Valid Scenarios for Calvinism and Arminianism

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by BobRyan, May 9, 2005.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The Calvinist future scenario only need the following "debatable points" to be accepted.

    #1. The are parents in heaven.
    #2. Some parents will not ALSO see their children saved.
    #3. Heaven is an even MORE caring and loving environment than sin-polluted earth for Parents and Children.
    #4. Calvinism is true.
    #5. Calvinist saved parents will have a free and open relationship with God in Heaven where they are "able" to share any concerns and their own love for their family with God.

    Since so many Calvinists are choking on the premise for the "Calvinist Future scenario" -- while fleeing from the "details" that can not be denied -- maybe they can comment "on THIS thread".

    As I read it, God would be lying to Job at the end if he even tried to tell him that He tried all He could but He just can't control evil.

    #1. God never says "I can't turn you into a robot no matter how hard I try. I just don't seem to have THE POWER" - in ANY scenario presented so far.

    Making that idea up - is not a compelling form of debate.

    #2. God makes a sovereign statement in Job 1 and 2. There "Should be NO counter argument" allowed once God has spoken. AND YET - in true Arminian fashion -- dissenting opinion is allowed.

    Then instead of saying "well no matter what I allow you to say (or cause you to say) - My statement stands because I AM God and you are not" the debate CONTINUES in TRUE ARMINIAN style with a "TEST" to SEE who is right.

    #3. There is no way in the world for the principles of Calvinism to insist that there be a TEST to SEE IF God is right -- where NON-GOD beings are judging the results??? AS IF they had FREE WILL and can draw either positive OR negative conclusions based on argument, compelling data, experiment -- TESTING God to see IF HE is right!

    THIS scenario is THE ULTIMATE Arminian scenario! It shows ARGUMENT and DEBATE with DATA and compelling DATA used to determine who is right. Objective evaluation of GOD - in contest with evil!

    Thanks for bringing it up.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Is God going to tell Job at the end "Well I WILLED SATAN to challenge Me and then I willed Him to torment you -- NOT to PROVE Myself to anyone but to ENJOY MY absolute control thoroughly!"
     
  3. Brandon C. Jones

    Brandon C. Jones
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the new thread...it's hard to see how you have made these non-sequitors. Okay, I'll give you #1, but lots of free will was involved in chapter one when people carried out Satan's attack with God's permission (the Chaldeans, etc.).

    #2, non-sequitor: who says it's "Arminian" to question God and "Calvinistic" not to? That's a new one for me. However, when God does answer Job in chapters 38-42 how different is it from your words: "My statement stands because I am God and you are not." That about sums up God's answer to Job from what I read.

    #3, non-sequitor: Do you think Calvinists are non-human? Do you think Calvinists deny free will? Please let a Calvinist represent what is possible and what is not possible with his own views instead of your super-imposed misconceptions. Calvinists do not believe that humans are sub-human drones that do not have emotions or wills; that is plainly false. This is such a non-sequitor.

    So is God "in contest with evil" in Job? Seems there's no contest to me, He holds all the cards.

    Here are some things that do follow from the events of Job:

    1. God permitted the calamity that happened to Job; He could have prevented it had he, to use Br's words "cared to."

    2. God, when it comes time to answer Job's reasonable arguments against Him, does not supply him with the free will defense or anything along those lines. He does not say that He is in a contest with evil. He does not say that He is trying to do all He can for His people, but He simply cannot control agents with free will. He does, however, affirm His sovereignty as the creator and ruler of all.

    "ULTIMATE Arminian scenario?" In what way?

    blessings,
    BJ
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Yes tons of free will in the entire scenario. In fact the whole thing is pointless without it.


    Well lets think about that.

    In the Armininan system free will beings "decide" and "make choices" based on "compelling data and argument".

    In The Calvinist Model "God ALONE is Sovereign". God ALONE decides what will happen and what will not happen. God is NOT bound by the wishes, thoughts and feelings of others in Calvinism.

