Do you think God bluffs?

I appreciate the analogy and understand they aren't meant to completely represent all aspects of your view, but if I may offer one that does more accurately represent the situation I think it will bring more clarity to our point of contention:

Suppose you have 3 sons and all are born quadriplegic and cannot feel anything from his neck down. They were born in this condition at your request because their older brother broke your rules and this was your chosen way to punish them because they too would also break the rules. Now, you say to all three of them, "I want you to run a marathon and if you don't I throw you into the basement to be tortured for the rest of your life." You choose one of them, pick them up and run a marathon with him on your back and he is the only one not thrown in the basement.

He says, "But dad, what about my brothers?"
"You I have loved, them I have hated...just be happy you were chosen cause you deserved the basement too," you reply
"But dad, why did they deserve the basement?"
"Because they didn't run the marathon," you reply.
"But they couldn't, they were born paralyzed," he objects.
"Rules are rules and since their big brother broke them and they broke them too there are consequences, life ain't fair."
"But why did you do it this way?"
"I am glorified by this. Oh, by the way if you ever get up a walk, I'll throw you in the basement with them," you reply
"I can't get up and walk," he says.
"I know, but this is just a warning not to do what I know you can't do."

Doesn't make a lot of sense. Why warn the elect against doing something that they were born unable to do?

 

Scripture is quite clear that their are rulers, principalities, and authorities of this dark world that God has established and permitted to reign. You see it as making God less Sovereign if these rulers can in any way originate their own evil intent and implement that evil in this fallen world, so you have created a construct by which God is the origin of every intent and choice (even the evil ones). He plays both sides of the chess board. He is the only agent, the only decision maker and thus left holding the bag of culpability for all sin. If you think that is "Sovereignty" that is fine, but don't beg the question by presuming that anyone who disagrees with that presumption is lessing God.

I believe real Sovereignty is God accomplishing His ultimate purpose despite the free evil rebellion of his creatures. I don't think God has to play both sides of the chess board in order to win. He is not a kid playing with plastic army men so that he can guarantee a victory in the war. He is a God with a real enemy and He is big enough, powerful enough and sovereign enough to ensure victory despite their being free and rebellious.

This begs the question up for debate. Arminianism is only more human centered if its not true. If Calvinism isn't true then its man-made and there is nothing more man-centered than that. Let's just both agree that who ever is wrong has the man-made and thus man-centered dogma, okay?

The quote Cypress was replying to was by saturneptune who wrote, "Your whole agenda is to bring those who believe in God's sovereignty down to your level," which is a misrepresentation of my views because as I just explained, it begs the question of the debate.

 

You will need to point to a specific comment which represents my view as being Pelagian rather than Arminian. In the scenario I presented I wasn't taking issue with the issue of Original Sin (which Pelgian doesn't affirm), I was taking issue with Total Depravity (i.e. total inability = quadriplegic) and most importantly the part where the father warns the chosen son not to do something he was born unable to do, which was representative of the "empty threat" question of the OP. Nothing in this post supports or even addresses the issue of Pelagianism vs Arminianism.

I forgive and thus ignore the rest of you post because I think it was based upon your misunderstanding of this point.

 

Well, the kids wouldn't be born quadriplegic (i.e. Totally Depraved), instead they would be born in a state that they could respond to the Father's appeal to be reconciled.

Note: The analogy doesn't fully represent either view, nor is it meant to. I believe men are born with a sin nature, but not hardened in such a way they cannot willingly believe God's revelation of himself.

Secondly, the kid who is "saved" (based on his LFW choice to respond to his father) would hear the warning "don't fall away" as something that could happen if indeed he is self deceived enough to think he is saved when he is not.

Agreed, but all the points of my analogy were representative of points in the Calvinistic dogma, not any unknown mysteries. For example, I never presumed that the father originated the evil of the older brother or anything like that...

That is tantamount to saying man is able to do what he is not able to do. Responsible literally means "response - able," (able to respond) so to suggest that man is responsible for something he is unable to willingly respond to is nonsensical to the very definition of the word.

That is the exact same argument I make against Calvinism. Both systems attempt to answer hard questions. The problem is that your answers, in my view, contradict scriptures teaching regarding God's holiness and inability to even tempt men to evil. And your answers provide nothing on which human culpability can rest. In other words, you give men a perfect excuse on that final day.

I honestly believe the verses used to support the Calvinist premise that God has chosen a select few to be saved to the neglect of all the rest is based upon a misunderstanding of three things:

1. They misapply passages that are in reference to the way in which God chose his divinely appointed apostles by applying them to the method God has chosen to save all souls. Proof that God sovereignly hand picks his messengers in no way proves that He sovereignly hand picks who will and will not believe their message.

2. They fail to recognize that in the two passages that the term predestination is mentioned it is in reference to those who already believe. Believers are "predestined to be conformed to Christ's image." And believers are "predestined to be adopted as his sons." Neither of these goals have been accomplished in our lives but if we believe in Christ, God has predetermined that we too will be "adopted as His son and conformed to his image."

3. They mistakenly apply passages having to do with God's choosing to save the Gentiles while temporarily hardening the Jews to support their view of the depravity of man's heart and God's election of certain individuals. Passages having to do with the hardened Jews are often used by Calvinists to support their doctrine of Total Depravity. Passages having to do with the revelation of God's choice to allow Gentiles entrance into the Covenant of grace are used to support their doctrine of Unconditional Election.

 

I suspect it would be deemed illogical by those of your persuasion had he not done it. Any self limitation of His divine attributes are deemed illogical quite often by Calvinists, yet Christ is a perfect example of divine self limitation.

Again, are we sure people wouldn't have deemed it illogical had he not done it? It's only seen as logically consistent because He chose to do it and you have accepted that as fact.

And his love for the whole world.

 

1. I'm not promoting dualism because I affirm that Satan is a creature not creator and has only power granted to him by God.

2. I too believe God is divinely sovereign over the powers, principalities, demons and Satan himself. The difference is our understanding of Sovereignty. For you that means playing both side of a chess board in that God originates his own moves in the same way he originates the moves of his enemies. He causally determines their motives, desires and choices just as he does his own leaving no real distinction between God and these evil rulers.

3. I, on the other hand, believe he gives them true freedom to do what they determine but that he is able to foreknow their moves, over power their intent and accomplish His purpose in and through their rebellion.

4. War is not my analogy. It's scriptures.

Why do you have to make this personal? I don't do that to you despite my disagreement with your views. Believers have disagreed about this issue for decades brother, but we don't have to be disagreeable. :flower: <--- not a tulip

 

:applause:

Correct! And why do we accept it by faith? Because God did it and scripture says so, not because it's logical.