tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post7450403955644364475..comments2023-05-12T10:37:20.308-05:00Comments on Examining Calvinism: James White responds to Troy BrooksRichard Coordshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-79983509817886465902011-10-10T23:13:38.342-05:002011-10-10T23:13:38.342-05:00I don't know how God made it so I have God-con...I don't know how God made it so I have God-consciousness in my spirit and self-consciousness of my soul, but I know He did it. Likewise, God pleads and implores us to believe in Him thus giving us sufficient grace to have the free choice, but I don't know how God reconciles His infinite foreknowledge with free will other than to say He exists outside of time and space so He can touch any point instantly. You don't need to know how God does this to know He does it.<br /><br />I'm unsubscribing from this silly conversation you guys are having with sloppy grammar and spelling mistakes and petty self on a rampage. I don't want to see this nonsense in my inbox again!<br /><br />Just know God pleads with you and implores you to believe in Him, thus it wouldn't make much sense if you didn't have the free choice to respond positively.<br /><br />Otherwise, God would be an abusive sadistic bastard as the god of Calvinism is.<br /><br />Repent and believe in Christ and thou shalt be saved/regenerated.<br /><br />Praise the Lord! Amen.Troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11405896181060921408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-53157445124148074042011-10-10T22:34:55.523-05:002011-10-10T22:34:55.523-05:00Richard,
On the issue of Irresistable Grace and ...Richard, <br /><br />On the issue of Irresistable Grace and your question about how is it not the issue. My response is that it is not the issue of the text. The text does not unless you can show me where Irresistable Grace is found or why you think it is even an issue. But I do not think that it is. I see that the issue of the text is that Satan makes a challenge against God. You may read the challenge in Job 1:8-12. The point here is that God declares that Job is blameless and upright (we see this actualized throughout Job) and yet satan brings a challenge against God that Job is not really upright. So Satan is allowed to bring about calamity because part of the challenge is that Job has been upright because much has been provided to him. So Satan says Challenges God to take away these the things.<br /><br />I do not see these situations here in Job 1 and 2 as being the same situation as 2 samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 22:1. Regarding 2 samuel. The text says that "the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah." It is not clear why the Lord's anger was kindled the text does not say. It does say that the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David. This verse is more liken to Romans 1:18-32 - more specifically it is verses 24; 26; and 28 that I am looking at. But the point of the section seems to say that Because unrighteous men and women supress the truth of God (which is clearly revealed because God reveals it) Men and Women are without excuse. So why are they under condemnation? because of their unrighteousness, and they have no excuse because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. But because of their unrighteousness and so by their unrighteousness supressing the truth of God, they fashion for themselves idols of the created order to worship rather than to give thanks to God and worship Him. So we have in each three of those verses (listed above in this paragraph) that God gives them over to the lust of their hearts. When God hands someone over to the lust of their hearts it is seen as God's wrath or anger. Likewise in Davids situation God gives David over to the lust of his heart. Christians can suffer the discipline of the Lord but they do not experience God's wrath or condemnation like the non-christian (Romans 8 presents the reasons why). Paul tells the Corinthians in chapter 5 to remove the one who has committed the sexual immorality so that he may be saved in verses 2 and 5.<br /><br />As for my point about thoughts and actions. My purpose was to say that usually a person acts on the basis of his thoughts or how he thinks or what he thinks. But as your point is that Thoughts and Actions are mutually inclusive. If i am understanding you correctly then Calvinist would not disagree that thoughts and actions are mutually inclusive. Let me explain how my mind is working with regards to my thoughts: If you read the westminster confession of faith says that man has liberty to do what he pleases, but that he does not have the ability to do that which is against his own nature to do. Scripture says in Romans 5:1-4 that death spread to all men because all sinned. The proof that man is a sinner is that he dies. So my their relation to Adam who was the type of the one to come, man is by nature a product of sin and thus die. <br />So my logic of thought is this: You have Thoughts which lead to Actions. But i wanted to get to the place where I may also say that our thoughts themselves are effected by who we are. Ephesians 4:17-18 clarifies this point that I am bringing up.Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649700537921234472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-29067605655920362342011-10-10T20:39:40.377-05:002011-10-10T20:39:40.377-05:00I realize that your time is limited, as is mine, b...I realize that your time is limited, as is mine, but one more quick thought on Job/David.<br /><br />You wrote: “But what it does say is that God incited David to sin against the Lord - showing it was His will for David to do such and also we see that it says that Satan incited David to sin against the Lord.”<br /><br />But see, that’s where I disagree. It wasn’t God’s will for David to do such. God specifically said that He was "displeased." (1st Chronicles 21:7) That's why I don't think that it was God's will for David to get duped by Satan, no more than it was God’s will that Job waver in his faith, no more than it was God’s will that Peter deny Christ three times. Satan is the accuser; God permitted his challenges. Due to God’s anger against Israel, he wasn’t particularly motivated to want to defend Israel against Satan’s challenges, and hence permitted him to move David to issue the census.<br /><br />Also, I'm a little puzzled at how independent action and independent thought are mutually exclusive. I have it the other way around, in that they are mutually inclusive. If there is no free action, there is no free thought. If there is free action, there is free thought to do it. Anyway, that was something that was puzzling me about your comment. I wasn't following the logic there.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-86298309366374214232011-10-10T16:07:51.941-05:002011-10-10T16:07:51.941-05:00Thank you and likewise, I too am slammed at work.
