Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jdlongmire · 10-20-2004, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blt to go
Tell me, jdlongmire, YOUR resolution of this sticky problem. Using you and I, assume that God chose you and not me. Isn't it true that regardless how hard I try, no matter the depth of my desire, I am not getting in? Haven't you been "elected?" and I have been predestined by NOT being chosen?

If I may answer for jdlongmire... the Bible say believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Humble yourself before Him - acknowledge that you are a sinner in need of a savior and ask for forgiveness.

Amen!

Gawen · 10-20-2004, 06:36 PM

QUOTE]If I may answer for jdlongmire... the Bible say believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Humble yourself before Him - acknowledge that you are a sinner in need of a savior and ask for forgiveness. [/QUOTE] Pardon my response, but I have a slightly different take on this.

The ambiguous and contradictory manual of life says believe without evidence (faith) on someone who may never have existed and I will be saved from a hideous fate that He would have for me if I don't believe. Grovel before Him - admit I am shit and in need of a plunger and ask for forgiveness for my being shit (that which He made me in the first place) or He will give me the Almighty Flush.

Yeah...right...

...Amen

jdlongmire · 10-20-2004, 06:39 PM

...well, there ya go...point made.

BadBadBad · 10-20-2004, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCSproul

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.
This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

This says God chooses the elect, and through no credit of their own leads them to believe and worship God. On the other hand, he does the opposite for the non-elect. He hardens their hearts and leads them through sin to damnation and dishonor. The mighty potter molds the pot exactly like it says in Romans 9. Both eternities are predestined by God before the beginning of time. This is positive-positive predestination, and this is bad, even though Paul says exactly that in Romans 9?

BadBadBad · 10-20-2004, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blt to go

No Calvinist, hyper, Reformed or otherwise would EVER make that statement.

Except of course Paul, who wrote exactly that in Romans 9.

Quote:

One thing Calvin is VERY clear on is the total depravity of man. (Remember the T in TULIP) God would not need to "work" in humanity to have sin. Humanity did it themselves. This is a very basic tenent of Calvinism. This is not the claim of what double-predestination entails.

What happened to A&E then? Were A&E predestined to salvation? If so, why didn't God live up to his end of the deal and lead them into salvation? Seems like he fell down on his job of predestination.

Quote:

RC Sproul then spouts on about the "correct" view of Predestination. I will save the others the time to read the article. Basically it goes like this. Everybody is evil, reprobate and the only just thing to do is send them to hell. God, in his mercy, selects a few out to go to heaven. No one knows why, they are just lucky. (and Lucky for Sproul, he happens to be one.) The rest are going to hell. They can't complain, because they are just getting what is coming to them.

If everyone is corrupt already and condemned to hell already, why does God harden hearts?

Quote:

Sounds great, yes? Only one itty bitty problem. It makes God a liar.

If God desires ALL men to be saved, and clearly has the capablity to do so, then all would be saved. Either 1 Timothy is a Lie, or God can't do that which he desires. In which case he is not God.

Ooops! Yeah, too good to be true! That's looks like quite a problem. Especially if you follow this reasoning back to A&E. Where was God and all his predestination when the talking snake appeared on the scene? God foresaw the fall of man (be careful not to say he predestined it). God can open up the earth and swallow up men, he can rip us up and spread our carcasses across the mountains, he can send plagues across the Earth, as if flooding it isn't enough, but when it comes to a little snake, well, God just sits there powerless. He foresees the snake and the fall of man, but he just sits there powerless. There will be no icecream for either of our adoring God's very first children, Adam or Eve.

Quote:

Did Christ's blood not pay for ALL sins? (Whoops, sorry. Forgot the L in TULIP!) Apparently God (who allowed sin into the world) could only fix 1/4 of the problem.

Refresh my memory on TULIP?

Quote:

Tell me, jdlongmire, YOUR resolution of this sticky problem. Using you and I, assume that God chose you and not me. Isn't it true that regardless how hard I try, no matter the depth of my desire, I am not getting in? Haven't you been "elected?" and I have been predestined by NOT being chosen?

I agree. Let's get to the solution of this problem.

