Featured To Cals/Arms here on BB.. What is hardest Point to refute of each position held?

Why, is something else more important? Perhaps we can select just one book like John, or something.

From the beginning of my time on this board to now, I have not changed my own doctrines one iota. I have indeed denied LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL -- no such thing exists. I have supported "free moral agency" and stipulated that that agency is "limited" in scope. I have, in fact, argued FOR the position that God is NOT deterministic in a fatalistic sense over and over again. Just search my posts and find out.

Which is why I advocate a verse-by-verse exploration of the whole Bible. I am not afraid AT ALL of doing so. Not for one word nor for one second am I in the slightest bit of apprehension that human free will in the sense that you propose would be discovered in the Scriptures, for it purely is not there in that fashion. You cannot even "proof text" libertarian free will, much less stand the scrutiny of a true exegesis in context.

If so, then we ARE going to look in context...

Strawman... Where does it ever say that God "must" in Calvinism? YOU say that, but Calvinism does not.

Because God is not the author of sin according to the revealed Word.

No... But your use of the word "ordained and decreed" is not correct. "Allowed" would be the proper term.

Strawman based on your former misuse of terminology.

I just did...

You have failed to prove your point. God is yet sovereign.

 

No, because many scriptures are not relevant to the discussion. Why would we discuss genealogies for instance?

Well if everything a man does is decreed (which means a royal command by definition), then a mans actions are determined by God. You can say all night long you don't believe God is deterministic in a fatalist sense, but you simply contradict yourself. If God commands everything that will happen, then everything is determined, including evil.

It is not that I am afraid, it would simply be a waste of time, as not all scripture is relevant to the discussion at hand as I explained before. If anything, it is simply a deflection. I would rather discuss scripture like Jeremiah 32:35 which directly addresses the issues being discussed.

Sure, what is the context?

Well, I don't know if you hold to Calvinist creeds, but most Calvinists say everything that comes to pass was ordained and decreed by God.

Now, if I understand this creed, God UNCHANGEABLY ordains whatsoever comes to pass. YOU want to say he ALLOWED certain actions to come to pass. How can that be? If it cannot be changed, then it is determined, not allowed.

If this creed is true, then the house of Israel and Judah had no choice but to sacrifice their children, it was ordained, and cannot be changed.

I would agree that God is not the author of sin according to scripture, but we are talking about Calvinism.

And I would call your view a contradiction. If the Jews HAD to sacrifice their children to idols because God ordained it and this cannot be changed, then it was determined by God.

Look up the word ordain or decree in any dictionary, they do not mean allowed.

Ordained:
1. to invest with ministerial or sacerdotal functions; confer holy orders upon.
2. to enact or establish by law, edict, etc.: to ordain a new type of government.
3. to decree; give orders for: He ordained that the restrictions were to be lifted.
4. (of God, fate, etc.) to destine or predestine: Fate had ordained the meeting.

I see not one word about anything being "allowed" here. It says to enact, or establish, to decree or give orders for (command) to destine or predestine.

Decree:
1. a formal and authoritative order, especially one having the force of law: a presidential decree.
2. Law . a judicial decision or order.
3. Theology . one of the eternal purposes of God, by which events are foreordained.
verb (used with object), verb (used without object)
4. to command, ordain, or decide by decree.

Again, I don't see anything here about being "allowed". A decree is an order or command.

So again, if God ordained and decreed all things that come to pass, why did God say he never commanded the Jews to sacrifice his children when according to your theology he indeed commanded or ordered this sin to take place?

Untrue, I got those definitions directly from a dictionary. It is you that is changing the meaning of the words ordained and decree, not me.

You did attempt to answer, and I thank you for that, but I do not find your argument convincing whatsoever. I find you contradict yourself and change the common definitions of well known words.

I was not making a point, I was asking you questions. If God ordains and decrees everything that comes to pass as most Calvinist confessions directly say, how could God deny that he commanded the Jews to sacrifice their children?

And if the only things that can come to pass are those things decreed and ordained by God, how can you say it was not his will that the Jews sacrificed their children to idols? It happened, and if it happened, God must have wanted it to happen because he ordained and decreed it.

