MECHANISTIC VIEW OF COSMOS AND PREDESTINATION

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by ForumChaplain, Oct 24, 2002.

  1. ForumChaplain

    ForumChaplain
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    MECHANISTIC VIEW OF COSMOS AND PREDESTINATION
    Prof.M.M.Ninan

    The essential difference between consciousness (personality) and the material world is in the freedom of the consciousness to make decisions beyond and above these binding laws. The material body of man is bounded by these physical laws. But mind and spirit of man are free. Freedom is the essence of personality.

    Man is a multidimensional being. Even though his material and mental spheres are constrained within the laws of those dimensions, the spirit is free. If a person do not have freedom of will, then he is no more a person but a robot. A preprogrammed bio-robot is still a robot and not a person. If our understanding is right, what differentiates humans from the animal kingdom is this freedom that God has given directly to our kind. If this is taken away man becomes an animal.

    The question of Calvinism Vs Arminism is simply whether human beings are persons or not. In fact Calvinism even freezes God to be a machine. God looses his personality and becomes a static PowerPoint where everything simply is and not evolving. "God is the same yesterday, today and fore ever" simply came to mean that God is static. God is incapable of making new decisions and changes in his plans.
    The Arministic point is that even though God had planned ahead, considering the freedom that God has granted to humans by his own original plan; God enters into history and changes his plan of action so as to bring about his redemption. Humans are actively involved in the making of history as God is because of the freedom given unto man. Sure enough, it was not necessary for God to give man freedom. But who are we to question the sovereignty of God? It was God’s sovereign will to create man with freedom of will and he has not reduced man to an animal at the first violation of his authority.

    While Calvinism looks upon the relation between man and God as a government. (Calvin’s basic stand is on moral government) Arminism looks upon it as Father –Son relationship. When children are born, we do not want them to be robots. We do not want to replace our children with robots ever. Then we realize that disobedience and disruptions are to be expected. We are ready as parents to pay for it and to redeem them. It is this type of God that Jesus presented to us.

    The whole concept of authority and power presented by Jesus was not based on dictatorship or law, but on love and servant hood. The greatest of them all in the Kingdom of God is the servant of all. God is the greatest servant, who stoops down and cleans up the mess that his children make. Not because he is not all-powerful and not incapable, but because that is his nature. In a world of selfishness, it is difficult to understand such an upside down world. But that is what Christianity is – God is – if Jesus was the ultimate revelation of God. We may have to wait for generations to see such a theology to come into systematic form.

    http://www.acns.com/~mm9n/sot/pre/sci.htm
     
  2. Rev. G

    Rev. G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    0
    This man is not presenting "Calvinism." What about free moral agency? We "Calvinists" hold to that, you know!?! This is one of the same old stale (false) arguments. [​IMG]

    Rev. G
     
  3. ForumChaplain

    ForumChaplain
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Quite an indept evaluation there Rev. G. Of course it's stale and false; you're a Calvinist.

    Have you ever heard it said that freewill is what seperates men from animals. Not a scriptural analogy, yet what significance do you place with it..

    Well, God bless ya..
     
  4. Rev. G

    Rev. G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I've heard it said before. [​IMG]
    It is definitely not a scriptural analogy, therefore I place no significance upon it. [​IMG]
     
  5. ForumChaplain

    ForumChaplain
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    WELL REV.G. Based on scripture, what do you perceive to be the difference between men and animals. Please exclude physical differences...

    What places men in the image of God, yet excludes animals... Do you perceive animals to be accountable to God??

    [ October 25, 2002, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]
     
  6. Rev. G

    Rev. G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Human beings are the only creatures to be made in the image of God, that differentiates them from animals (Gen. 1:27).

    2. When God created man He "breathed life" into him. He did not do that with any other creature (Gen. 2:7).

    3. Human beings are accountable to God, according to the Scriptures. Nowhere does it mention in Holy Writ that animals will be judged.

    4. The article above does not present "Calvinism." It presents a version of fatalism / hyper-Calvinism. "Calvinists" believe in free moral agency and in accountability.

    Rev. G
     
  7. ForumChaplain

    ForumChaplain
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    So it is accountability that stands man above the animals.

    Would you judge and hold a person accountable for being born white, or black, Chinese or Indian. How about red hair or black hair, because you preferr blond hair, would you consider it just to punish those with red hair.

    We are conceived in the womb black, white, indian; red hair, black hair, blond hair. Are we accountable for this. You choose blond hair, on what just grounds do you punish all that do not have blond hair.

    We are conceived in sin. Just as one that is conceived black, is black; and cannot change unless he is afforded the opportunity to do so by a higher power. One that is conceived in sin is a sinner and cannot change unless he is afforded the opportunity to do so by a higher power. Should god not afford that person the opportunity to change, on what premis of justice is that person accountable.

    If you chose to cloak this within the sovereignty of God. It can be done only one way. GOD HAS THE SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO BE UNJUST AND GOD HAS EXERCISED THAT RIGHT...
     
  8. Rev. G

    Rev. G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    0
    Individuals are held accountable for their own sin. The reason they do sin is because they have inherited a sinful nature.

    As far as God's sovereignty in the matter:

    Romans 9:11-21 - (For the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calls), it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." What shall we say then? IS THERE UNRIGHTEOUSNESS [INJUSTICE] with God? CERTAINLY NOT! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." So then it is NOT of him who wills, nor of him who runs, BUT OF GOD who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "Even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be declared in all the earth." Therefore, He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, "WHY DOES HE STILL FIND FAULT? FOR WHO HAS RESISTED HIS WILL?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
     
  9. ForumChaplain

    ForumChaplain
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Once again, another cloak within the sovereignty of God. Made worse by the fact that the passages have nothing to do with salvation.

