ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Clete]

I've tried this before, but I'll float it once more. Our very perception of time is greatly influenced by our sin nature. We measure time in a way of progression or digression. God is perfect. In other words, our perception of time is based solely on change. This is why it is so important for the OV that God be involved in this process with us, but I believe God simply acts. There is not quantifier for time change except and only as it relates to us. I am convinced that our peceived importance of 'time' is greatly affected by our need for progress and change in our lives. The change needed is so dramatic that it accentuates our need to keep a watch. I do not believe time as measured in quantity is the same way God measures or acts at all. He moves in perfection, from one perfect to another. This is my understanding of God's unchanging nature. He does relate to us , but has no need to move in our perceived increments.

Can you support any of this Biblically?

And this is not why it is so important for the OV! The reason it is so important to the Open View is because it makes for a more rationally coherent worldview. Indeed, it is not even a tenet of the open view but rather a rational consequence of it. The Open View believer is simply logically consistent and willing to accept the rational implications of a Biblically based belief system. We have no allegiance to the Greeks nor to their philosophical ideas about what is and is not perfect.

As for the concept of time itself goes, we merely acknowledge the concept being communicated by the word "time" and understand that existence without duration is a contradiction. We see no need to redefine the term in order to force it to fit into some preconceived notion of God's existence and we find nothing Biblical that requires us to do so either. In fact, if not for Calvinism, no one would even argue the point. The only reason anyone thinks that the Bible teaches that God exists outside of time is because of Augustine and Calvin and their reasoning behind their belief has been repeatedly shown to be fallacious and unbiblical and so I don't understand your, or anyone else's trepidation about rejecting it? Is your allegiance to the truth or to your theology?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Clete,

Thank you so much for your predictable resort to ad hominem as reply . . . it makes me feel more secure in my assessment of your loser position.

And thank you, too, for the neg rep.

It is telling that you must stoop so low and choose such pathetic means to voice your opposing views, in lieu of honest theological retort.

:kiss:

Nang

If you haven't noticed, I do not bother much with engaging you with anything of substance, you aren't worth the time or effort.

And my "predictable resort to ad hominem as reply" makes me a loser, then what does it make you? The post was a direct near verbatim quote (I think I changed two words for the sake of readability) of your previous reply to one of my posts. The point being of course to demonstrate your foolishness.

Thanks for proving my point and convicting yourself with your own words. :chuckle:


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I have never neg-repped anyone and I never will. Seems basically "wrong" to me on a theology discussion board. Maybe I am old fashioned, but to go through all the effort to neg rep makes it hard for me to rationalize that I am not judging someone. After all, a thumbs up or down was all it took in the coliseum, no?

I like giving pos-reps, thumbs up!, even to those I disagree with.

Don't be so self righteous AMR. Judging is a good thing and we should do it all the time - ALL THE TIME!!!

If you aren't rightly judging people every single day, you are not being godly.

And yes, that was a very judgmental thing for me to say as was your post, by the way.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

If you haven't noticed, I do not bother much with engaging you with anything of substance, you aren't worth the time or effort.

And my "predictable resort to ad hominem as reply" makes me a loser, then what does it make you? The post was a direct near verbatim quote (I think I changed two words for the sake of readability) of your previous reply to one of my posts. The point being of course to demonstrate your foolishness.

Thanks for proving my point and convicting yourself with your own words. :chuckle:


Resting in Him,
Clete

Oh, golly . . .you remain so nasty . . .and here I am willing to give you my good advice.

 

[Lon]

Dave: I was just reading Boyd's arguments for and against Molinism. He calls his position neo-Molinism which is a form of Open Theism. Molinism does affirm exhaustive definite foreknowledge based on 'middle knowledge'. This does not sit well with me at all (very confusing). I like Boyd's expansion where he feels Molinism's error is that it stops and would/would not counterfactuals of freedom. He adds might and might not counterfactuals of freedom leading to two motifs (some future open, some settled) instead of EDF. I think I would distance myself even more from Molinism and its idea of actualizing possible worlds to the point of knowing what free creatures would do in every circumstance. Free choice has an element of uncertainty, no matter what, or it is not libertarian freedom.