...Thank you and likewise, I too am slammed at work.<br /><br />Concerning Job, I really don’t understand how IG wouldn’t be the issue. If Job was given IG (which I'm certain that you would affirm), then could Job resist it? If not, then wouldn't the devil ultimately be fighting a lost cause? What am I missing? If Job didn't have an IG, and if he could have fallen await from the faith, then you are well within your rights to ask why he did not fall, and I would simply point to his sincerity and belief in God, and that the devil was wrong about him.<br /><br />One add’l thought on David/Job. I had maintained that God took responsibility for harming Job, because He permitted the devil to proceed with his challenge, and that God took responsibility for tempting David, because He permitted the devil to proceed with his temptation (and knowing that in a similar situation, the devil demanded to sift Peter like wheat, too, as per Jesus’ statement in the Gospels), I gather that God did not want, wish or desire for Job’s faith to fail, David to succumb to the devil’s temptation or for Peter to deny Christ. I think that’s a point where we disagree, because you indicated that God had a purpose in David succumbing to the temptation. I didn't agree, and I also didn't feel that God was necessarily expressing a happy thought at Job 2:3. Take a look at that verse and let me know if you have a different take.<br /><br />Regarding determinism and permission, I do not understand how the two could coexist, and almost every A publication makes this same point, but remember that Spurgeon also wrote of an instance where he tried to explain such things, and fellow C’s (hardline C’s, I suppose), demanded an explanation of logic, and Spurgeon confessed that he couldn’t provide it, but only that the Scriptures teach both, and that was sufficient. (Reference Spurgeon’s sermon on Jacob & Esau). Of course, as an A, I disagree that Scriptures teach determinism, but you get the point. Not all C's believe that it can be explained. I've heard the "parallel lines that meet in eternity" explanation more than once.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-18235359606863103462011-10-10T14:53:16.719-05:002011-10-10T14:53:16.719-05:00Hi Richard and Blessings. I am press for time and ...Hi Richard and Blessings. I am press for time and frankly school is back in session and so I will not really be able to spend much on here due to business and all. <br /><br />I would respond on all of what you had said but again I have to leave shortly. But I will try to touch up on a view things.<br /><br />First as for the point about our actions being dependant on thought, it shows that we cannot truly have independant actions if we have independent thought. Either we will have independent actions or independent thought. Further what we think seems to be in correspondent to our nature. Thus when the Calvinist claim that you must be born again. It means that in order for our minds to think or percieve rightly about the Cross we must have a new spirit to percieve such. However, this is so hard to see in actual life because regeneration/faith happen simultaniously. It is sort of like trying to put a heirarchy to the fruits of the holy Spirit.<br /><br />Also as for your point that I may be more Arminian than I think I am. Well First as for this I would say perhaps it means you misunderstand the Calvinist position or better yet the supralapsarian position. Which is why I have continued to write to you and also because I enjoy this type of stuff.<br /><br />As for the Irresistable Grace with Job and Satan. IG is not the issue. The issue is that does Job persevere? Why does he persevere? Job 1 God declares that Job is righteous. The declaration from satan is that Job is righteous because God had given him much in abundance and so by taking away those things Job would curse God and die. However, this is not the case. Why? I think it lies at the beginning when God does declare Job as righteous. Or better yet God justifies Job.<br /><br />I hope this has been clear.Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649700537921234472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-50161702427096328832011-10-10T05:59:50.077-05:002011-10-10T05:59:50.077-05:00You wrote: “Before I start I would like to hear yo...You wrote: “Before I start I would like to hear your testimony? How did you come to know Christ Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour?”<br /><br />Indeed, a great place to start, and thanks for asking. Here is a link to my SOF. <br /><br />http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Articles/believe.html <br /><br />I also have a testimony posted in the following link here under the name of Richard Coords: <br /><br />http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/x-calvinist-corner/ <br /><br />That is just a small segment of my testimony, but this an the SOF are a good place to start.<br /><br />In terms of your question to elaborate on the the Hindu comparison and what Arminians believe about Election, let me point to two articles that I've written which will elaborate further:<br /><br />http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/ArminianElection.html <br /><br />http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Complaints/ac_Hinduism.htmlRichard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-62182325305330275132011-10-10T05:57:38.656-05:002011-10-10T05:57:38.656-05:00You wrote: “Your second point however I will chall...You wrote: “Your second point however I will challenge you on this which you said: ‘His purpose was for them to Fall.’ I think it goes a little deeper than this. For one Scripture seems to say that Satan had a pride within himself.”<br /><br />Wait…stop right there. Remember, you believe in Determinism, right? What does C teach about God having decreed whatsoever comes to pass? If God decreed everything, which includes all thoughts too, then, if Satan “had a pride within himself,” where did it come from? <br /><br />You added, “God did not have to work this sin into Satan. It was already there.”<br /><br />But you believe in predestination, right? By saying what you did, you are showing that you are a lot more Arminian in your thinking than you may realize, which I think is a good thing. :-) <br /><br />You wrote: “One of my good friends said that God is the ultimate good and wherever God is absent…” <br /><br />Again, stop right there. According to Determinism, God isn’t absent in anything, at all. Remember that according to C, everything is predetermined. <br /><br />You wrote: “God does not have to work in them a evil motive or evil thought.”<br /><br />But according to C, well, you know the drill. <br /><br />Next you said, “Although God permits…” <br /><br />Again, stop right there. Permission doesn’t work with Determinism. By even saying permission, you are showing that you are very Arminian in your thinking.<br /><br />In terms of God’s plan of Calvary, foreknowledge is involved (Acts 2:23), and so I agree, “the plan of the Lord to do such” was contingent upon God's foreknowledge of sin already in place, and not that God had to work sin in the lives of Israel.<br /><br />You wrote: “Our actions depend on thought. What we think stirs what we do.” <br /><br />Exactly, and that’s exactly my point. If God decreed whatsoever comes to pass (as per the Westminster), that is, all actions, then we agree that He would logically have decreed all thought too, because, as you stated, “what we think stirs what we do.” So according to C, God decrees the thoughts and God decrees the actions, and hence, God is absent from absolutely nothing, and God is the author of all. But then C’s want to invoke what God “permits” and that simply doesn’t work. C’s want to say that God is the author of all, having decreed all, but is not the author of sin, and then A's point out the inconsistency, and C's often then point to antinomy and paradox and mystery.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-31130650187563301362011-10-10T05:52:04.284-05:002011-10-10T05:52:04.284-05:00Hello Kirk,
Hope all is well. Eventful weekend.