Answer these questions please.

 

Winman, I'm going to say this rather simply and plainly, for I've said it SO many times already.

You believe something that is NOT TRUE, both about Calvinism and about God and the Bible.

About Calvinism, you continually erect a strawman and state that Calvinism is fatalistically deterministic. IT IS NOT.

About God, you say that Calvinists SEE God as deterministic. WE DO NOT. Why? The BIBLE SAYS HE IS NOT AND WE BELIEVE THE BIBLE.

About the Bible? You read what you want to read... And you skip what is damning to your position, including GOD as preeminant in EVERYTHING.

I have no more to say, for there is no way I can defeat a strawman, for it doesn't actually exist.

 

Every Christian believes that God is in control. It is the definition of that word "control" that causes discussion. Did God control Adam to sin? Did God wish to destroy the Israelites multiple times, I mean really wish to as the Bible makes it appear, and did he really interact with Moses' plea, or was the Bible just faking us out? I realize that to God this interaction occurred in eternity past, but to us it actually happened in the biblical account when it says it happened. So did God control Moses to intercede for the Israelites to impede his will to destroy them, or was he actually and emotionally interacting with Moses the man? With one definition of "control" one will turn out a determinist, and with another one will turn out an atheist. I presume to follow a definition of the term that leaves all of God's and man's God-given attributes intact.

 

Substitute the word of your choice, and the propositions remain the same. As long as the word is used equally with all propositions, God MUST be the ultimate victor or else you worship someone or something other than GOD.

 

Decided to respond just so that some might not be able to say that I could not... Which I'm sure will come up... Always does, even though I'm arguing with the boogey man.

Okay... Just pick a book that is relevant... No cherry picking one verse.

I'm still UBER confident that God will be sovereign no matter where you read as long as you read an entire pericope instead of proof-texting one passage and ignore the fact that God arranged the circumstances to arrive at that one incident.

Did I use the word "decreed" or did you?

This is what I posted -- and from that YOU derived "decreed." Shame on you...

Once you erect YOUR strawman "decreed" then of course you would find problems. I said what I said and I find no contradiction. That you cannot grasp an almighty God who is capable of both knowing and willing what He knows and wills -- and yet who does not deterministically ordain or decree every action -- is your problem not mine, for that IS what the Scriptures say. We have free moral agency, we are culpable -- without excuse -- for our sins, and yet, "God's will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" (and, BTW, those are the words of Jesus in case you don't recall...).

I find it odd that you cannot respond to WHAT I SAID, and instead have to modify my statement to have an argument to make. Again, shame on you.

My stipulation is to discuss a book, not a cherry-picked verse out of context. And you are using the "time" issue as an escape from the desire to ACTUALLY dig into the Word the way you often suggest we ought.

I'm not afraid, but it certainly appears that you are.

I am a Baptist. We do not hold "creeds." We hold the Word of God. Applying a "creed" to me is disingenuous.

See above about creeds. But I do need to answer your greater question. Yes... God unchangable ordains whatsoever comes to pass. He is GOD. That is what He does. To say otherwise is to lower Him to our level and to suggest that He is not powerful to accomplish ALL that He wills.

But at the same time, that does NOT mean -- at all -- that God is also "deterministic" and we have AMPLE evidence, both in Scripture and in the testimony of lives for the entire history of the world that man has free moral agency and is culpable for his own sin.

What it DOES mean is that God can ordain whatsoever He wills and it WILL come to pass, and yet He does so in a manner that is sophisiticated on a level above our capacity to grasp (remember that "my ways are higher than your ways" passage?) whereby He KNOWS our will, and already has planned to accomplish His will while we make our moral choices.

THAT is what Calvin said. THAT is what Augustine said. THAT is what Luther said. And that is what I say -- BECAUSE -- THAT is what the Bible says.

Yup... Tough verse, eh? One might come to the conclusion that without God no one would get saved! :thumbs:

And Calvinism is talking about God... THE BIBLE says that God is not the author of sin. Calvinists say that God is not the author of sin.