    This could not be any more obvious in terms of which model expecte "debate with God" that is settled NOT by sovereign decree BUT settled via objective "experiment" and "evidence" (dangerously close to "JUDGING GOD" were it not actually in the Bible)

    May I suggest then that you have not been contemplating the "differences" between the two views for long.

    Job is clearly a "debate" between God and Satan where God's answer to Satan is seen in Chapters 1 and 2 and Satan's challenge to God -- before the entire council is stated explicitly.

    The debate is "settled" only in the "details" of Job's suffering and steadfast faith.

    The RECORD OF his ACTIONS serves to settle the matter - rather than "a sovereign decree".

    How "Arminian".

    Obviously.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    #1. The book of Job is not a debate between God and Job. It is a debate between God and Satan where God is the one saying JOB IS RIGHT!

    To miss that "inconvenient detail" and cast the entire book as a debate between God and Job is not miss the point entirely.

    (Though I admit that in doing so - it can be made more tolerable for Calvinism).

    #2. God's statement to Job is not "you deserve to have your children slaughtered because I am stronger than you" - as you seem to argue. HOWEVER - you are making a good point - in that God's word to Job SHOULD BE God's EXPECTED word to Satan in Job 1 and 2 if it were true that Calvinism is fact rather than fiction.

    The fact that you claim not to "be able to that" in Job 1 and 2 -- but to "suddenly see it as Calvinisms way CLEARLY at the end of Job" does not reflect well on your objectivity here.

    My argument is that you are missing God's statement to Job at the end. My argument is that IN MISSING it the way you do (to get the most perfect Calvinist invention possible from it) you "expose" the flaw in your argument for Job 1 and 2. You expose the fact that Calvinism DOES NOT anticipate debate and "objetive experiment" as the way to solve a challenge - but rather "I am God -- you are not" to BE Calvinism's expected "solution" to the innexplicable fact that God wills a challenge to Himself in the form of Satan.


    As for the "Detail" of how you are not only missing the START of Job but also the END of the story as well --

    Job argues that he wishes for a "debate" with God where HE can state his case before God. God responds to Job telling Job about the wisdom of God so that Job thinks twice about "instructing God" BUT THEN God goes on to say "JOB has spoken what IS RIGHT of ME".

    This is far from "Job shut up because I am God and you are not".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  6. Brandon C. Jones

    Brandon C. Jones
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're right, we cannot have a debate until you earn the right to disagree. Don't take cheap shots. Don't object until you understand your opponent, etc.

    You have no clue how a Calvinist views free will (despite the thread that this discussion came from). Go back and look at my post that defines free will in that thread for both camps (accurately, I might add). Try to actually interact with Calvinism instead of playing with your straw men.

    As to your "aminian-colored glasses look at Job," why is it that Satan disappears after Job 2? If what you say is true, why did God "deceive" Job by failing to mention what his experience was all about (God vs. Satan, etc.)? Why won't you interact with what God actually says to Job in the end of the book? No mention of Satan. No mention of how important Job's actions were. Lots of mentioning of God's sovereignty and the foolishness of men to question His wisdom.

    Until you are willing to understand what a Calvinist believes I see no point to pay attention to your straw men.

    Blessings,
    BJ
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    "Deny free will"?? - Calvinism? Precisely!!

    Why wouldn't I think that?

    Been there.

    Done that.

    We saw it "again" in your own words right here.

    (Inconvenient 'details' again).

    here they are "Again" as we see your answer to MY statement that the "expected solution" in Calvinims is NOT OPEN objective experiment and DEBATE - but it is soveriegn COMMAND that does not allow/will a challenge.

    Brandon said --
    However, when God does answer Job in chapters 38-42 how different is it from your words: "My statement stands because I am God and you are not." That about sums up God's answer to Job from what I read.


    You show by your own confession what the EXPECTED Calvinist "solution" is and you even claim to find it in the book.

    God is not human.

    Satan is not human.

    No humans are mentioned in the council of Job 1 and 2.

    The is NOT a debate between humans - it is a debate with a council as the forum. An open debate between God and Satan where "decisions" and "Conclusions" are made based on objective evidence, data, experiment, the testing of Job, i.e. the TESTING of God's OWN statement about Job.