...Hello Kirk,<br /><br />Hope all is well. Eventful weekend. <br /><br />In terms of Job, you wrote: “But I would also contend that God's purpose was to show that Job was righteous which God said about Job and not Job to himself in chapter 1. I think this book also portreys the issue of preservation/persevarance of the saints.” <br /><br />Comments on the first sentence is addressed more broadly in the comments forthcoming, but as for the second sentence on the perseverance issue, realize that such a thing would (by C standards) be driven by Irresistible Grace [IG]. If you have an IG, you will persevere to the end (ect, ect), but notice that Satan never asks God, “God, take away the Irresistible Grace, and surely Job will do such and such.” Instead, Satan demands to remove material blessings. So if Satan knew about an IG, I find it bizarre that he wouldn’t make that as the basis for his challenge. Does Satan not know about Irresistible Grace? (Personally, I think that he knows that Calvinism and Irresistible Grace are untrue and therefore did not act upon it.)<br /><br />In terms of David, you wrote: “But what it does say is that God incited david to sin against the Lord - showing it was His will for David to do such and also we see that it says that Satan incited david to sin against the Lord.” Yes, but I gave the example of Job, where the text says that 1) God harmed Job, and 2) the devil harmed Job, but we learn from behind the scenes, that God did so, solely from the standpoint of having permitted Satan to carry out his challenge, rather than God willing or wanting to harm Job. Apply the same principle to David’s situation, and presto, and which is bolstered further, by the fact that the Bible teaches that God does not tempt anyone to sin. I think that this is the perfect answer to how Arminians should respond to all C questions as it relates to David’s temptation. Give the example of Job.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-63419924431018548072011-10-09T13:15:52.990-05:002011-10-09T13:15:52.990-05:00Just realize there are no verses in Scripture that...Just realize there are no verses in Scripture that teach irresistibly imposed regeneration, nor a God who passes over people not giving them sufficient grace to have the free choice, so the Calvinist we find just inserts into the text each and every time that which is not explicitly stated. But we know a true, loving and righteous God who pleads with all and implores us all to believe in Him would not do so if He didn't give us sufficient grace to have the free choice, otherwise that is abusive and sadistic. Do you tell a person in a wheel chair to get up and jump through a hoop? The god of Calvinism is Satan or some evil spirit. Either way, not good.Troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11405896181060921408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-66079668348681487072011-10-08T20:27:48.298-05:002011-10-08T20:27:48.298-05:00Richard said this: "Everyone quotes Scripture...Richard said this: "Everyone quotes Scripture, but NOT everyone is correct in what they are quoting. I think it's important to remain humble and to use theology to draw closer to God and to each other. I think that God is honored in that. I'm done with beating people over the head. I don't sense that God was ever honored in it." <br /><br />I agree with this remark. Satan is a prime example of one who used scripture verse wrongly. I think also that true worship is not just based on hearing the word, but also right mind set on what the Scriptures are saying. John 4:23-24 presents the quality of worship as being spirit and truth.Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649700537921234472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-14288462918949884032011-10-08T20:24:03.811-05:002011-10-08T20:24:03.811-05:00I would agree to some of what you had said about J...I would agree to some of what you had said about Job. Here you have the idea about God permitting satan to do something. Notice how satan was not coerced to do something against his nature. But I would also contend that God's purpose was to show that Job was righteous which God said about Job and not Job to himself in chapter 1. I think this book also portreys the issue of preservation/persevarance of the saints.<br /><br />As for David. It is unclear as what had happened. Scripture never says. But what it does say is that God incited david to sin against the Lord - showing it was His will for David to do such and also we see that it says that Satan incited david to sin against the Lord. Further remarks is - was David coerce to do something against his will? If so then how was it a sin? If not then how so?Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649700537921234472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-10308961593618702192011-10-08T20:13:25.963-05:002011-10-08T20:13:25.963-05:00With regards to your second post: Your first point...With regards to your second post: Your first point seems to be fine. Your second point however I will challenge you on this which you said: "His purpose was for them to Fall." I think it goes a little deeper than this. For one Scripture seems to say that Satan had a pride within himself. God did not have to work this sin into Satan. It was already there. One of my good friends said that God is the ultimate good and wherever God is absent is where evil lies and I think I agree with him. My further challenge to you is this. That God's purpose for them to fall is salvific and not just so that they would fall. To make this clear I hope: If one of the aspects of God is that He creates then whatever He creates must have a plan and purpose. So He creates angels and some of them fall away. I think you should really read the City of God by St. Augustine. He draws this point much clearer than I can.