ARE YOU CALLING EITHER GOD OR CALVINISTS LIARS? Take heed my friend, that in your argumentative state that you do not press the argument to a place where you end up in an untennable position!

No, they could have chosen otherwise and God told them to chose otherwise. But they did not, and therefore it was God's plan that they did not.

That is because you are reading into my words based on your own faulty understanding. (see above)

I really don't care what some dictionary says. I am much more concerned with what the Scriptures say IN CONTEXT based on an understanding of the original language and in concert with the whole counsel of God's Word.

YOU are the one struggling to see what the Word says -- that God both knows, ordains and yet allows human free moral agency, which makes us culpable.

DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT GOD IS DETERMINISTIC?

Nether do I say that God is deterministic, but you seem to REQUIRE that I say it. Perhaps you struggle with the concept of a God who will ultimately have His way, even if you do not like it... Many do. It is called "rebellion." It is a deadly sin!

You already know the answer to that question because I already told you, and further, you can look it up in any number of places. There is more than one way that God's will is expressed -- both as seen IN THE BIBLE and also in the ways that ALL theological doctrines express those concepts (yes, even yours).

I do not recall making any argument based on a dictionary. I am making my arguments based on the WORD OF GOD which says that GOD is sovereign over EVERYTHING and that man has free moral agency and is culpable for his sin.

Basing your response to me on a dictionary entry is a red herring and totally misses the point.

Now, will you start the actual study of the Word or will you continue to run?

I have changed NO point and have been utterly consistent throughout my argument. You have, on the other hand, READ INTO much of what I have actually stated and created your own definitions -- that is a strawman argument.

I do not contradict myself, for what I say is IN the Bible. I allow for BOTH the sovereignty of God and the free moral agency of man. THAT is what it says over and over again.

As for the words I am using, they are "technical" theological terms that cannot be defined so easily with a common dictionary. Like any technical discipline, theology has its own database of word usage. You should try to learn of that discipline before you take me to task for "changing the meanings of words" for I find your red herring argument to be uninformed and ill-advised.

Already answered that. You just don't like the answer.

See above. "Allowed" would be the proper term, for the "absence" of God is the presence of evil. God can remain sovereign and yet "allow" something to happen that brings about His greater will perfectly. Happens ALL THE TIME in Scripture. You should read it! :thumbs:

Wasn't going to for the reasons I cited below, but I changed my mind. Guess I just exhibited my "free moral agency" and yet also God's sovereignty, for I belive that He desired that I answer these questions or else I would have just let them lay here. :smilewinkgrin:

 

In genealogies we can see many many people making choices. They all made the choice of who they would marry, having children....

Yet, God was completely sovereign in the choices. He raised up Kings and sets them down. We see in Matthew one Jesus coming from the line of David, and from Abraham. Was this ordained by God? Yes it was. Did those people make the choices of who they would marry and have children? Yes.

So we can see in the genealogies a sovereign God who works out his plan while people still make their own choices.

 

Of course. That's why it's a mystery as Spurgeon said, lest we logically end up in determinism or atheism. If Calvinism is not deterministic (although some on the "control" threads indicate that it has to be), then the two views are really not that far apart.

 

Precisely. In the most part, the "two views" (by which I assume you mean Calvinism and Arminianism) are not that far apart. The primary difference is one of the "ordo salutis" (logical order of God's salvation decrees) and with one side falling to the side of God's sovereignty -- while yet admittng a limited free moral agency among humankind -- and the other side falling to the side of man's will -- while yet admitting to God's sovereignty requiring previnient grace.

We are "bounded" in our propositions on this matter by the REVELATION OF SCRIPTURE. Thus far and no farther can we go, nor can we "wrongly divide" the word of truth and yet remain as God's people, for to do so is to become a workman "ashamed" and "incorrect" in the handling of God's truth.

Yet, in these debates, all sorts of invectives and assumed positions derived from logic are brought to the table and laid at the feet of the opposing camp as if they are actually true, even in the face of facts that prove otherwise.

 

Yet they didn't understand. Did they?

