I would think so.
What you realize is that your, "You believe God is too weak to make a creature whose will is as independent as His own," can be turned on you. If that is saying that God is WEAK, then saying, "You believe God is too WEAK to determine every single action and still hold men accountable for them," is equally as valid. So that renders your "You're saying God is weak," argument impotent.
You realize that you have come to the end of your ability to argue for this god-like independency of the human self. The only thing that is not contingent is GOD, Himself. When you make the human self, upon which you keep saying the will bases its choices, contingent upon nothing- you QUITE LITERALLY make a god out of the human will (or worse, the human SELF).
I would flee the debate at this point, too, if I were you.
Good vs Evil 2
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Luke2427, Nov 15, 2013.
Page 2 of 2
-
LOL! -
-
Sorry, but I don't buy it.
There is NO REASON to suggest that God's appeal for man to be reconciled from their fallen condition cannot be responded to willingly on the basis of that fallen condition. It makes NO SENSE! Why would God hold men responsible for their response to His VERY OWN appeal to be reconciled from their fallen condition when that very fallen condition would keep them unable to respond to that appeal??? -
-
Luke, if any view is equating us with God it is the Determinist, because it leaves no room for distinction between the will of God and the wills of his creatures, but I doubt you would acknowledge that. I will continue to maintain that God is Holy and distinct from his creation, not the divine puppet master determining their evil desires and actions.
Charlie Brown -
However, the fallen condition does not mean humankind is given ability to seek God as you know the Scriptures state.
It is at this point that you and I would agree.
You and I would also agree that it takes "the enabling and freeing truth of the gospel appeal sent by God's gracious inspiration."
It is the form of "God's gracious inspiration" in which some might find issue.
For instance, I would state that the reason humankind seek god, is a validation that they have no ability to seek God. That unless God does a direct and sure work in that person to "quicken" them, they remain in an unsaved condition.
Would that not fit your question?
Does not the Scriptures state that essential to salvation are the work of the Holy Spirit, the Word, and the presentation?
If no humankind "seeks God" but seeks god, then it follows that humankind have no desire, nor inclination toward God outside of the purposed work of the Holy Spirit, the Word, and the presentation.
The question you ask has been answered in the Scriptures. For example, God placed the decalogue as a demand KNOWING no human could keep every aspect of the law.
God did not have to impose some super-naturalism upon pharaoh to harden the heart. Pharaoh's heart was already hardened. He had long turned a deaf ear to the conditions of the Jews. He had often already sought ways to diminish and afflict them. All God had to do was confirm the hardness. In effect saying, "Pharaoh's heart is hard. Yep, it will remain hard."
Was God unfair?
No.
Can God be questioned as to why he chose that specific pharaoh over some other?
No.
Can God be questioned as to why he selected Moses and not Aaron?
No.
What may seem rational and what makes sense to humankind can be seen as foolish and nonsense to God. Look at these examples:18For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.The question then is, "Under what structure do those who believe, believe?"
21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
That brings back the Scriptures already alluded:
22For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26For consider your calling , (Skandelon) brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29so that no man may boast before God. 30But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”Skandelon, I may have not added to the thread very well, and my train of thought has been interrupted often as I have written this post, but I trust what I have written will help folks to understand.
We both agree that without the intervention of God, no person would be saved.
Why God chooses the foolish, the base, ... I don't know, but he does. It is His choice to make, and not ours to question.
Our job (as you do, do) is to make an appeal, "preach the Word - in and out of season" and trust the "Lord of the harvest." Do the work, the best we can, for the Glory of God.
John has an interesting way to state what I am trying to post:
19We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. 20And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.When the world lies in the power of the evil one and the worship of god(s), there is no knowledge (understanding) of God.
BUT when God gives understanding, then believers "know Him who is true" (as opposed to the evil one); that believers are "in him who is true" (as opposed to the evil one). That "the true God and eternal life" (as opposed to the evil one).
Isn't it interesting that John ended with, "...keep from idols."
The evil one knows our desires better than we know ourselves. -
Your problem is that you have man's SELF being self-existent- which you know is ridiculous.
Man's will is based on and dependent on his self.
But his self is based on and dependent on _______________.
Therefore his will ultimately based on and dependent on ________________.
Whatever you put in the blank is what you believe controls man's will.
Now, it is utterly RIDICULOUS to put "self" in that blank so that it will read:
Man's self is based upon man's self.
That's like saying the foundation is built upon itself.
It is untenable.
So what do YOU put in the blank? -
My statement was to reveal the irony of your accusation of my view making man to be God, when its your view that blurs the line between the will of creator and the created. I'm fully aware that NEITHER of us equate God with man...but then again, I didn't make that accusation, YOU DID.
But his self is based on and dependent on God's creative ability to create responsible creatures.
Therefore [morally accountable choices] are ultimately based on and dependent on the chooser.
-
No, no. They are not even comparable. My view does not have man obtaining the incommunicable attributes of God like yours. They are not even remotely comparable.
Your view makes man GOD. Your view makes the will of man to be imbued with God's "I am-ness" his independency- his most distinguishable attribute.
Therefore God is in control of them.
Welcome to the light!:thumbs:
EXCELLENT!
We have an accord!!
Will is the mind choosing. -
:sleep:
Tired of it...when you want to engage in a real debate let me know. -
And "being responsible" is not a problem. It is having independency. Only God can have that and you would make man's self or his will God.
And this is why you have to flee. You cannot argue that point. -
-
Prove me wrong.
How is man's will less independent than God Himself in your system? -
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Free will is not unlimited freedom, Luke. It's RESPONSIBLE, meaning response-able...enabled to respond (not held responsible for how another determines you to respond). You redefine the word's "responsible" and the word "choice" to meaningless affirmations of divine determinism all the while claiming you affirm responsibility and human choice. Any one can redefine a word to mean something else in order to affirm its consistency with a system of belief, but that doesn't make it right. -
Yes. It is the ESSENCE of the claim you are making.
When you say a decision is based on one's SELF but do not admit that one's self is totally contingent, you are making the will or the self as independent as Almighty God.
I don't know why you can't get that.
His independency is his premier incommunicable attribute.
I am talking about your claim that man's will is non-contingent or based on self which is noncontingent which means that you believe the will or self of man is as independent as God himself.
The Arminian HAS to believe this. And with every post you prove that you do believe it.
Page 2 of 2