<br /><br />You also said this: "If they had *impure motives* and acted like monsters, then who gave them those motives in order to achieve the specific, purpose-driven outcome, decreed when God determined whatsoever comes to pass? That’s what it all comes back to. Is God sovereign over thought, in a way that C’s say that God is sovereign over action? If so, then they think thoughts that God immutably gives them." <br /><br />My response: I would disagree with you here. Here is why: For the Evil and For dead sinners God does not have to work in them a evil motive or evil thought. Although God permits it or ordains it but never is the author of evil. In 1 Samuel 2 we see that it was the purpose for God to put Eli's sons to death. How did He do this? First they were laying with the women, second they disobeyed their father, therefore they were put to death. We also have a clearer point about Jude who recieved money by handing Jesus over, and yet it was still the plan of the Lord to do such. <br /><br />You said: "If God is sovereign over thought, in a way that He is sovereign over action, then if there is no independent *action* then there is no independent *thought*. No rogue thoughts, no independent thoughts. All thoughts are divinely decreed, cradle to grave, just as all actions are divinely decreed, cradle to grave."<br /><br />My response: That is not necessarily true. I would contend that if there is independent action then there is no independent thought. Thoughts are necessary for actions right? So if there is independent action then what is thought? Our actions depend on thought. What we think stirs what we do. <br /><br />I hope I made my points clear here.Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649700537921234472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-74199323880753580942011-10-08T19:46:25.823-05:002011-10-08T19:46:25.823-05:00Before I start I would like to hear your testimony...Before I start I would like to hear your testimony? How did you come to know Christ Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour?<br /><br /><br />You said: "One thing to point out, first though, is that A's do not accept the concept of "the elect and non-elect" in a way that you briefly described. A's reject that the non-elect even exist. A's reject that God created an upper caste of elect individuals. A's see this as a form of Christian Hinduism, that is, the have's and the have-nots, some born into an upper caste of the elect, and the rest born into the lower caste of the non-elect."<br /><br /><br />My response: I understand that the Arminian's do not accept the calvinist understanding of elect and non-elect. But as to the point that Election and Non-election is a type of Christian Hinduism is not true. I have never heard of such ways of viewing it. I have heard of the Calvinist 'God' being like Allah. Can you tell me why the Arminians think this way about Election and Non-Election?<br /><br />you said: "A's see the Jews as the elect, because the Bible describes them as the chosen people, which the OT mentions quite frequently. Better yet, though, the OT also refers to Christs as THE elect One, and Christians comprising the elect insomuch as they are the body of Christ, the body of THE elect One, so that Christians are elect solely from the standpoint that they are in union and identification with Christ." <br /><br />My response: I understand that the Jews were God's chosen people. Romans 9:1-5 says that the Jews had the things pertaining to salvation. i.e. the law, the patriarch... ect. I also understand that Christ was the Chosen redeemer. Ephesians 3:7-13. Specifically around verses 9-11 it says that Christ is the eternal revelation. Hebrews also points this out very well. Can you please explain to me about the Christian being the elect solely from the standpoint that they are in union and identification with Christ? does this mean that the person is an elect in so far as they are part of the Church, so that it is not the individual necessarily who is elected, but it is the group per se?Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649700537921234472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-23032317609008957932011-10-07T19:03:46.269-05:002011-10-07T19:03:46.269-05:00Richard,
May I suggest to you that you don't ...Richard,<br /><br />May I suggest to you that you don't need to beat people over the head, just tell the truth that the Calvinist is unsaved and going to Hell, because he refuses to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated. He clearly rejects God of the Bible who provides sufficient grace for all to have the free choice. It really is no more complicated than that. They refuse to genuinely search God out with all their heart and instead, pridefully assume they were irresistibly selected and rationalize that mistaken assumption come Hell or highwater. How is that in any way shape or form a genuine coming to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior? Most of these Calvinists are historicists too so there again they reject the Lord Jesus who returns to reign on earth for 1000 years with His overcomers, e.g. such as MrWinknod I am having a long conversation with on Youtube.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/mrwinknod<br /><br />As you can see he will never repent to give his life to Christ, but I think it is still helpful to show false Christians why they are wrong if not for any other reason so others can see to not be like them.