BadBadBad · 10-20-2004, 09:50 PM

Longmire, God predestined a specific few "before" the beginning of time. That always gets me. What is "before" the beginning of time? In any event, before I was born. So when I'm born, before I do anything, I may or may not be one of the elect. If it's a fact that I'm not one of the elect, and the mighty potter has molded me for damnation and dishonor, and he hardens my heart against him, how is that not God leading me to damnation just like the positive-positive predestination described above?

Even if it is, who are you (longmire), mere pot, to question God? Isn't the mighty potter free to mold his pots however he sees fit? I thought in our genocide discussion, you assured me that we're in no position to judge God a "capricious deity" regardless of what God chooses to do? While you're explaining that, don't forget to address the little problem with God being a liar about who he wants saved, and why he would mold his precious into a pot for damnation, dishonor, and eternal torture?

BadBadBad · 10-20-2004, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert L. Dabney

in an essay written over a hundred years ago...uses an analogy from the life of George Washington taken from Chief-Justice Marshall's Life of Washington. A certain Major André had jeopardized the safety of the young nation through "rash and unfortunate" treasonous acts. Marshall says of the death warrant, signed by Washington, "Perhaps on no occasion of his life did the commander-in-chief obey with more reluctance the stern mandates of duty and of policy." Dabney observes that Washington's compassion for André was "real and profound". He also had "plenary power to kill or to save alive." Why then did he sign the death warrant? Dabney explains, "Washington's volition to sign the death-warrant of André did not arise from the fact that his compassion was slight or feigned, but from the fact that it was rationally counterpoised by a complex of superior judgments . . . of wisdom, duty, patriotism, and moral indignation [the wide-angle lens]."

You don't do very good with analogies longmire. Here, the death warrant is signed after the crime, not before he was born. Washington didn't mold him into a dishonorable and damned soldier (ie pot). Washington didn't brainwash and manipulate him into committing crimes against the state (ie harden hearts). He didn't sign a warrant to torture the soldier in hell forever. God is just a tad slightly different than your analogy, but I know. So much for analogies!

Quote:

Dabney imagines a defender of André, hearing Washington say, "I do this with the deepest reluctance and pity." Then the defender says, "Since you are supreme in this matter, and have full bodily ability to throw down that pen, we shall know by your signing this warrant that your pity is hypocritical." Dabney responds to this by saying, "The petulance of this charge would have been equal to its folly. The pity was real, but was restrained by superior elements of motive. Washington had official and bodily power to discharge the criminal, but he had not the sanctions of his own wisdom and justice." The corresponding point in the case of divine election is that "the absence of volition in God to save does not necessarily imply the absence of compassion." God has "a true compassion, which is yet restrained, in the case of the . . . non-elect, by consistent and holy reasons, from taking the form of a volition to regenerate." God's infinite wisdom regulates his whole will and guides and harmonizes (not suppresses) all its active principles."

Motive? Superior motive?

Romans 9:17
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Man, that's some superior motive. Not particularly honorable, but surely consistent, holy, and motivated by pure and infinite wisdom.

BadBadBad · 10-20-2004, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheThirdRail

If you look at the word in question - Pas (in greek) - it can denote 'all types' - i.e. not all men without exception, but all men without distinction

Whether it says all men or all men without distinction, it still has God desires that all men be saved. If God desires all men without distinction be saved, what distinction does God use to choose who will be saved?

Quote:

Ummm... but your argument is a strawman... no calvinist would say that there are those who truly desire to be saved but God turns them away. Everyone in a fallen estate is in emnity with God... they hate God and are spiritually discerned. They have absolutely no desire to be saved - God and His salvation are foolishness to them. For an example of this, you can talk any atheist on this board.

Talk about a strawman! I don't hate non-existent Gods. I have absolutely no desire to be saved by a non-existent God from a non-existent hell. It's not God and his salvation that are foolish to me, it's the Christians and their silly stories that are foolish to me.

Quote:

If I may answer for jdlongmire... the Bible say believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Humble yourself before Him - acknowledge that you are a sinner in need of a savior and ask for forgiveness.