    If this is a refrence to salvation, one is in heaven and the other is in hell. How will one serve the other. In heaven, are the house keepers bussed in from hell?

    Rev. G., I am sure that you have the capacity to understand that these passages have nothing to do with salvation. Why, why do you continue to use them as though they did. Do you not realize that they disprove rather than prove your assertions.
     
  10. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Chappie, your assertion that this section of Romans has nothing to do with salvation baffles me. Look at the section immediately preceding it (Romans 8):

    Note the order, by the way. Foreknowledge -> predestined -> called -> justified -> glorified. You might be able to say you can have foreknowledge and free will, but you can't have predestination precede the calling and still say people choose salvation of their own free will. Those he predestined, he called. And it does not say those who chose to respond to the call, he justified. It says those he called, he also justified.

    How can the above be about anything but salvation? Grace, Love, victory over condemnation and salvation, maybe, but salvation nonetheless. Then, immediately afterward, he beginst this lament:

    So Paul is saying that he'd be willing to be cut off from Christ? What could that be in reference to except salvation? And then he makes the classic comparison between the children of faith vs. the natural children, which is once again salvation. And that brings us right to the quote...

    (Edited to add additional line for clarification.)

    [ October 25, 2002, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]
     
  11. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    Paul's overall message is about salvation, but in the bulk of chapter 9, he is discussing the example of Israel vs. the gentiles to point out the working of God's plan.
     
  12. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Rom 9:15 NKJV) For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."

    "whomever" refers to an individual.

    (Rom 9:16 NKJV) So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

    "him" refers to an individual.

    (Rom 9:18 NKJV) Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

    "whom" refers to an individual.

    (Rom 9:19 NKJV) You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"

    "who" refers to an individual.

    (Rom 9:20 NKJV) But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"

    "thing" and "it" refer to an individual.

    (Rom 9:21 NKJV) Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

    "one" refers to an individual.
    "another" refers to an individual.

    (Rom 9:22-23 NKJV) What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, {23} and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,

    "vessels of wrath" and "vessels of mercy" refer to multiple individuals.

    There are references to Jews and Gentiles in Romans chapter 9, but there are clearly references to individuals within a salvific context in this chapter as I have shown.

    Ken
    A Spurgeonite [​IMG]
     
  13. ForumChaplain

    ForumChaplain
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Ok, let’s take a look and see what we find. How about we see what has changed between 8:28. First, Romans 8:28 is not talking of people being saved, it is talking about those that are saved being changed into the image of Christ.

    Shall we go to 9, 3&4: Rom 9:3-4
    For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

    Can you see the thrust of Paul’s message shifting to the earthly ministry of the Israelites? The covenants, they were given the law, placed in the service of God and given the promises of God. Notice that verse 5 further clarifies what Paul is talking about.
    Rom 9:5
    5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

    Continue to follow in verses Rom 9:7-8
    Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, ]They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

    The seed, the earthly lineage of Christ. From this point forward Paul speaks of through whom the promises to Abraham shall be fulfilled. In verse 10 & 11 he states that his choice to carry that promise shall not be according to the traditions of men. It is not based on one being good or evil. Jacob is God’s sovereign Choice because Jacob is whom God has chosen. In verse 12 it is said that the elder shall serve the younger. An unthinkable thing according to Jewish customs and traditions.

    Is God unjust to do such a thing; unheard of in Jewish culture. (v14) Is there unrighteousness with God? No, for it is written in the law of Moses, God will have mercy and compassion on whomever he will. The scriptures are speaking of the temporal ministry of the nation of Israel and how God will effect that ministry.

    Move on over to verse: Rom 9:21-23
    Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

    Hath not the potter power over the clay. Grab a hold of that word “Clay”. Why not, “power over the soul”. Salvation belongs to the soul, not the body. To from the same {same} lump {clay} to make one a vessel of hounor (the one through which the promise, Jacob) and another unto dishonour (the one that would not carry the promise, Esau) Which he had prepared (chosen) before time…

    “What if” a hypothetical situation”. I leave the rest of that passage to you. NOT DEALING WITH HOW PEOPLE ARE SAVED.
     
  14. ForumChaplain

    ForumChaplain
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Yes ken; whomever referrs to an individual, any individual.

    "Who" referrs to an individual, whoever that individual may be...

    What's your point. Still does not say whoever is elected... Fondation my man, foundation.... I can tell that you are geting desperate...

    [To Chappie and whomever it may concern: Please help us conserve space by not just hitting the quote button and reposting an entire post just above yours, especially when you are referring to only one point in it. Thanks. rlvaughn, moderator]

    [ October 25, 2002, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]
     
  15. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yes they are individuals, but they are mentioned as specific examples representing nations, which in turn he is citing to build into his point of salvation. (As God hardened Pharaoh for His plan with Israel, He now hardens Israel for His plan to reach the gentiles. Salvation is of grace spread to the world, rather than inheritance) "Vessels" also were the nation, from the OT passages Paul is drawing this from.
    Great point. That never even occurred to me.
     
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Chappie, once a person stops arguing the facts and starts trying to state what the emotional state of his opponent is, then that person has admitted he has lost the factual side of the debate. To put it in simple English, you have admitted that the facts are against you.

    In chess terms it is called checkmate. Good game, Chappie. [​IMG]

    Ken
    A Spurgeonite [​IMG]

    [ October 26, 2002, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
     
  17. ForumChaplain

    ForumChaplain
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

     

Share This Page

Loading...