1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured A Lion, Rabbit and a Woman

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Apr 4, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    I disagree with you about Calvinism and I don't mind CvsA posts but seeing one poster only start posts about this topic [snip - personal and inflammatory]. It certainly makes me wonder just why someone is so singularly focused on one portion of doctrine when there are MANY areas of doctrine that can and should be discussed as well. I just see a "one issue poster" here and I have gotten tired of it because when I've seen posts that seem to be one thing, I go in and see what they truly are - different ways of saying the same thing: Calvinism is evil and wrong. I really wonder just why someone feels the need to fight so hard. If you think that the doctrine is heresy, say so and leave it. Don't post over and over again the same thing. [snip - personal and inflammatory]
     
    #61 annsni, Apr 8, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 8, 2012
  2. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Question, or "ATTACK"??? Most of those quotes you referred to were in response to a Calvinist "ATTACKING" (otherwise known as "debating" me).

    Ann, I've never denied my motive here was to debate soterological differences, as that is the purpose of this forum, but I have done so cordially and within the confines of the rules (unlike you who make things personal).

    Otherwise known as a 'debate.' Stop making things personal Ann, that is not what this forum is about. If you don't like that then start a new forum.
     
  3. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Ahhh yes, I'm always personally attacking people here. Everyone knows it. :laugh:

    Oh - and thank you for the infraction!!
     
  4. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Maybe not always, but you have done so to me throughout this thread. I think it would be the right thing for you to edit your own posts. If you have something personal to discuss with me, then you should do that through a PM. I'd be glad to talk to you about your perceptions of me there. But here you are derailing a thread and breaking the rules.
    Everyone who objectively reads this thread certainly does. Please stop.
     
  5. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
     
    #65 annsni, Apr 8, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 8, 2012
  6. convicted1

    convicted1 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    28
    Well Brother, it gets shoved our way too. There is a Calvinist Mod, or Admin on here, when talking about our beliefs, went so far as to say "what a sham of a god". So, both sides throw off on each other, and regardless of who does it, it's unnecessary.
     
  7. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
  8. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    21,242
    Likes Received:
    2,305
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    A guilty conscience can be a powerful thing.....no news flash here....you once again seek to twist what I say...No thanks benjamin...I will speak for myself.
    Your ungodly accusations are more against forum rules than anything I am posting.....another post by you, no scripture, nothing edifying, just a personal attack. All such posts that i have spoken of question God Himself and His attributes...not my ideas.
     
  9. Steadfast Fred

    Steadfast Fred Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,983
    Likes Received:
    1
    The only Lion I have ever heard of eating lettuce is the Chinese Lion in the Chinese New Year Celebration.

    Of course, that isn't even a real lion so I am not sure it counts.
     
  10. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    3
    No, he has an issue with Calvinism, not the biblical doctrines of grace.
     
  11. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    17
    First, you're not the representative of all persons nor any person on the BB but yourself. Secondly, your take that no one has a problem with 'grace' is completely and unfortunately incorrect. As a matter of fact, when talking of grace here, one was adamantly against it, mocked it, and asked if 'grace' is a 'catholic school girl', in direct mockery of the biblical doctrine of grace. The person involved? A Baptist.

    So next time you think you know where everyone stands, just tell yourself simply that you're wrong. :wavey:
     
  12. AresMan

    AresMan Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    11
    Faith:
    Baptist
    When the woman chooses, it has to be according to her greatest desire at the time. If not, the choice is random or of insanity. Otherwise, would you suggest that she first determines the desires themselves, then acts according to the greatest one? If so, upon what basis does she organize her desires?
     
  13. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Random is just another word for 'mysterious,' meaning not fully in view and thus unable to be measured, understood, explained or defined fully. I believe she is 'self-determined' in that she determines on which desire she will act upon. She determines her acts, not God. (i.e. God makes her nature/desire such that she would necessarily choose ACT X instead of ACT Y.)
     
  14. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    :thumbs: Very true.
     
  15. AresMan

    AresMan Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    11
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Every choice has a reason, does it not? Every non-insane choice is done with purpose and motivation, is it not?

    According to libertarian free will, for any given action, all things being what they are, the agent of the action could have done/chosen otherwise.

    If the answers to the above questions are "Yes," then how can the agent truly have done "otherwise" in the contra-causal sense? You would have to argue that the very same purpose and motivation for doing A would also be for doing B, or even not A. The is logical absurdity.

    Of course, the advocate of libertarian free will must necessarily argue that all choices of a free creature are finally independent of the agent's greatest desire, OR that the agent "contra-causally" determines his own greatest desire whereby choices are made. Once again, this begs the question.