In the end, I would reject William Lane Craig's Molinism (Catholic roots) in favor of Boyd's understanding (Molinism is not Open Theism from what I can tell).

Libertarian freewill is not what I believe we have. We have rather, a limited set of options. If God knows the number of hairs on my head, he certainly knows my 20 or 30 shirts. There really are not an asundry of choices ever. Usually I have only a few. Even vacation plans are limited to a few from year to year. The 'amount' of foreknowledge needed in regards to us and or decisions isn't much. Since the trouble with Exhaustive Foreknowledge is seen in regard to us, there really isn't that much to know. On the time issue again, we perceive everything in a linear manner. There is sequence, measured in change. God who is perfect would not view this sequence the same way we do. He measures from perfection to perfection and it is a quality rather than quantity. Our sin nature focuses on the incidental and imperializes it. Time, is mostly a perception. There is a movement and sequence but I believe it is focusing on the 'ride' rather than the destination. The quality is the main thing. The way we get there isn't that important. With God, I'm convinced the progression isn't the focus, but rather where we end up. Because this is His plan, I believe determined sovereign will equates very strongly with foreknowledge of future. It is so closely connected that the two have similar meanings in discussion.

It sounds like you are moving or have moved to a mediating position on this topic?

 

[Clete]

There are several reasons I am here.

I am the only reason you are here Nang.

First, Clete needs me to be here, for his conduct needs attention, and he needs to be reminded he is teaching error.

If I forget then it was predestined before the foundation of the world that I would forget as is true of my conduct itself that I supposedly need you to remind me of. You're such a fool.

Secondly, Jesus Christ saved my soul, and commissioned that I proclaim the good news of His incarnation, death, resurrection and heavenly mediatorship amongst the entire world.

This is a lie. The only reason you are here is because you discovered that I post here and you want to harass me.

Thirdly, I have no idea who are "damned" reprobates or who are the elect.

This includes yourself, does it not? You have no assurance of salvation because for all you know you've been predestined to be tricked into thinking that your are saved when you really aren't. You believe that any man who turns away from the faith was never saved to begin with but everyone that has ever done that was at one time as convinced of their salvation as you are currently convinced of your own, and you have no way of knowing that you won't turn away from the faith yourself.

Yes, the fate of all is already determined and settled, but I am not privy to the final outcome. I cannot judge your eternal destiny, nor will I declare you reprobate. That is not my role nor my right.

But if you did make such a judgment then your having done so would itself have been predestined by God, right?

I only testify that I am a regenerated child of God due to the grace of God, and my duty and role is to witnes and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, who sacrificed His life for me.

You mean that you've been predestined by God to get on this web site and harrass me and make a complete fool of yourself.

Whether you are one of the elect, or reprobate is known only by God and yourself.

Not according to Reformed theology! It is not known by God AND yourself but only to God!
You have no way of knowing anything about what God has predestined concerning your own soul.

So as far as I am concerned, there is hope that God might grant you saving faith and repentance from sin through the hearing of the Word soundly taught.

According to Reformed theology whether he would be granted saving faith has nothing to do with what he is or is not taught. It was predestined before he ever existed and has nothing to do with whether you are here harassing me or not. The Bible itself is not even relevant. Dave could be blind, deaf and dumb and if God had predestined his salvation then He would get saved with or without the Bible every having been written.

However, the gospel of Jesus Christ is wielded like a two-edged sword by the Holy Spirit, provoking an either/or response. Either one will respond in belief and be saved, verifying God's mercy and grace, or one will scoff as an anti-christ, validating Godly condemnation against unbelief.

Whichever happens was predestined by God and by God alone before anyone ever existed according to your twisted and completely irrational theology.

Throughout the Scriptures, the gospel is very often presented through prophetic warnings of impending judgments from God. God, being fair and just, warns unbelievers of His wrath against sin and corruptions, but amongst all Godly warnings of death and judgment, the good news of salvation through belief in covenant promises of the Redeemer, shines through.

