives His Spirit to man he can understand that which he did not understand before (1 Cor 2). Believing is needed in order to be saved, but God enables us to believe by giving us light to see the glory of the God in the face of Christ Jesus.
Totally Biblical and without any doubt a conclusion on the inability of man.
quote:
For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:6 NASB95)
God to the rescue!
Take care,
KJB
_____________________________
Thank God we don't get as much Government as we pay for! -Will Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 7/5/2008 10:10:33 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 1589
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
FreeGrace,
quote:
You think wrongly, then.
Well, then I am sorry for being mistaken.
quote:
giving me a link to a very long document known as WCF as an answer to my 5 very simple and straight forward questions most surely was not worth reading. All I asked for was 5 yes or no answers, not a long winded document.
FreeGrace, speaking of long winded........nope...wont even go there! lol
Seriously now, the WCF may be long winded but it happens to be in line with my own long winded opinion.
I actually like the 1689 LBC better but they are both great confessions and I am in substantial agreement with both of them.
I cant post the entire confession on here and I know it would be long winded.
They are long for a reason.
Many confessions are short like "I believe Jesus is God". That is a simple and short confession.
The WCF and LBC try to go in depth on many Biblical matters and the people that put them together are mere men that are capable of making mistakes.
But hey, so are you.
They did their very best in studying the Word of God and giving their opinions on it as they used Scripture proof text in all sorts of areas.
I think that if you hate those confessions that much, you are certainly not obligated to read them.
quote:
Quit hiding behind long winded documents. If you afraid to give me simple yes or no answers, why? the SCF doesn't answer my questions. To even suggest it does is absurd.
Like I told you, I am in substantial agreement with those confessions and they do have answers to your questions even if you do not like them.
quote:
OK, so in your own analogy, who was causing the assault to occur? If you say the brute, you have proven free will. But, your theology which is likened to puppetry has God as the first cause of everything. Yet your own analogy fails to demonstrate God as the first cause of the assault, unless you are suggesting that God is a brute, which I know you aren't. So, who is God in your own analogy? If the policeman, he wasn't causing the assault. He was permitting it, even though he has a moral and definitely a legal responsbility to stop it. So, your own analogy falls flat. The brute was free to do his own thing. The policeman allowed the brute the freedom to do it. You've not proved otherwise.
It proves you have no understanding of my POV. If you wanted an understanding of it, you would read my answers. And yes.....it might take more than two seconds of your time to read parts of a confession.
Since I gave you the WCF as my answer, until you read it you really dont have | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