    A more Arminian scenario could not be imagined.

    Lets view the "inconvenient details" that are actually IN the book and SEE the debate that you pretend not to see.

    The contest is clear. The statement God makes is offered TO SATAN for him to respond -- in the form of a question -- an implied challenge.

    Satan's response is not "WELL there is certainly no contest here -- you are God and I AM NOT so NEXT topic" -- as the Calvinist might expect.


    Let us review "again" the "inconvenient DETAILS" --

    #1. What is God's QUESTION TO Satan?

    #2. What is Satan's CHALLENG TO God?

    Please "redefine contest" so that Calvinism comes out ok saying "no contest is taking place between God and Satan" in the book of Job.

    IN Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    #1. Context always comes first. The context is a debate between God and Satan. Even other Calvinists will admit this.

    #2. God's statement at the END of the book is that JOB WAS right!

    God is in debate with Satan and His point is PROVEN in the life of Job who REMAINS faithful during the entire experiment.

    It is the Arminian system of DEBATE and CHOICE where compelling ARGUMENT and DATA - is the basis of CHOOSING RIGHT - NOT simply the sovereign command not to question God.

    Were that the "ideal solution" it should have been used in Job 1 and shown the glory of God in sparing Job pain because after all - this is a CALVINIST model where God's Soevereign COMMAND ALONE is all that is needed as a solution THUS sparing everyone much pain.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  9. Brandon C. Jones

    Brandon C. Jones
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see no efforts from you to understand compatibilistic free will: "In the Arminian system of debate and choice where compelling argument and data is the basis of choosing right--not simply the sovereign command not to question God." You refuse to actually understand compatibilistic free will. Until you earn the right to object to compatibislitic free will by attempting to understand what it is and what it is not, then there is no point to this "discussion."

    BTW I suppose I must say something regarding Job...You quote God's statement to Job's friends when He compares them to Job which is fine, He did react better than they did. However, I thought Job repented earlier....that seems to contradict what your last post said. If God affirms Job, then what did He repent of? You said he did nothing wrong. Speaking of context how come we have to make up our own conclusions based on chapters 1 and 2 in your system instead of simply accepting the way the actual book concludes?

    blessings,
    BJ
     
  10. Brandon C. Jones

    Brandon C. Jones
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    one last note on your above post. God proclaimed that Job was right after his repentance, not before it...context, context, context.
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I object.

    Lucifer chose sin "AGAINST his SINLESS nature".

    Adam CHOSE sin "AGAINST his SINLESS nature"

    Saul chose OBEDIENCE and became Paul "AGAINST his sinFUL nature".

    The definition of "free will" has NEVER been "confined to what your nature dictates".

    Period.

    Having said that - your complaint is little other than a smoke screen for the point "remains" that the "debate format" with the "proof by objective experiment" is NOT what Calvinism anticipates but is EXACTLY what the ARminian model of a "free will universe" dictates.

    How much more "obvious" can this be??

    Your own confession that "I am God and you are not" is "THE" solution that fits Calvinism - remains and is clearly the point of Calvinism.

    Therefore -the point remains, thought it is noted that you don't like it.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Your argument is the horrible position that "Satan was right and God was wrong" in the experiment as YOU argue that JUST as Satan predicted, once the restraints were removed and adversity came JOB FELL.

    Your defense of Calvinism has gone to the predictable extreme.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. Brandon C. Jones

    Brandon C. Jones
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    That ends it for me. You fail to consider what compatibilistic free will is, let alone understand it. Do you and I have the same copy of Job? Did Job not sin during his trials in the book? Did God not rebuke him? Did Job not repent of his sin? How is that a "predictable extreme?" I'm just reading the book. Do you have the material between chapters 2 and 42? Have you read the whole book?

    Your statement here is plainly false: "The definition of "free will" has NEVER been "confined to what your nature dictates". Your definition of free will, but I thought you were attacking Calvinism, not a straw man. You are simply begging the question by rejecting what I define free will as and then saying that my position is false because no one defines it that way. Consult some scholarly sources on this issue; see how "maverick" my definition is.