    For the same rationale that both you and I would argue that atheistic materialism begs the question concerning the origin of the universe, I would argue concerning the will and consequent actions of finite creatures who are not God, and thereby do not create ex nihilo. Only God creates ex nihilo, and even God's freedom is limited to His own character such that He cannot lie and such (thank God!). If God created other "gods" who contribute to the creation ex nihilo, then it is illogical to assume that God can know what free creatures will do. The Open Theists would be correct. If people have libertarian free will that is autonomous from God (and any secondary causation), then trying to argue that God can still know what they will choose is contradictory. If God is providential over the circumstances, and God knows what people will do given any set of circumstances, then the will of the people is not truly contra-causal, but is subject to secondary causation.

    If you believe that God does have exhaustive knowledge of all events in time, and you believe (as would be necessary) that this knowledge of God is part of His eternal being, then you would have to believe in "reverse determinism" such that part of God's essential being is determined by the creation that He otherwise willfully chose to actuate. He would then be "bound" to create the universe, and in such a way that autonomous creatures from His hand dictate the way He has to create. The compatibilist view allows for the creation to be the way God actually wanted to do it without Him being "stuck" and subject to other autonomous beings. The trap that libertarian free will places upon God and creation is the reason that Process Theologians reject the very notion that God truly created the universe, because contra-causal agents (every molecule representing a rapid state of existence) contribute to the form of reality.
     
  16. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    ,
    Also wanted to note Ann's curious choice to never call iconoclast out on his many attacks on the salvation of those not believing as they do. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
     
  17. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes, and the reason for the free moral choice is a free moral chooser. You can no better explain the 'reason' for man's free moral choices as you can explain the 'reason' for God's choices. We simply appeal to mystery and credit the choice to the chooser, period. Anything else is speculative at best, and heretical at worse.

    It sounds like you are asking me how one determines a free choice, which presumes a deterministic answer is necessary. (otherwise known as 'question begging')

    What is logically absurd is attempting to call something free that has been predetermined not to be otherwise than what it is. (as compatibilistic believers do). We simply appeal to mystery prior to creating such logical and moral quandrums.

    This assumes God could not and did not create us with a lessor but similar form of creative (ex nihilo) abilities, which separates us from the animals as being 'image bearers' of God.

    Its only 'illogical' from a finite human vantage point. Scripture never appeals to logic in order for us to accept what is taught (i.e. trinity). Plus, on this matter we are speculating. Scripture doesn't provide clear cut answers so we are merely philosophizing in regard to all the mechanics of how God created morally free creatures. My argument is just that your speculations appear to put men more on the level of animals, not free, morally accountable image bearers who God loves and seeks to save.

    Why? Must one's view of God be so limiting that He can't foresee the free and independent acts of other 'ex nihilo' creatures? I'm not sure why you would assume He couldn't have that ability?

    I follow what you are saying. Ultimately you are arguing that if God knows it all before creating it all, then He must have determined it all to be as He created to be. I used to believe the same thing but there are several problems with this view. (1) Scripture never teaches it and (2) it puts God onto a linear timeline bound by cause/effect relationships. If we are going to speculate as to what God could or couldn't do based upon what he knows and when he knows it, then I'd prefer the 'eternal now' view of divine omniscience.

    We, as finite humans, have three ways of knowing something.

    1. Past knowledge (fixed knowledge which can't be changed),
    2. Present knowledge (which we interact with and change as we wish to the level of our ability and desire)
    3. Future knowledge (told to us by prophecy, or if someone had a 'crystal ball' we could foresee is going to happen)

    Your logic seems to put God in this same framework whereby His omniscience is like our "Past knowledge." It is fixed, done, complete and will not be changed, and any 'interaction' with it seems contrived at best. I don't believe like this anymore. This seems to be a very limiting and small view of God to me now.

    If I had to speculate I'd say that God's omniscience more relates to our 'present knowledge,' than our past knowledge. He, as the eternal I AM, knows everything because he is at all places at all times at the same time. He is not limited by a timeline of before and after; cause and effect. So, one can affirm God's omniscience without limiting it to a finite framework by which his knowledge of 'future' happenings are somehow directly linked to his past determinations. He is much bigger than that IMO.
     
    #77 Skandelon, Apr 9, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 9, 2012
  18. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    AresMan,

    Thank you for debating the topic rather than derailing and attacking others personally. It is refreshing. :)
     
  19. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    [snipped - inflammatory]
     
    #79 annsni, Apr 9, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 9, 2012
  20. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    I've sent a PM to the offending party to kindly address personal matters privately, as called on by the forum rules (not to mention scripture). She has ignored this request thus far and continues with her public personal attacks, thus this thread must unfortunately be closed.

    I apologize to those who are attempting to abide by the rules and discuss the topic, but those who choose not to abide by the rules ruin it for the rest of us.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...