<br /><br />A loving God would never plead with you and implore you to believe in Him if He didn't give you sufficient grace to have the free choice. Otherwise he would be a sadistic and abusive bastard! Since Calvinists reject God of the Bible, so loving, so merciful, they will absolutely burn in the Lake of Fire for all eternity. And remember, I am not beating them over the head with this fact at all, just stating a truth which is easy for me to stake because God has given it to me to know. If God has not given you this awareness then by all means don't state what I have said, because you are not there yet in your understanding. It is not that the truth is unreasonable but it is unloved. My prayer is you don't make concessions for a loveless faith. Satan is trying to lead you to that contradictory middle ground.Troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11405896181060921408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-52999351713495005592011-10-07T17:58:16.084-05:002011-10-07T17:58:16.084-05:00Please excuse the typos in the first of these thre...Please excuse the typos in the first of these three posts. I just typed it without previewing. <br /><br />Troy, good to hear from you, too. Here's my take on theology. God could have spelled everything out in black and white. When I was in dialogue with the Jehovah's Witnesses several years back, I was frustrated that God did not spell everything out in black in white, and I was frustrated that perhaps the differences in denominations was a problem of God's own making. The I came to another perspective. God wrote the Bible exactly as He wanted it, anticipating exactly what would result, in terms of all of the differences of views and denominations. Then I thought that God has an objective. I reasoned that the purpose of theology is to draw people closer to God, and to draw fellow believers closer to each other, in godly pursuit of their Creator, and also, to be a trap for those whose hearts are not right with God. For instance, those who seek a works-based-gospel, the Bible provides enough rope to hang themselves. I see JW's quoting Scripture. Gnostics, of all people, quoted Scripture (in their defense of Determinism). Arians quoted Scripture, in their denial of the Deity of Christ. Not to lump Catholics into the same boat, but Catholics quote Scripture to. Everyone quotes Scripture, but NOT everyone is correct in what they are quoting. I think it's important to remain humble and to use theology to draw closer to God and to each other. I think that God is honored in that. I'm done with beating people over the head. I don't sense that God was ever honored in it.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-86333077788014880722011-10-07T17:46:51.000-05:002011-10-07T17:46:51.000-05:00Regarding the question of David’s temptations, con...Regarding the question of David’s temptations, consider the example of Job 2:3 as an illustration of what is going on behind the scenes. Who was it that harmed Job? Job 1:12 states that it was given into the devil’s power to harm him, and the devil indeed harmed him. So the devil harmed Job. Simple enough. But there’s more. God also claims responsibility. At Job 2:3, God said: “You incited *Me against him*, to ruin him without cause.” God accepted ultimate responsibility for the devil’s actions, why?, because God permitted it, and the same may perhaps be said of the example involving David. The devil initiated the challenge in Heaven, and God consented to permit it, and hence God accepted ultimate responsibility for it, but through Job’s hardships, and perhaps David’s as well, God also gained a closer relationship. That’s the Arminian perspective, but notice how much darker it appears in the Deterministic perspective, which I described in the prior example. 1) God has determined whatsoever comes to pass. 2) God is sovereign over thought, just as He is sovereign over action. There is no independent action, there is no independent thought. 1) God decreed the fall of men and angels. 2) God had a purpose for the book of Job. 3) God decreed that Satan would sneak into Heaven and issue a challenge. 4) God decreed the thoughts which resulted in the actions. 5) The devil is simply following the thoughts which are immutably given to him to think. 6) God has a purpose in Job remaining faithful. 7) Job is given the *thoughts* corresponding to faithfulness. <br />No one, in this scenario, thinks thoughts that are exclusively their own. All is decreed, strings are pulled, decreed actions necessarily follow. Arminians embrace the Permissive Will of God, but Arminians reject Determinism, in which everything is decreed, in which all thoughts follow from the decreed will of God. <br /><br />So, again, is God sovereign over the *thoughts* of demons, in the same way that God is sovereign over *actions* of demons?Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-63940786562724478022011-10-07T17:46:30.823-05:002011-10-07T17:46:30.823-05:00Let’s approach Romans 1 from the deterministic par...Let’s approach Romans 1 from the deterministic paradigm, in which man has indeed distorted the truth of God. But who predestined this? By C standards, hasn’t God decreed whatsoever comes to pass? Doesn’t actions require thoughts? Aren’t thoughts decreed in order to render the actions certain? It’s a slippery slope. For whatever they do, good or bad, 1) God has a decree. 