    You refuse to actually discuss anything because you assume your terms, set up straw men and knock them down. You haven't proven anything regarding Calvinism and free will. By the way, where in the Bible can we define free will? How are you so sure that you are right? Looks to me that both definitions are workable considering the evidence we have in Scripture (of course I hold that libertarian free will is less likely, but that is the debate of course).

    BTW the definition of compatibilistic free will involves desires, not natures (surely you hold that our natures determine the limits of our free will--we can't fly because our nature does not allow it).

    I've interacted with many people who hold to libertarian free will and have had fruitful discussions with them, but we understand each other and actually respond to each other's position as they hold them. You refuse to do this and so I'm done with you for now until you decide to play by the rules.

    You want to attack Calvinism, then attack Calvinism. You want to play around with your straw men, then play around with your straw men, but don't waste my time doing it [​IMG] .

    I hope this is not too harsh, but you are not willing to actually interact, but only rehearse your stock arguments that don't really deal with the other person's position.

    regards,
    BJ
     
  14. whetstone

    whetstone
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/11288.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think this is the problem I was running into on the other thread as well.
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    That would be option "C".

    That would clearly be Satan's claim in Chapters 1 and 2.

    You seem to be good at ignore the "pesky details" that set the context for the story in Job.

    How do you do that?

    I have not been able to master it.

    By conveniently ignoring the entire dispute the forms the context for the book - you are free to doubt God as HE said that Job "spoke what is right OF ME".

    AND you place yourself in the undesirable position of arguing Satan's point in chapter 1 and 2.


    THEN you "blame me" for your troubles.

    How DO you do that??

    I have not been able to accomplish such a masterful bias in my own posts.

    IN Christ,

    Bob
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    It is not "my fault" that you chose the most Arminian scenario in all of scripture (Job) for your "test case".

    Blaming ME because Satan is the one that argues that Job will sin if the experiment is done -- does not help your case.

    The text "is there" even though you don't like how it frames your own argument.

    How that is "my fault" is totally amazing to me.

    (Or did I write the book of Job?).

    May I suggest that a more exegetically sound approach to scripture instead of a "Calvinism-at-all-costs" approach would have served you better in this review of the DEBATE between God and Satan in the book of Job.

    The argument (at least on MY side) is that the objective "evidence" in the life of Job PROVED God's claims true and Satan's claims false - in TRUE Arminian style where OBJECTIVE DATA forms compelling ARGUMENT to "motivate" free will conclusions.

    A more perfect Arminian scenario could not be imagined.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Having studied Brandon's perfect "arminian scenario" from Job 1 to Job 42... lets take a closer look at "The perfect Calvinist" scenario.

    The inner quotes contain “The scenario”. Everything else is my commentary. (Of course the entire thing is my own test scenario for Calvinism)

    &lt;You see the problem when the Calvinist model is not “allowed the luxury" of disregarding the fate of the lost - as in the case above?&gt;

    God who (arbitrarily to human eyes) selects out the FEW of Matt 7 and loves THEM alone - and then represents that to Calvinists as "So Loving the World". Oh the pure joy that thought must cause the Calvinist mind.
    </font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

    Bob

    [ May 10, 2005, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]
     
  18. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Here is a quote showing the fact that from the human POV there is no difference between the lost and the elect. (i.e. arbitrary selection) accepted by Calvinists today.

    Notice that it also affirms the “expected future condition” of parents in heaven although their child is “lost”. (Parent selected, Child not selected)

    And here we see confirmed the "all deserve hell but is it not great that some are selected to be elect point of Calvinism – as it turns from the sorrowful case of the lost and just sees how they “deserve what they get”.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1406/5.html#000069
    Calvinist overjoyed at this “inexplicable selection of one and not the other” idea..

    The scenario is "confirmed".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  19. Brandon C. Jones

    Brandon C. Jones
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    post moved
     

Share This Page

Loading...