Yes it does over and over again. It also says God created me from the beginning of time for damnation, dishonor, and eternal torture in hell. It says he hardened my heart to ensure I never humble myself before him or even acknowledge his existence. If even then after all that, I stand before him, humble myself, acknowledge his existence, repent my sins, and beg for forgiveness, just like Pharoah did, even then I don't get the ice cream!

jdlongmire · 10-21-2004, 02:59 AM

Emphais mine:

Quote:

Originally Posted by brettc

This (the article quoted by RC Sproul) says God chooses the elect, and through no credit of their own leads them to believe and worship God. On the other hand, he does the opposite for the non-elect. He hardens their hearts and leads them through sin to damnation and dishonor. The mighty potter molds the pot exactly like it says in Romans 9. Both eternities are predestined by God before the beginning of time. This is positive-positive predestination, and this is bad, even though Paul says exactly that in Romans 9?

This is what the article says:

Quote:

This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.
This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine.

The Reformed position is that God has mercy on whom He will have mercy. He is Sovereign over all Creation.

God influences history to revel His glory and will. That includes the actions of anyone He so chooses to. He hardens specific hearts for specific reasons in specific times.

All mankind is corrupt (me included) and the fruit of the corruption manifests itself as sin.

Sin is defined as disobedience to God.

God commands us to love Him and likewise love our neighbor.

A fallen nature will not obey.

I do not obey. I will not do this without His grace.

No one will do it without His grace. (See reference source: The Bible and the World)

...more to come...

blt to go · 10-21-2004, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

No Calvinist, hyper, Reformed or otherwise would EVER make that statement.

No one arguing against Calvinism would claim that Calvinism makes that statement.

To which jdlongmire provides two sites. I will stand corrected. There is no accounting for the depth of stupidity. (of them, not jdlongmire) (And this does certainly smack of "No true Calvinist" fallacy on my part.)

However, I would note that both sites make my point about Sproul creating a strawman eloquently clear. The second site is a person arguing against Calvinism and incorrectly states the doctrine of double predestination. The first site is more fascinating in that it is a Calvinist arguing the same statement I made--That Dr. Emmons could not hold Sproul's "distortion" argument and be a Calvinist. Either way the point is clear, it violates the tenent of Total depravity

jdlongmire - you miss the point of my ice cream analogy. The point is that when you have two people, and you only chose one, that IS a choice as to the second person. It is not a choice and a "non-"choice. Your analogy with Washington would be appropriate if Washington was choosing between TWO people to provide pardons, and chose one, but not Major Andre. That demonstrates that such a decision IS a choice as to Major Andre.

Predestination of one person necessarily results in double predestination of the other person (peoples).

I understand why you would avoid the ice cream analogy like the plague, as it nicely shows that choosing one is a choice as to another.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-20-2004, 06:36 PM	#12
Gawen Contributor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cylon Occupied Texas, but a Michigander @ heart Posts: 10,326	QUOTE]If I may answer for jdlongmire... the Bible say believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Humble yourself before Him - acknowledge that you are a sinner in need of a savior and ask for forgiveness. [/QUOTE] Pardon my response, but I have a slightly different take on this. The ambiguous and contradictory manual of life says believe without evidence (faith) on someone who may never have existed and I will be saved from a hideous fate that He would have for me if I don't believe. Grovel before Him - admit I am shit and in need of a plunger and ask for forgiveness for my being shit (that which He made me in the first place) or He will give me the Almighty Flush. Yeah...right... ...Amen

10-20-2004, 06:39 PM	#13
jdlongmire Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: American by birth, Southern by the grace of God! Posts: 2,657	...well, there ya go...point made.

10-20-2004, 09:50 PM	#16
BadBadBad Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: WHERE GOD IS NOT!!!!! Posts: 4,338	Longmire, God predestined a specific few "before" the beginning of time. That always gets me. What is "before" the beginning of time? In any event, before I was born. So when I'm born, before I do anything, I may or may not be one of the elect. If it's a fact that I'm not one of the elect, and the mighty potter has molded me for damnation and dishonor, and he hardens my heart against him, how is that not God leading me to damnation just like the positive-positive predestination described above? Even if it is, who are you (longmire), mere pot, to question God? Isn't the mighty potter free to mold his pots however he sees fit? I thought in our genocide discussion, you assured me that we're in no position to judge God a "capricious deity" regardless of what God chooses to do? While you're explaining that, don't forget to address the little problem with God being a liar about who he wants saved, and why he would mold his precious into a pot for damnation, dishonor, and eternal torture?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.