Actually your exegesis is adding your opinion which the passage them selves say nothing of the kind. These didn't understand anything spiritual given them by Paul. I didn't say anything about them being perfect. All they could understand was the milk. Proving Paul was before giving them the meat or the deeper things of God. They didn't understand it so Paul fed them milk
Paul said;
1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Yet still they didn't understand then in Chapter three;
1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

The point is. What Paul spoke to them from then on was as if Paul was speaking to Carnal Men.
It is if I'm not mistaken that Calvinist believe we must have the Spirit first before Salvation to understand any thing from the Bible yet the carnal can understand the milk of the word. This is what you are avoiding. As far as the ESV is concerned is was taken from the NA 27 and the NA 27 was taken from a discredited text. You cannot get the whole truth from something that has been found incorrect. You are right this is something that should be discussed elsewhere. However inorder for the truth to prevail here it had to be mentioned. The KJV and the ESV do not confirm each other.
MB

 

Why can't you simply discuss the verse I cherry picked? Why do you want to go on to something else when you have not explained this verse yet?

Who said God is not sovereign? Show where I ever said God is not sovereign.

You ARE Reformed in belief aren't you? I posted from the Westminster Confession of Faith which I am fairly sure you agree with. If so, this confession says that all things that come to pass were "unchangeably" ordained by God. If God's decrees cannot be changed, then everything is determined.

You tried to argue that the words "ordain" and "decree" really mean "allowed". I showed the definitions for these words from the dictionary, and neither mean allowed. If something is ordained or decreed, then it is commanded.

But there is the problem, God said he never commanded the Jews to sacrifice their children to idols in Jer 32:35. Therefore the scriptures do not agree with the WCF.

I set up no strawman whatsoever, I showed the definitions of the words ordained and decree from the dictionary. It is you that is changing the definition of these words to suit your own purpose, you are not using the dictionary definition of these words.

Where did I modify your statement? I don't recall that at all.

But I want to discuss Jer 32:35 because it addresses whether God commanded or ordained all things that come to pass as most Reformed folks believe. God said he did not command this sin, so how could it be that God ordains all things that come to pass?

Answer the question please, then we can move on to other scripture.

It would take many years to discuss every verse of the Bible. You have no intention of doing this, you almost quit on the first verse I presented you!

Besides that, it is not necessary to discuss every verse of scripture.

Well, do you agree with that portion of the WCF that I posted or not? If not, explain which parts you do not agree with.

Many Calvinists/Reformed do agree with that portion I showed.

Finally. OK, so then if God unchangeably ordains whatsoever comes to pass, doesn't that mean it is determined? How can it not be determined? Is it possible for it not to come to pass? Answer that.

Now you contradict yourself. If everything is ordained and cannot be changed, how can it not be determined? That seems impossible to me. If God ordained that the Jews would sacrifice their children to idols, then they HAD to do it. If this is so, then you are correct, man does not have free will.

What do you mean it "WILL" come to pass? If it is ordained it, and it cannot be changed, it MUST come to pass just as God ordained it. And as I showed from the dictionary, to ordain or decree means to command.

Calvinism is contradictory, you folks speak out of both sides of your mouth.

Show scripture that says God ordained and decreed all things that come to pass.

What verse? Is the Westminster Confession of Faith scripture?

Yes, but you also say he unchangeably ordained all things that come to pass. So, if someone murders a small child, God ordained it and it had to happen.

You seem to believe that simply because you deny that God is the author of sin lets you off the hook. It does not. You must explain how God can unchangeably ordain everything that comes to pass and yet not be the author of sin. It is a contradiction.

continued...

 

continued from last post...

I would never call God a liar.

This is one of the most messed up, contradictory things I've ever heard anyone say. You say God wanted them to chose otherwise, but they did not, and therefore it was God's plan that they not obey his will.

So, God's will is that he commands people to obey his will, but he has already planned they will not obey his will, and this is his true will and plan.

That is messed up BIG TIME dude. I would be embarrassed by such doctrine.

How can anybody understand an illogical contradiction?

Words have meaning. Ordained and decree both are defined as commands. A command is not something that is allowed.

I am not struggling at all, I understand what ordained and decreed mean, it is you changing the common definitions of words.