Not according to Reformed theology it doesn't. God's promises are hollow and meaningless. They are only acts in a pre-scripted play put on presumably for God's amusement. Nothing about what you say is the gospel, has any meaning. Sin is predestined and therefore meaningless; Repentance is predestined and therefore meaningless; Belief is predestined and therefore meaningless; Disbelief is predestined and therefore meaningless. The whole Bible, the whole history of mankind for that matter, is render totally and utterly meaningless from a moral perspective because everything that happens was all predestined and meticulously controlled by God's own sovereign power.

"We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions-whatever they may be.... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for." Justin Martyr (Justin First Apology chap. 43) Estimated date of writing 156AD (i.e. Long before Calvin or even Augustine.)
​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Libertarian freewill is not what I believe we have. We have rather, a limited set of options.

AMR will be interested to know that this is one reason why I avoid the term "libertarian free will". It seems everyone wants to turn it into a term which means that we have an infinite number of options when it very simply does not mean that. Libertarian free will means that you have two or more options. It doesn't mean that your options are unlimited. All you must have is two options (i.e. to do (option 1) or to do otherwise(option 2)) in order to be free. This is what the term "libertarian free will" actually means but for whatever reason people want to assume, as you have here Lonster, that it means something else entirely.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

I am the only reason you are here Nang.

You think too highly of your self.

You're such a fool.

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Matthew 5:22

This is a lie. The only reason you are here is because you discover that I post here and you want to harass me.

I am not a liar.

You are not the only person on TOL with which I have had interaction. There are some really nice people around here.

You have no assurance of salvation

I have GREAT assurance of my salvation, for assurance, too, is a spiritual gift from God. (James 1:17)

You mean that you've been predestined by God to get on this web site and harrass me and make a complete fool of yourself.

Indeed. It was meant to be . . .and if I am a fool, I am "a fool for Christ."

Not according to Reformed theology! It is not known by God AND yourself but only to God!
You have no way of knowing anything about what God has and has not predestined concerning your own soul.

You have only a smattering of knowledge regarding the Reformed faith. Most of your criticisms of historical Protestantism are erroneous. I know I am God's elect child, because I have been promised:

". . he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in
him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which
he hath given us." I John 3:24

According to Reformed theology the whether he would be granted saving faith has nothing to do with what he is or is not taught. It was predestined before he ever existed and has nothing to do with whether you are here harassing me or not. The Bible itself is not even relevant. Dave could be blind, deaf and dumb and if God had predestined his salvation then He would get saved with or without the Bible every having been written.

Another erroneous assessment of what Reformers teach . . .where do you get this stuff?

Whichever happens was predestined by God and by God alone before anyone ever existed according to your twisted and completely irrational theology.

'Tis what the Bible teaches. Out of one lump, God has formed two kinds of vessels. Vessels of dishonor (reprobates) and vessels of mercy (elect saved by grace).

Not according to Reformed theology it doesn't. God's promises are hollow and meaningless.

This is just plain silly. The Reformed faith is based upon belief in God's Covenant promises.

They are only acts in a prescripted play put on presumably for God's amusement. Nothing about what you say is the gospel has any meaning. Repentance is predestined and therefore meaningless. Believe is predestined and therefore meaningless. Sin is predestined and therefore meaningless. Disbelief is predestined and therefore meaningless. The whole Bible, the whole history of mankind for that matter, is render totally and utterly meaningless from a moral point of view because everything that happens was all predestined and meticulously controlled by God's sovereign power.

You describe fatalism, not Reformed faith.

And the source of all righteousness and morality is Jesus Christ the Creator. Morality according to God's eternal Law is found in Him; not His creatures. The whole Bible reveals Christ as the sole source of righteousness. God is the sole determiner and names all those who will be imputed with the righteousness of His Son, and live a moral life through the power of His Spirit on this earth and forever.

The works of God in eternity and in all this creation, are done according to the good pleasure of God, with the purpose and intent to bring glory to God alone.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Saving faith that comes by the grace of God, is God-centered, not man-centered.

The one, true religion and faith, is all about the Creator, not His creatures.

