A Question Calvinists must Answer REVISITED

It makes someone who would otherwise be uninformed, without hope, without truth, a slave to sin, with nothing to believe in; to have information, hope, truth which can set them free, and something to believe in. Truth is powerful. Words have power. That is a common theme supported so much throughout scripture that even Christ is called the WORD. I see no reason to diminish the inherent power in God breathed words...they are after all what brought this world into existence, right?

 

Thank you Convicted1, that is very kind. But it is probably not one that will be replied to. In my experience, the strongest points of one's argument are not typically reflected in the portion that his opponents address, but in the portions ignored.

 

Again, you are playing a game of question begging and you don't even realize it. I don't know how else to explain it to you. He didn't make one "better" than the other, that is your position, not mine. The concepts of unconditional election and effectual calling support the concept of God creating some for good and the others for wrath.

Our view is that God makes them FREE and your quest to have me define how a free choice is made presumes a deterministic response is required, which is the very definition of the fallacy called "begging the question."

Ciocchi, who debated Feinberg, put it this way: "the choice between available options "is what free will is all about . . ., and it is finally mysterious, beyond full explanation, for full explanations presuppose the very determinism the libertarian rejects" (Ciocchi, p. 94).

So, while there are influenctial "reasons" a person might have for making a choice these cannot necessarily be defined in terms of what "determined" the choice..for the agent himself is the determiner of his choices. That process is beyond our full comprehesion and thus remains mysterious...

 

Only for those who have first been regenerated, but for most of mankind its powerless. And even for those regenerated, the words themselves have no real power because the real power in conversion was the irresistible call, not the gospel's words....so if your consistent you really don't believe God's words have power.

As if that is any different in your system? Once the elect is regenerated what does the gospel serve to do except to "inform" them? In my system the gospel enables the response whereas in your system the effectual call does that, so in my system the gospel is more powerful than in yours.

But the POWER I'm speaking of is the POWER TO RESPOND, you are skipping over that as if its not really power, yet even in your system you acknowledge that there must be some irresistible power to make this response even possible.

 

I thought I did defend my view first. I did so by pointing out the distinction between our views by showing how much MORE culpable your view makes God for evil, while I believe the passages of scripture you all use to justify your view are actually justification for our views.

See what I mean? Let me try it this way:

1. There are many verses which explain how God is not culpable for evil that he has purposed for his own glory (i.e. crucifixion/hardening Pharaoh/ hardening Israel etc)

2. View 1 makes God appear to be somewhat culpable for those evil things he has allowed to occur.

3. View 2 makes God appear to be very culpable for those evil things he has determined to occur.

4. Both use the same verses to support their views and explain the issue of divine culpability, but only one of them is correct.

5. The one that makes God appear less culpable for evil is probably right considering all the verses that speak of God's holiness and righteous character. One should err on the side of God's holiness, not on the side which impugns his character.

 

You really don't see the different in someone who foreknows evil will occur and doesn't prevent it and someone who determines the evil to occur?

If I simply know you are going to shoot a friend and don't stop it, am I more culpable than you for actually doing the shooting?

Then explain where sin originates if not in God. If in man or satan, then was their evil intent created within themselves? Did the origination of that evil intent inform God of that intent? Expound.

 

Couldn't he rebut any anthropomorphic analogy you have presented with the same reply? Why not simply acknowledge that it is possible to foreknow something that you don't determine? In fact, why would authors of scripture choose to use the word "foreknow" if the word "determine" was in their arsenal; if indeed "predetermine" is their intent?

 

Let's look at the sin of Satan, since it was the first recorded to speak of, okay?

Satan is a creature. He was created by God. He was declared as good and "no evil found in him." But the intent to "become like God" and "rise" in that sinful way had to begin somewhere. You have indicated you believe that originated in the 'heart of the creature.' Okay so far?

Now, if the sin originated in the heart of Satan, and God foreknew Satan would intend this evil and permitted it, then you have to admit that something (evil) Satan created/originated informed God. God didn't originate or create the evil, but he was informed through foreknowledge of the evil and created Satan anyway.

Now, if you believe that God's foreknowledge and permission of Satan's evil is equal to his determining evil to occur, then why even mess with using the words "foreknow" and "permit?" Why not just say God determined/caused/originated evil? The reason we don't say that is because scripture uses the words foreknow and permit and is CLEAR that God is not the one who even tempts men to evil and that He is completely holy.

By presuming through human logic that God's perfectly knowing something "PRIOR" to creating it means that he must have been it's cause or determiner goes further than scripture ever goes. Even the use of the word PRIOR when speaking of a timeless and eternal being is non-sensical and steps into speculation about mysterious we do not even have the capacity to fully comprehend. Calvinism oversteps its bounds by drawing logical conclusions based upon their limited finite scope.

 

Exactly! We affirm that God did by his active agency determine some events such as the crucifixion of Christ. He did so through the means of temporarily hardening/blinding Israel in their already unbelieving and rebellious state so that they would crucify the Christ and accomplish redemption for the world.

To point to this active work of God in bringing about the redemption of the world as proof that likewise actively determined the evil intent of Jeff Dahmer (for example) to carry out the heinous crimes he committed is unfounded.

This is where the definition of the word "decree" is important to understand. As provided on the other thread, from Easton's Theological Dictionary: "The decrees are eternal (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13), unchangeable (Ps. 33:11; Isa. 46:9), and comprehend all things that come to pass (Eph. 1:11; Matt. 10:29, 30; Eph. 2:10; Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; Ps. 17:13, 14). The decrees of God are (1) efficacious, as they respect those events he has determined to bring about by his own immediate agency; or (2) permissive, as they respect those events he has determined that free agents shall be permitted by him to effect.

See the two different types of decrees of God pointed out here? One is accomplished through God's active and efficacious agency in order to accomplish a redemptive purpose. The other is permissive in that God doesn't actively originate the evil in any way, but only allows it to continue.

Likewise, the sin of rejecting Christ's appeal to be reconciled to God is NOT something God has actively and efficaciously decreed would happen. He permits men to resist his appeal to be reconciled to God. The concepts of eternal unconditional election of certain individuals to salvation and all others left to reprobation undermines that.