The scriptures certainly say God determines some things. But I am not familiar with scripture that says he determines ALL THINGS THAT COME TO PASS. Please show me where the Bible says that.

Again, you can deny that God is deterministic, but you also say that God has unchangeably ordained all things that come to pass. This is a contradiction, even if you deny it.

If God ordained that the Jews would sacrifice their children before they were born (the Jews that is, not the children), then it was determined they would do so. How could that not be his will? That is impossible.

My Bible does not have the word "sovereign" in it even once. Look and see, I use the KJB. I am not saying God is not sovereign, but my Bible does not say he is sovereign over everything as you say, even if it is true.

It is not a red herring, it shows you redefine words to suit you.

You are the one who almost quit, not me.

You have consistently contradicted yourself. You agree God unchangeably ordains all that comes to pass before all men were born, yet God did not ordain evil. That is impossible, it is a direct contradiction whether you recognize it or not. If a man commits evil, it must have been ordained because it happened, and indeed it could not have happened otherwise because God ordained it.

Oh, so now you are using "technical" terms. Nice. So, I guess "ordained' and "decreed" mean "allowed" in your technical language. What does "allowed" mean, that something is determined?

Nothing to like, it is a contradiction and cannot be true.

Now "allowed" means "absence" of God? Man, I need to get a Calvinist dictionary, you fellas speak an entirely different language than English.

Well, I chose to answer. I could have chosen otherwise, and soon I may choose not to answer you.

 

No, they don't have the Spirit.

Correct. That's why he fed them "milk."

Never said you did.

True that. We are speaking of Carnal believers in chapter 3. This is obvious by the use of the term "brethren."

That's correct. Carnal believers.

We don't receive the Spirit before salvation. We receive the Spirit at salvation. the "carnal" in chapter 3 are believers so of course they can. They have the Spirit. They are just being immature, "babes in Christ."


Let's look at this again really closely. I'm going to go verse by verse. When I get off from what you believe the passage is saying, let me know.

Verse 12

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."​

The Spirit of God. This verse 12 says that we have the Spirit so that "we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Verse 13

"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."​

We can speak words, not of man but words that are taught by the Holy Spirit. So we in verse 12-13 have believers obviously since they have received the Holy Spirit. This is an obvious indication that we are speaking of believers here in I Corinthians. The Spirit of God is why they are able to speak spiritual things. It's by the Holy Spirit that we compare spiritual things with spiritual.

Verse 14

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."​

"But" The word "but" signifies a contrast of something already mentioned. Paul is comparing to what he just said. Paul just got done talking about people that had the Spirit(vs 12) and are speaking spiritual things (vs 13). Paul say that the "natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God. The question is obviously, who is the "natural man"? The natural man is said here that he can't understand the thing of the Spirit of God. A person with the Spirit can understand. There is no way this is talking about a saved person because a saved person can understand.

Verses 15-16

"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ."​

Another "but" is found in this verse. Again clearly going back to the spiritual person with say "he that is spiritual."

So far, we have two types of people. Type one is the spiritual people. Type to is the natural people, those without the Spirit. It is very clear the two types of people being referenced here.

Now on to chapter 3.

Verse 1

"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ."​

Obviously, Paul is speaking to believers here by the use of the term "brethren." He says he could not speak to them as "spiritual" but as "carnal." These are immature believers. Obviously believers, but Paul wasn't able to speak to them as spiritual.

Verse 2

"I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able."​

Paul uses milk and meat as a metaphor to explain how he has to treat these immature believers. They were not able to handle "meat" so Paul gave them "milk."

Verse 3

"For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"​

This group of immature believers are called carnal. This is our third type of person(a subset of the first type) we have in this passage. These people are believers. They have the Spirit(Romans 8:9), but are acting carnal.

Now, I've clearly derived from the text two disctinc sets of people in chapter 2 and a third time(as subset of the first) in chapter three. We have people that have the Spirit and those that don't. The "natural man" in verse 14 does not have the Spirit. He is not saved. He is unregenerate.

If you think I have erred, please show me where. Show me where I have deviated from what the text says.

Start a thread if you like. You have a number of factual errors here, but I don't want to keep going on this here in this thread.