“As Martin Luther once put it, there are only two basic religions in the world; religions of law and Christianity, which is the religion of the gospel. If this is true, the Christian religion is necessarily a story about God and what he has done to save us from our sins. In fact, in the Bible we find God saying and doing those things which are necessary to rescue us from the consequences of our sin and the havoc we have brought upon ourselves. When reduced to their lowest common denominator, all other religions are really but a part of the story of humanity and the on-going human quest to find God on our own terms, not his.
Instead of looking to God as he has revealed himself to us in creation and his word, the human religious quest inevitably reaches its goal when we look in the mirror and we then worship the reflection looking back at us. This religious impulse, common to all sinful men and women, is what John Calvin once called the ‘idol factory.’”

Kim Riddlebarger, from his Sermon, “In The Beginning, God . . .”

(Emphasis mine.)

 

[SOTK]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

If a sin nature in us OVer's causes us to wrongly preceive God and time;

and if you SVer's rightly preceive God as perfect and timeless;

then you SVer's must not have a sin nature.



This is not an admission to anything concerning a sinful nature, it is showing how silly Lonster's point is. If we all have a sin nature, as Lonster says, and it dictates what we believe about God and time to be wrong, then logically, no one would see it correctly; But, if Lonster does see it correctly, that means that he does not have a sinful nature to hinder him.

I guess I'll take your word for it that it wasn't an admission, however, I believe the issue of 'sin nature' is extremely important in this debate between the settled and open views. In my opinion, the Open View is a highly works based and humanistic theology. I realize saying this doesn't prove that it is, but it is ,nevertheless, my opinion. Again, I recognize that you aren't admitting anything concerning a sin nature, but I have seen several Open Viewers here on TOL imply and/or directly state they still have a sin nature.

That this is fair or just depends upon if you've be chosen or not. But, fair or not, according to settled viewers, it's a done deal. So, I ask, why are you here? Why tell the damned, who have a sinful nature, that there is nothing they can do to change their "God decreed from eternity" destiny, when you "foreknow", that God "foreknows" it will not make any sense to them--I mean us.

See Nang's post #420 for how I would equally respond to your above words.

 

[SOTK]

There are several reasons I am here.

First, Clete needs me to be here, for his conduct needs attention, and he needs to be reminded he is teaching error.

Secondly, Jesus Christ saved my soul, and commissioned that I proclaim the good news of His incarnation, death, resurrection and heavenly mediatorship amongst the entire world.

Thirdly, I have no idea who are "damned" reprobates or who are the elect. Yes, the fate of all is already determined and settled, but I am not privy to the final outcome. I cannot judge your eternal destiny, nor will I declare you reprobate. That is not my role nor my right.

I only testify that I am a regenerated child of God due to the grace of God, and my duty and role is to witnes and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, who sacrificed His life for me.

Whether you are one of the elect, or reprobate is known only by God and yourself. So as far as I am concerned, there is hope that God might grant you saving faith and repentance from sin through the hearing of the Word soundly taught.

However, the gospel of Jesus Christ is wielded like a two-edged sword by the Holy Spirit, provoking an either/or response. Either one will respond in belief and be saved, verifying God's mercy and grace, or one will scoff as an anti-christ, validating Godly condemnation against unbelief.

Throughout the Scriptures, the gospel is very often presented through prophetic warnings of impending judgments from God. God, being fair and just, warns unbelievers of His wrath against sin and corruptions, but amongst all Godly warnings of death and judgment, the good news of salvation through belief in covenant promises of the Redeemer, shines through.

Nang

:thumb:

 

[Yorzhik]

You think too highly of your self.

No, he doesn't. The only reason you are here is because of Clete, as declared by God before the foundation of the earth.

 

[themuzicman]

This response is bereft of spiritual substance.

It is merely the personal opinion of a mortal who calls himself, "Clete."

Pot. Meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot. :thumb:

Muz

 

[Lighthouse]

Of course. I am giving you the answer; the only answer.

Are you serious? Telling me God does not need to change does not answer the question of whether or not an immutable being could be omnipotent. Need and ability are two different things. And your refusal to acknowledge that doesn't change it.

God had purposed for kings to rule in Israel from eternity; He ordained the circumstances of which you speak, to demonstrate the wicked hearts of men who would desire a mortal's (earthly) rule rather than Godly (spiritual) rule.

And? He didn't purpose for them to start ruling when they did. He wanted to wait until later, but the Israelites kept demanding, so He allowed Saul to become king. The Bible even tells us that God did not want them to have a king at that time.