2) God has a purpose in His decree, 3) God decrees thoughts in order to render decreed actions certain. That’s the Deterministic formula. Let’s look at it within the examples cited. <br /><br />In terms of the Fall of Satan and demons, 1) God has a decree, in which God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass, and in His decree, God has decreed the Fall of Lucifer and a third of the angels with him. 2) God has a *purpose* in His decree. His purpose was for them to Fall. Conversely, God did not have a purpose in their remaining faithful, and hence, was not part of the decree in which God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass. 3) God is sovereign over thought, so that when their actions are decreed, their decreed thoughts render the decreed actions certain. If they had *impure motives* and acted like monsters, then who gave them those motives in order to achieve the specific, purpose-driven outcome, decreed when God determined whatsoever comes to pass? That’s what it all comes back to. Is God sovereign over thought, in a way that C’s say that God is sovereign over action? If so, then they think thoughts that God immutably gives them. If God is sovereign over thought, in a way that He is sovereign over action, then if there is no independent *action* then there is no independent *thought*. No rogue thoughts, no independent thoughts. All thoughts are divinely decreed, cradle to grave, just as all actions are divinely decreed, cradle to grave.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-70185711304640502972011-10-07T17:46:09.366-05:002011-10-07T17:46:09.366-05:00Hello Kirk, and thank you for the kind words. C...Hello Kirk, and thank you for the kind words. C's comes in many forms and stripes, so what I'm saying may not apply to you, but I intend to highlight why A's are not C's, and they a snipet of the reservations upon which they hold in the rejection of Determinism. I will try to capture all of the points, but it's possible that some may be missed. This will take a couple of posts. One thing to point out, first though, is that A's do not accept the concept of "the elect and non-elect" in a way that you briefly described. A's reject that the non-elect even exist. A's reject that God created an upper caste of elect individuals. A's see this as a form of Christian Hinduism, that is, the have's and the have-nots, some born into an upper caste of the elect, and the rest born into the lower caste of the non-elect. A's see the Jews as the elect, because the Bible describes them as the chosen people, which the OT mentions quite frequently. Better yet, though, the OT also refers to Christs as THE elect One, and Christians comprising the elect insomuch as they are the body of Christ, the body of THE elect One, so that Christians are elect solely from the standpoint that they are in union and identification with Christ. I've written several articles on this point, which appear on the main examining Calvinism website, dealing with Election, Eph 1:4, John 6, Rom 9, ect, if you wish to review the A perspective further. Ok, now with the rest of the posts.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-234991356180174562011-10-07T14:42:07.121-05:002011-10-07T14:42:07.121-05:00I think we can all see the real ultimate danger fo...I think we can all see the real ultimate danger for the world besides rendering the Calvinist unsaved and going to Hell, is that when people begin to feel like they are entitled like Hitler's Aryan race, they begin to do horrible things and they escalate it, unless the good nations come into stop it.<br /><br />When you assume you were irresistibly selected, thus never genuinely search out the truth with all your heart so that God would gift you with repentance and faith to be regenerated, you can't help but stimulate that overassuming pridefulness with sin and self that beget more sin and self. That's the result of erecting yourself on a pedestal. You think like Hitler did that the Jews or Arminians belong in the gas chambers just because they were born that way, that they should be passed over when they are drowning, and there was nothing they could do about it. Hence, the martydom of the saints though will be greatly rewarded. Praise the Lord!Troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11405896181060921408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-51058156826951060562011-10-07T14:24:07.019-05:002011-10-07T14:24:07.019-05:00Kirk,
If you think it is "merely a caricatur...Kirk,<br /><br />If you think it is "merely a caricature" then how so? Don't be coy and vague about it. Clearly what is evil for us is evil for your god for how can God's standards be below our own.<br /><br />The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8). You said "I would say that God did not create anyone evil. As when God elected and reprobated he made His choice unconditionally." Since they were never given the choice in your kingdom then your god not only created them evil, but never gave them any opportunity of escape with any grace whatsoever. What love is that?<br /><br />While you admit your faith doesn't answer the question why God allows evil in the world, Arminians know why evil is in the world, because it is a product of the free choice afforded to those who rebel and free will is not truly free if you don't have this free choice to be independent to God.<br /><br />Ordaining is not different than willing. God wills or ordains His perfect design to be just as it is, allowing all such things to occur as they have occurred. This is His will. He ordains us by foreknowing our free choice. Your god can't do that so God trumps your god every time. I love that.<br /><br />In your scheme which is entirely delusional though you may not want to admit your people are robots, in fact, they would be because they don't do anything other than what your god makes them do, never giving them the choice. Not so in Arminianism, for God provides us all with sufficient grace to have the free choice. Praise the Lord!Troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11405896181060921408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-75142610708911629942011-10-07T11:53:05.573-05:002011-10-07T11:53:05.573-05:00Richard, hope you are doing well.