Judgment came upon Nineveh, as prophesied. The prophecies (and types) of Jonah were all completed and fulfilled.

So Nineveh was destroyed forty days after Jonah prophesied? God didn't repent?

"And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."
-Jonah 3:10 KJV

You keep repeating your presupposition that God is lacking in ability. God does not lack. God does not change. There is no necessity for God to change. God lacks nothing, and is perfect.

I never said God lacks ability. I'm saying that He is not omnipotent if He lacks the ability to change.

To make your presupposition logical, of course it is relevant. If, as you propose, God is lacking abilities, then it would be necessary that He change in order to improve. Aren't you going to stick with your own premise?

You're not following. Pay attention.

Let me simplify it for you: Can God change? I don't care if you think He needs to or not, I want to know if you believe He could, if He wanted to. And I am referring to any change. A change of mood, a change of mind, anything such as those. Does God have the ability to do that?

 

[godrulz]

Ironically, the settled view sees God through human eyes. They wrongly assume He must exercise meticulous control or have exhaustive foreknowledge to accomplish His will. They underestimate God's infinite intelligence and great omnicompetence to be sovereign even in the context of other free moral agents who do not always do God's will.

God is like a cosmic Chessmaster, not a cosmic control-freak.

Rather than humanize or anthropomorphize away God's self-revelation, we should take it at face value when it says He changes His mind, experiences regret or surprise, let's significant others have a say so, even when it means risk or not always getting His way, etc.

The very thing they accuse Open Theists of (wrongly, since we reject finite godism), they are guilty of. Just because humans cannot handle billions of contingencies does not mean a providential, responsive God cannot.

 

[Lon]

Ironically, the settled view sees God through human eyes. They wrongly assume He must exercise meticulous control or have exhaustive foreknowledge to accomplish His will. They underestimate God's infinite intelligence and great omnicompetence to be sovereign even in the context of other free moral agents who do not always do God's will.

God is like a cosmic Chessmaster, not a cosmic control-freak.

Rather than humanize or anthropomorphize away God's self-revelation, we should take it at face value when it says He changes His mind, experiences regret or surprise, let's significant others have a say so, even when it means risk or not always getting His way, etc.

The very thing they accuse Open Theists of (wrongly, since we reject finite godism), they are guilty of. Just because humans cannot handle billions of contingencies does not mean a providential, responsive God cannot.

Your contrast is not correct. Foreknowledge does not equate 'control freak' any more than knowing my kids well makes me a control freak over them. I do not have foreknowledge, but predictive clarity and a extrapolation from previous patterns of their behavior. God's foreknowledge does not mean He predetermines, but that the 'knows' by definition. He didn't make Peter deny Him 3 times. He just foreknew it. He told Peter, not to force the point, but to reveal himself to himself. He was trying to show Peter what was already inside of him.
Foreknowledge was not a 'controlling' factor, but a revealing one.

 

[Clete]

Your contrast is not correct. Foreknowledge does not equate 'control freak' any more than knowing my kids well makes me a control freak over them. I do not have foreknowledge, but predictive clarity and a extrapolation from previous patterns of their behavior. God's foreknowledge does not mean He predetermines, but that the 'knows' by definition. He didn't make Peter deny Him 3 times. He just foreknew it. He told Peter, not to force the point, but to reveal himself to himself. He was trying to show Peter what was already inside of him.
Foreknowledge was not a 'controlling' factor, but a revealing one.

Are you then saying here that you officially reject the Calvinist position in favor of Arminianism?

That would seem to be the position you are putting forward here.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lighthouse]

SOTK-
Would you care to answer my question: Can a being be both omnipotent and immutable?

 

[Lon]

Are you then saying here that you officially reject the Calvinist position in favor of Arminianism?

That would seem to be the position you are putting forward here.

Resting in Him,
Clete

This isn't correct. Ask AMR or Nang, they may be able to shed some light here. There is a middle ground, you've accused them of being contradictory on this point, so you know what I'm talking about. God's knowing something future does not negate the choices we make. Once again, the only choice worth discussing here is which master we serve. Within a few short verses of being in slavery to one of two masters, Jesus turns to clothing and eating choices and says that God provides them. The choice then is not so much what we are wearing, but who were are serving by doing so. This is the basis of all our choices. We have 'no' choice but to serve one OR the other. So libertarian freewill is always about sinning or not. If we are Christian and following the Master, there is no choice at all but to serve. If we are serving, who cares if we take the stairs or the servant's elevator. Furthermore, what could it possibly matter whether our Master knows our choice or not, we are in service and the only thing that matters to us is serving, not multiple choice. The servant has the only choice of serving two masters. He cares not if he has choice in serving his master for the doing of the thing is the important, not how I got there. What if free-choice is illusionary? It is odd don't you think, that what we are striving for is to be completely in His will? To NOT have a choice to sin. We don't want free choice as Christians when serving two masters is the only real meaning between the two.

Dave missed this, but I think you at least will appreciate the direction and thinking this statement brings to the table.

 

[Lon]

SOTK-
Would you care to answer my question: Can a being be both omnipotent and immutable?

How come you keep asking this? Nang already addressed it. What is the problem in your mind? What answer are you looking for that didn't get answered?

Here is a better question: Does an omnipotent God who is perfect need to change anything? No. Not for Him. For us sure, we are powerless to save ourselves and have shown we are the ones who need His omnipotence. We cannot save ourselves, so any change is due to our need, not His. God has no need, He is self-sufficient. Omnipotence alludes to immutability. You understand this with a rich man, he has everything he needs. What do you buy the man who has everything? A card. You cannot better his situation, he's untouchable, in a sense, immutable (in a fleeting grass-withering sort of way). But the point is, one supports the other, I do not understand your confusion.

 

[Clete]

This isn't correct. Ask AMR or Nang, they may be able to shed some light here. There is a middle ground, you've accused them of being contradictory on this point, so you know what I'm talking about.

No, I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about. Calvinist do not believe that God foreknows the future because He's seen the future but because He predestined the future. It is the Arminian who believes in what is termed "simple foreknowledge" which is exactly what you seem to be putting forward as your position.

God's knowing something future does not negate the choices we make.

Of course it does. I've outright proven this point repeatedly and your have never responded to the argument except to say that you don't buy it.

Once again, the only choice worth discussing here is which master we serve.

Calvinists would insist that God predestined who makes which "choice" and actively causes them to do so.

Within a few short verses of being in slavery to one of two masters, Jesus turns to clothing and eating choices and says that God provides them. The choice then is not so much what we are wearing, but who were are serving by doing so. This is the basis of all our choices. We have 'no' choice but to serve one OR the other. So libertarian freewill is always about sinning or not. If we are Christian and following the Master, there is no choice at all but to serve. If we are serving, who cares if we take the stairs or the servant's elevator.

A choice between the stairs and the elevator is not a moral choice and is therefore not the sort of choice we are concerned with. Justine Martyr stated the real issue this way....

"We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions-whatever they may be.... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for." Justin Martyr (Justin First Apology chap. 43) Estimated date of writing 156AD (i.e. Long before Calvin or even Augustine.)​

Furthermore, what could it possibly matter whether our Master knows our choice or not, we are in service and the only thing that matters to us is serving, not multiple choice.

See above quotation of Martyr. There is no moral implication to an action unless there was an ability to do otherwise.

The servant has the only choice of serving two masters. He cares not if he has choice in serving his master for the doing of the thing is the important, not how I got there.

The Calvinist, however, would insist that no such choice exists. A servant of Satan is precisely what God's sovereign decree commanded that he would be. There was no choice in the matter.

What if free-choice is illusionary? It is odd don't you think, that what we are striving for is to be completely in His will? To NOT have a choice to sin. We don't want free choice as Christians when serving two masters is the only real meaning between the two.

If free choice is illusionary so is the justice of God. And no, I don't want to NOT have a choice to sin. Without the ability to reject God, my love for Him is meaningless. Loving God would have no more moral merit than when water turns to steam in a shower.

Dave missed this, but I think you at least will appreciate the direction and thinking this statement brings to the table.

What I think is that you don't really know what Calvinism is vs. what Arminianism is, nor what it really means to have a free will. You seem to have them all meshed together into something that is about a thousand times more complex than it should be.

Resting in Him,
Clete