"Would it ...Richard, hope you are doing well.<br /><br />"Would it not be awkward, though, to say that man is justly deserving of punishment for the *acts* of wickedness, when yet God is sovereign over the thoughts which resulted in the acts for which he is being judged?"<br /><br />- I do not see why that is the case. Again I go back to Romans 1, where the men and women have distorted the truth of God and fashioned out of that truth an idol and then started to worship other idols. Because of this God removes His gracious hand from them so that they fall into sin.<br />This shows a consequence where God gives them over to their own lust and yet it also shows His wrath. So God is giving them over to their own debased minds. Likewise Augustine also says when the angels fell, they fell from Grace. What I mean is this that God Satan and demons fell they fell because God had removed His soveriegn hand from them and the reason why Michael and His angels remained is because God had left His Grace toward them. Does that make sense? There are some other verses that make this point, I will have to look them up for you. But I hope I have spoken clearly.<br /><br />- On Ezekiel 18:20 - I agree with the verse. There are other verses too that make the point that When Adam fell who was the head he had also took the whole race with him so that both the elect and non-elect are fallen. 1 Corinthians 5 speaks of the leaven bread. Just as one drop of yeast ruins the whole batch of doe so does sin ruin the whole batch of doe. Romans 5:12-21 speaks of this as well. The proof that all are sinners who sin is that all die.<br /><br />- what do you do with the verses that say it was that God tempted david and yet at the same time satan tempted david to take the census?Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649700537921234472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-77348897434871425332011-10-07T06:44:03.537-05:002011-10-07T06:44:03.537-05:00Everyone is here, and yet I'm late to a golf t...Everyone is here, and yet I'm late to a golf tournament. Back later this afternoon.Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-13566056033759920422011-10-07T06:43:01.350-05:002011-10-07T06:43:01.350-05:00Hello Kirk,
I ran out of time last night for the ...Hello Kirk,<br /><br />I ran out of time last night for the new post, though, that may have worked out for the best, in order to flesh out some additional thoughts. <br /><br />You affirmed that God is indeed “sovereign over thought.” (Does that include the thoughts of demons as well?) I’ve never found a major Calvinist author willing to go on record as saying that God decreed the thoughts and intentions of the heart, which heart, God says is a deceitful heart, and above all, wicked. If you know of any such author or quote, I’d love to be able to cite it. Realize, of course, that by affirming that God is sovereign over thought, and in a way that Calvinism defines what sovereignty means, it would mean that God both decrees the *acts* of wickedness, and the *thoughts* of wickedness, which thoughts, generate the decreed act. Would it not be awkward, though, to say that man is justly deserving of punishment for the *acts* of wickedness, when yet God is sovereign over the thoughts which resulted in the acts for which he is being judged?<br /><br />You also mentioned: “So by nature a child deserves the wrath of God even before they are born because they are in Adam by nature.” However, can you defend that statement in light of Ezekiel 18:20 which indicates that a person’s own sin is what declares him *worthy* of judgment, and not necessarily the actions of Adam per se: “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.” I would think that that would rule out pre-borns being held guilty for the sins of their parent, and ancestor, Adam. No? <br /><br />What’s strange is that God does the Reprobating (election and non-election), and God is sovereign over thought, and yet man is worthy of wrath, not only for the thoughts that God sovereignly gives him, but also worthy of wrath before he even thinks the wicked thoughts that God gives him. Have I misunderstood you?Richard Coordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05600859155973820653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-92014253898700856772011-10-07T06:33:37.835-05:002011-10-07T06:33:37.835-05:00Dear Troy,
I am sorry that is how you feel about...Dear Troy, <br /><br />I am sorry that is how you feel about such things. I believe what you have said is merely a caricature of what Calvinist believe.<br /><br />I would say that God did not create anyone evil. As when God elected and reprobated he made His choice unconditionally. I would also say that when God created both of them that they were created good and not evil. with regards to why God would allow evil in the world I cannot say. Scripture does tell us God is good and sovereign. If he actually wills evil then it could be that He does so with a different purpose for God is not Evil, therefore when He wills evil he does so with a purpose other than the evil intent. Or there are others in the camp who deem it sufficient not to say that God simply ordained evil to occur and not really to will it. Ordaining is far different from willing.<br /><br />I never said we were robots. I don't think we are necessarily robots. Here is why: because man is not a calculator you simply put information in and then it spits out the schematics. You give a man a truth and he still acts the same way. Truth does not entail a man living righteously or forsaking sin. Grace is. <br />Yes. I would believe that God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is compatible. Calvinist would not adhere to the doctrine of Equal Ultimacy.<br /><br />Have a nice day. I am glad I had gotten the chance to talk to you and to learn more about how to relate this stuff to one who holds the opposite position.Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649700537921234472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7221499500051138256.post-89333617115412477562011-10-07T01:24:56.254-05:002011-10-07T01:24:56.254-05:00Passing over people, not giving them sufficient gr...Passing over people, not giving them sufficient grace to have the free choice, is condemning them unjustly since it was not their fault they were born into sin. And a loving and righteous God would never put a person in Hell unless he really deserved it. It is very abusive to insist "both need to repent" yet only those that were allegedly irresitibly made to repented. Just as it is wrong for us to falsely accuse someone so is it for your god of Calvinism. <br /><br />True grace does not make us robots, but enables us to have the free choice to control our thoughts or not control them even to be demonically possesed when one claims whatever they do God made them do it.Troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11405896181060921408noreply@blogger.com